Unleashing Positive Word-of-Mouth Through Brand Social Responsibility

Abstract

This study examines how brand social responsibility (BSR) drives positive word-of-mouth (WOM) in service brands. Based on social identity theory, we propose that a brand’s commitment to societal welfare strengthens customers’ emotional attachment, fostering positive WOM. By exploring the BSR-WOM relationship, this study provides new insights into the dynamic mechanisms at play within service branding. Using a sequential two-stage mixed-methods approach, we conducted qualitative in-depth interviews followed by an experiment and a large-scale survey. The findings highlight the pivotal role of BSR in cultivating brand commitment and explaining how brand experience enhances the effectiveness of BSR initiatives in driving positive WOM. This study advances ethical branding literature and provides implications for practitioners.

Keywords

positive word-of-mouth brand social responsibility brand commitment brand experience

Introduction

In today’s socially conscious marketplace, successful brands are those that can integrate society’s welfare into their strategies and interactions with various stakeholders, especially customers (Iglesias et al., 2020; Markovic et al., 2018). Brand-level social responsibility has increasingly become a key priority due to its impact on long-term customer relationships as well as on business performance (Maon et al., 2021). Brand social responsibility (BSR)—the extent to which consumers perceive a brand’s actions as socially responsible, encompassing contributions to community welfare, ethical conduct, and sustainable practices at the brand level rather than the corporate level (Zhou et al., 2023).

This growing emphasis on BSR reflects a profound shift in consumer consciousness. In recent years, sustainability has transitioned from a peripheral concern to a central pillar of contemporary brand evaluation. Compelling market evidence supports this transformation. NielsenIQ (2023) reports that 72% of global consumers are willing to pay a premium for products with sustainable attributes, while PwC (2024) finds that over 80% would do so for responsibly produced or sourced goods. Kantar (2024) estimates that sustainability now accounts for nearly 45% of a brand’s reputation, highlighting its critical role in shaping perceptions of authenticity and legitimacy. In parallel, corporate practices have evolved to meet these shifting expectations. The proportion of S&P 500 firms publishing social responsibility reports has surged from 20% in 2011 to almost 90% in 2019, signaling a widespread recognition of BSR’s strategic importance. Consistent with these trends, a majority of U.S. consumers (55%) now view meaningful engagement with social and environmental issues as an essential component of a brand’s identity (Stobierski, 2021).

At the same time, word-of-mouth customers’ voluntary communication of favorable brand-related experiences to others (Lacey & Kennett-Hensel, 2010) remains one of the most critical outcomes for service brands, where experiential variability makes peer recommendations particularly influential. Although prior research establishes the importance of BSR, findings on its impact on WOM are inconsistent. While some studies report strong direct effects of BSR on behavioral outcomes (Iglesias et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2023), others find weak or non-significant relationships (Inoue et al., 2017), suggesting that the BSR-behavior link is more complex than initially theorized. Specifically, while Iglesias et al. (2020) and Zhou et al. (2023) demonstrate robust positive effects of brand social responsibility on brand commitment, loyalty, and advocacy, Inoue et al. (2017) report mixed or nonsignificant effects of corporate social responsibility on firm performance. This inconsistency suggests that the impact of BSR depends on contextual and psychological mechanisms such as moral identification, collective self-esteem, and perceived authenticity, rather than being universally linear.

Prior research has examined how CSR fosters consumer advocacy through authenticity (Markovic et al., 2022), consumer–company identification (Dang et al., 2020; Deng & Xu, 2017), and commitment (Lacey & Kennett-Hensel, 2010), as summarized in Table 1. However, existing research conflates corporate and brand-level responsibility, treating them as interchangeable despite fundamental differences in consumer response. Corporate CSR reflects organizational communications and policies (Iglesias et al., 2020; Markovic et al., 2022), whereas brand social responsibility manifests through consumers’ perceptions of brand-level actions and communications, a distinction particularly salient in services where brands serve as the primary interface for responsibility evaluation. Moreover, while brand experience has been recognized as important in CSR contexts, its specific role as a boundary condition in the BSR-commitment-WOM pathway remains underexplored. This highlights a theoretical blind spot: existing applications of social identity theory (SIT) often assume a straightforward, linear identity-behavior pathway, overlooking potential mediating and boundary conditions that may explain when and how BSR translates into WOM.

Table 1.

A Summary of Relevant Studies on Corporate/Brand Social Responsibility.

Author(s) (year)	Antecedent	Mediator	Moderator	Consequence	Key finding
Current study	Brand social responsibility	Brand commitment	Brand experience	Word of mouth	Reveal a moderated mediation mechanism, demonstrating that the impact of BSR on WOM is mediated by brand commitment and strengthened by brand experience.
Zhou et al. (2023)	Brand community social responsibility	Brand Community Collective Self-esteem Brand Community Commitment	Altruism	Brand purchase Intentions, Brand recommendation intentions	Introduce BCSR as a unique form of perceived brand behavior. Highlights collective self-esteem and commitment as pathways to loyalty, moderated by altruism.
Markovic et al. (2022)	Corporate social responsibility	Brand authenticity	Alternative attractiveness	Customers’ positive WOM	CSR is positively related to customers’ positive word-of-mouth, both directly and indirectly, through brand authenticity.
Dang et al. (2020)	Online retail CSR	Brand identification Word-of-mouth		Consumer purchase intention	Online retailers’ CSR is positively associated with consumer purchase intention, and brand identification positively mediates such an association. In addition, WOM exhibits a mediating effect on the relationship between perceived online retailers’ CSR and consumer purchase intention and between brand identification and consumer purchase intention.
Iglesias et al. (2020)	Corporate social responsibility	Co-creationCustomer trust		Customer loyalty	Examine the influence of CSR on customer loyalty, considering the mediating roles of co-creation and customer trust. It also investigates the influence of co-creation on customer trust.
Fatma et al. (2021)	Consumer perceived corporate social responsibility	Brand trustBrand identification		Brand commitment	Consumer perceived corporate social responsibility has a significant influence on consumer brand trust and brand identification. However, no direct relationship is observed between PCSR and brand commitment.
Deng & Xu (2017)	Corporate social responsibility	Consumer–Company identification	Fit	Purchase intentionRecommend intentionLoyalty	CSR has a direct positive influence on consumer purchase intention, recommendation intention, and loyalty, and also indirectly affects these through CCI.
Lacey and Kennett-Hensel (2010)	Corporate social responsibility	TrustCommitment		Level of PurchaseWOMFollow performance	Show how a firm that engages in CSR initiatives may reap rewards by building trusting and committed customer relationships, which, in turn, help forge desirable customer behaviors.
Eisingerich and Rubera (2010)	Brand social responsibilityBrand innovativenessBrand customer orientationBrand self-relevance		Individualism/collectivismShort-term/long-term orientationLow/high power distance	Brand commitment	Brand customer orientation and social responsibility have a greater impact on brand commitment in cultures that are collectivist, long-term oriented, and high on power distance.

This blind spot is especially salient in service contexts. Unlike product brands, which can be evaluated based on the merits of product functions, features, or performance, services rely primarily on context and setting, and are highly influenced by emotions and experiences (Zeithaml & Parasuraman, 2004). However, while the literature confirms that emotions and experiences are fundamental to both product and service brand evaluations (Brakus et al., 2009; Schmitt, 2012), the mechanisms through which they operate differ substantively. For product brands, tangible attributes provide an anchor for quality assessment, with emotional connections serving as value enhancers (C. W. Park et al., 2010). In contrast, the inherent intangibility of services limits the availability of objective reference points, elevating subjective experiences to primary evaluative criteria (Berry, 2000; Zeithaml et al., 1985).

Existing BSR research, grounded primarily in social identity theory (SIT), posits that consumers experience identity reinforcement when brand values align with their own, potentially driving commitment and advocacy (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Brand commitment denotes a consumer’s enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship with a brand, grounded in emotional attachment, identification, and loyalty (Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010; Markovic et al., 2018). However, current SIT applications inadequately explain the mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions governing these identity-driven processes, particularly in service contexts. The inconsistent empirical findings imply that the BSR behavior relationship is more complex than initially theorized, operating through conditional amplification processes rather than uniform, additive effects. In other words, the strength of the BSR-commitment-WOM linkage depends on the contextual depth of brand experience: as consumers engage more intensively with the brand, the influence of perceived social responsibility is progressively magnified. This refined view challenges traditional assumptions of a purely linear identity-behavior pathway and underscores the need to model experiential contingencies that condition the behavioral impact of BSR.

To address these gaps, we extend social identity theory by integrating consumer-perceptual processing mechanisms that have been overlooked in prior applications. While SIT traditionally emphasizes cognitive alignment between consumer and brand values, we propose that in service contexts, this alignment must be perceptually validated to generate behavioral outcomes. Brand experience, encompassing sensory, affective, behavioral, and intellectual dimensions (Brakus et al., 2009), thus functions not as a simple amplifier but as a necessary condition that activates the identity-behavior link. This theoretical extension explains why BSR initiatives sometimes fail to generate expected outcomes despite strong value alignment, without experiential reinforcement, identity processes remain latent rather than behaviorally manifest.

Empirically, we adopt a sequential mixed-methods approach to test our theoretical propositions. The initial qualitative phase explores the nuances of the BSR-WOM relationship through in-depth interviews, while the subsequent quantitative phase employs experiment and survey data to validate the proposed mediating and moderating effects. This integrative design allows for a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of our theorized relationships.

In addressing these gaps, our study makes three contributions to the theory and practice of brand social responsibility (BSR) in service contexts. First, we extend social identity theory by reconceptualizing how and when the well-established commitment-WOM relationship operates at the brand level. Rather than proposing an entirely new pathway, we clarify that BSR translates identity alignment into advocacy through brand commitment as a pivotal mediator, specifying the conditions under which identity processes yield observable behaviors. Second, we theorize brand experience not merely as a contextual factor but as a critical boundary condition that fundamentally alters the strength and nature of the BSR–commitment–WOM link. Third, by situating BSR at the brand level, rather than the corporate level, we provide context-specific insights that enhance both theoretical understanding and managerial relevance.

Qualitative study

This study conducted initial qualitative research to explore how consumers define BSR and evaluate its most significant effects, following procedures advocated in previous studies (Kremez et al., 2019; Ngo et al., 2022; Toegel et al., 2013; Upadhyay et al., 2024; Verma et al., 2023).

Design of interview

Qualitative data were obtained using semi-structured in-depth interviews with approximately 20 consumers. One-to-one interviews were conducted (Gaskell, 2000; Johnson & Rowlands, 2012) to capture the relationship between actions and any phenomena associated with the subject being studied by individuals rather than a group. A semi-structured interview guide, developed based on literature review and research objectives, was used to conduct interviews lasting 25 to 40 min each. The interview protocol mainly focused on understanding the nature and impact of the BSR. Therefore, the protocol included a series of open-ended descriptive and exploratory questions involving “what,” “how,” “why,” etc., related to the subject of inquiry (Johnson & Rowlands, 2012).

In terms of sampling technique, we employed a criterion-based purposive sampling (Ahmad & Wilkins, 2025) to identify participants based on actual experiences with brands engaged in socially responsible initiatives. Inclusion criteria included: (1) adults (18+) with recent interaction (within 12 months) with socially responsible brands, (2) coverage across different service sectors (e.g. retail, education, and banking) to capture contextual variability; and (3) demographic diversity across gender, age, education, and occupation. To acknowledge participants’ time and contributions, each participant received a small token of appreciation (a voucher gift) after the interview.

The sample size aligns with Boddy’s (2016) recommendation of 20 to 30 interviews to generate rich insights and reach theoretical saturation. Moreover, Saunders et al. (2018) suggest that researchers should stop conducting interviews and determine the sample size when no new information emerges. After interviewing and analyzing data from 16 consumers, the authors reached the saturation point, as no additional insights were obtained. Therefore, a sample size of 16 was deemed adequate for this study. This confirms that the sample was not only sufficient in size but also sufficiently representative from both theoretical (experience-based relevance) and practical (demographic diversity) perspectives to address the study’s objectives.

Thematic analysis

Qualitative data collected through the interviews were analyzed using NVivo 15.0, a qualitative analysis software tool used for thematic analysis. Thematic analysis helped develop themes, such as “recurrent unifying concepts or statements about the subject of inquiry” (Bradley et al., 2007). Thematic analysis comprised the following six steps (Braun & Clarke, 2006): (1) Familiarizing the data; (2) Generating initial codes; (3) Searching for themes; (4) Reviewing themes; (5) Defining and naming themes; and (6) Producing the report (Table 2).

Table 2.

The Results of the Qualitative Study.

First-order concepts (illustrative quotes)	Second-order themes	Aggregate exploratory dimensions
“I think social responsibility is about companies contributing to a better society, especially supporting disadvantaged communities.” (Participant 3)	Contributions to community welfare	Societal value creation
“Brands should proactively commit to creating a positive societal impact while delivering business results.” (Participant 5)	Proactive societal contribution
“I would describe brand social responsibility as a company’s authentic commitment to creating shared value - generating economic benefits while driving meaningful societal impact.”(Participant 16)	Authentic shared value creation
“They underline the importance of integrating ethical and sustainable practices into all aspects of business, from production to employee welfare.” (Participant 8)	Ethical and sustainable actions	Ethical and sustainable orientation
“ . . . reducing environmental impact, from implementing renewable energy and zero-waste practices at its factories.” (Participant 12)	Environmental sustainability practices
“Customers saw socially conscious companies as purpose-driven businesses committed to the long-term well-being of local communities rather than serving only commercial goals.” (Participant 15)	Purpose-driven and collective well-being
“Consistent social responsibility that resonates with my values strengthens my loyalty and advocacy.” (Participant 7)	Value-driven loyalty	Consumer trust, commitment, and loyalty
“Brand social responsibility that aligns with my values has an immense impact on my advocacy and loyalty as a conscious consumer.” (Participant 13)	Value alignment and WOM intention
“Sustainable actions of a brand foster a deep sense of loyalty and trust that goes beyond product attributes.” (Participant 15)	Trust and loyalty rooted in sustainability
“Engaging in a volunteering initiative organized by the brand created a lasting and personally meaningful experience for me.” (Participant 5)	Personally meaningful experiences	Emotional resonance
“The brand’s social campaign elicited a strong emotional response and made me feel genuinely connected to its cause.”(Participant 4)	Emotional connection through social campaigns
“These narratives demonstrate that when BSR is experienced firsthand through immersive or emotionally resonant initiatives, it strengthens the affective commitment to the brand and reinforces positive word-of-mouth behaviors.” (Participant 9)	Amplified experiential impact.

Results

Our analysis revealed four primary thematic clusters: societal value creation, ethical and sustainable orientation, consumer trust-commitment-loyalty, and emotional resonance.

The first cluster, societal value creation, reflects how consumers define BSR through proactive community contributions and authentic shared value creation. As one participant noted, “I think social responsibility is about companies contributing to a better society, especially supporting disadvantaged communities” (Participant 3). At the same time, another emphasized that “brands should proactively commit to creating a positive societal impact while delivering business results” (Participant 5). These insights highlight that consumers expect brands not only to pursue profitability but also to serve as active agents of social upliftment.

The second cluster, ethical and sustainable orientation, underscores expectations of responsible business conduct through sustainable and long-term practices. Participants stressed ethical operations and environmental stewardship, noting “They underline the importance of integrating ethical and sustainable practices into all aspects of business, from production to employee welfare” (Participant 8) and “ . . . reducing environmental impact, from implementing renewable energy and zero-waste practices at its factories” (Participant 12). Such accounts illustrate that BSR is viewed as a commitment to enduring responsibility, with an emphasis on minimizing harm and promoting collective well-being.

The third cluster, consumer trust, commitment, and loyalty, illustrates how BSR perceptions are translated into relational outcomes. For example, one participant stated, “Consistent social responsibility that resonates with my values strengthens my loyalty and advocacy” (Participant 7). At the same time, another emphasized, “Brand social responsibility that aligns with my values has an immense impact on my advocacy and loyalty as a conscious consumer” (Participant 13). These perspectives reveal how value alignment fosters affective commitment, thereby reinforcing the mediating role of brand commitment in linking BSR to downstream outcomes such as word-of-mouth.

The final cluster, emotional resonance, captures consumers’ emotionally engaging experiences with brand-initiated responsibility activities. Several participants described personally meaningful interactions, such as “Engaging in a volunteering initiative organized by the brand created a lasting and personally meaningful experience for me” (Participant 5), and emotionally engaging campaigns: “The brand’s social campaign elicited a strong emotional response and made me feel genuinely connected to its cause” (Participant 4). These narratives demonstrate that when BSR is experienced firsthand through immersive initiatives, it “strengthens the affective commitment to the brand and reinforces positive word-of-mouth behaviors” (Participant 9). This finding supports the theorized moderating role of brand experience by showing how experiential depth amplifies the BSR-commitment-WOM pathway.

Taken together, the qualitative findings indicate that participants consistently associated brand social responsibility with deeper psychological and relational mechanisms. BSR was perceived as enhancing trust and moral alignment with the brand, leading to stronger emotional attachment and a greater willingness to advocate for the brand. In particular, interviewees described how authentic and community-oriented BSR initiatives made them feel personally valued and socially connected, motivating positive word-of-mouth. These relationships informed the development of the hypothesized model tested in the subsequent quantitative study.

Theoretical framework and hypothesis development

Social identity theory

This research is grounded in social identity theory (SIT), which provides a robust framework for understanding how individuals derive a sense of self from their membership in social groups (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). Central to SIT is the notion that people strive to maintain a positive self-concept, and they do so in part by aligning themselves with entities that reflect their values and enhance their self-esteem (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).

In the context of consumer-brand relationships, SIT suggests that when consumers perceive a brand’s values as congruent with their own, they experience a sense of identity alignment (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). This congruence fosters a strong emotional bond, leading consumers to incorporate the brand into their self-concept (Stokburger-Sauer et al., 2012). As a result, they become motivated to engage in behaviors that support the brand, such as brand commitment and advocacy (Tuškej et al., 2013).

When applied to socially responsible brands, SIT suggests that brand social responsibility acts as a salient identity cue that signals moral and social congruence between the brand and its consumers. When consumers perceive a brand as genuinely committed to social causes, they experience enhanced self-brand identification and moral pride, which motivate them to advocate for the brand through positive word-of-mouth communication (An et al., 2019; Maree & Wiese, 2025). This theoretical lens thus clarifies how BSR can transform value alignment into prosocial consumer behaviors that extend beyond transactional loyalty.

Moreover, existing applications of the SIT theory have not fully explicated the mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions that govern the BSR-WOM linkage. Specifically, there is a need to delineate how identity alignment translates into tangible consumer outcomes, and under what circumstances these effects are amplified or attenuated (Haumann et al., 2014; Lam et al., 2010). By examining the mediating role of brand commitment and the moderating influence of brand experience, this research seeks to extend SIT and provide a more nuanced understanding of the identity-driven dynamics that link BSR to WOM.

Brand social responsibility

Brand social responsibility is a unidimensional construct that represents the extent to which a consumer perceives a brand’s efforts to be socially responsible (Zhou et al., 2023). This study advances beyond existing conceptualizations by establishing BSR and CSR as theoretically interconnected yet empirically distinct constructs.

At the organizational level, CSR encompasses firm-wide governance structures, policy frameworks, and resource allocation mechanisms that institutionalize responsibility across corporate operations and stakeholder networks (Porter & Kramer, 2006). At the consumer level, BSR operates at the consumer-brand interface, representing how corporate responsibility manifests through brand identity, communications, and actions. Rather than a brand-level extension of CSR, BSR constitutes a translation of corporate responsibility into lived brand meaning.

The theoretical distinction between CSR and BSR is particularly salient in service contexts, where brand communications and consumer perceptions serve as the primary mechanisms through which consumers encounter and evaluate an organization’s ethical positioning (Berry, 2000; Iglesias et al., 2020). Empirical evidence supports this conceptual separation. Zhou et al. (2023) demonstrate that brand-level responsibility initiatives generate relational and emotional outcomes, specifically when consumers experience social initiatives through brand-mediated interactions that enhance collective self-esteem and altruistic engagement.

Extending the view, BSR differs from CSR in three fundamental ways. First, it adopts a holistic evaluation of brand responsibility rather than focusing on specific CSR activities. Second, whereas CSR primarily manifests through institutional structures and firm-level policy commitments, BSR captures the enactment of these commitments within the consumer’s lived experience of the brand. Third, BSR inherently adopts a consumer-centric lens, wherein consumers evaluate brands based on perceived contributions to collective welfare (Dang et al., 2020; Deng & Xu, 2017; Zhou et al., 2023). Such moral appraisals shape perceptions of brand ethicality, reinforcing both brand evaluations and consumer commitment (Das et al., 2019). Collectively, these dynamics position BSR as a critical perceptual mechanism translating organizational responsibility initiatives into meaningful consumer-brand relationships.

Brand commitment

The theory of social identity states that customers classify themselves as members of a broader community. Because of this, if they interpret a brand’s actions and characteristics as congruent with those of their community, as well as being in harmony with their own personality, customers develop a sense of attachment to the brand (Bartikowski & Walsh, 2011; Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010; Iglesias et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2012). In turn, the perceived social responsibility and increased brand attachment allow consumers to develop and sustain brand commitment (Dang et al., 2020; Deng & Xu, 2017; Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010; Lacey & Kennett-Hensel, 2010; Markovic et al., 2018). The linkage between social responsibility and brand commitment manifests itself in the form of greater customer loyalty (Deng & Xu, 2017; Iglesias et al., 2020). Similar effects are seen in research involving CSR activities, where CSR activities act as signals to stakeholders and influence how stakeholders evaluate a brand’s reputation and performance (Baumgartner et al., 2020). These CSR activities not only create a positive brand image but also lead to favorable brand outcomes, such as increased brand engagement and customers’ WOM intentions (Thomassen et al., 2020). Consistent with this theoretical reasoning, our qualitative findings revealed that participants viewed socially responsible brands as “trustworthy, authentic, and value-driven.” They repeatedly emphasized that “consistent social responsibility that resonates with my values strengthens my loyalty and advocacy” (P7) and “authentic BSR initiatives make me feel proud to support the brand” (P13). These insights empirically reinforce that BSR fosters moral pride and affective commitment—core mechanisms linking identity alignment to behavioral outcomes. Thus, it is logical to suggest that BSR is likely to activate consumer brand commitment and WOM.

In the context of service brands, the perceived social responsibility and increased brand attachment allow consumers to develop and sustain brand commitment (Dang et al., 2020; Deng & Xu, 2017; Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010; Lacey & Kennett-Hensel, 2010; Markovic et al., 2018). The intangible and heterogeneous nature of services may amplify the role of experiential signals in shaping the relationship between BSR and brand commitment (Parasuraman et al., 1985). The linkage between social responsibility and brand commitment manifests itself in the form of greater customer loyalty (Deng & Xu, 2017; Iglesias et al., 2020), which is particularly crucial for service brands that rely heavily on customer relationships (Berry, 2000).

Effects on WOM

While existing literature provides support for the potential effect of BSR on a consumer’s level of brand commitment, it may be that BSR and brand commitment have downstream effects on other consumer actions, such as WOM (Harrison-Walker, 2001). This is especially relevant in service settings, where the intangible and experiential nature of services underscores the significance of WOM as a key behavioral outcome (Markovic et al., 2018). Given the difficulty of assessing service quality prior to consumption, consumers often rely heavily on the recommendations and endorsements of others when making service brand choices (Markovic et al., 2018). As a result, positive WOM becomes a valuable asset for service brands, serving as a risk-reduction mechanism and a credible source of information for prospective customers (Berry, 2000). This heightens the value of positive WOM for service brands and highlights the need to understand the factors that drive WOM in this context.

The premise is that once customers establish a strong and deep connection with a brand, they tend to become brand advocates involved in relational behaviors, including sharing positive information or recommending the brand to other community members (Lacey & Kennett-Hensel, 2010). Previous research (e.g. Albert et al., 2013) has demonstrated that brand attachment and commitment encourage consumers to communicate positive brand information to others. This suggests that commitment may act as a mechanism for WOM behavior (Alexandrov et al., 2013; Brown et al., 2005; Deng & Xu, 2017). The idea is that a consumer’s brand commitment plays a mediating role in the link between social responsibility and consumer behavior (Dang et al., 2020; Markovic et al., 2022).

Consistent with this reasoning, the qualitative phase provided clear support for this mechanism. Participants described socially responsible brands as “trustworthy, authentic, and value-driven,” emphasizing that “consistent social responsibility that resonates with my values strengthens my loyalty and advocacy” (P7). These reflections illustrate how perceived brand responsibility evokes moral pride and emotional attachment, which naturally lead to positive word-of-mouth. Such evidence empirically reinforces the theoretical pathway from BSR to commitment and, subsequently, to advocacy behavior.

Consequently, in the current study, we expect brand commitment to act as a mediator between consumers’ perceived level of brand social responsibility and their WOM intentions. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

H1: (a) Perception of BSR will increase brand commitment and (b) which results in increased WOM.

The moderating role of brand experience

Brand experience is a consumer’s subjective response (e.g. sensation, emotion, and cognition) that elicits brand-related behaviors (Brakus et al., 2009). Importantly, brand experience is central to the customer-brand relationship and is accounted for by customer loyalty and commitment toward the brand (Brakus et al., 2009; Nikhashemi et al., 2019; Iglesias et al., 2011; Shahid et al., 2022). In this respect, the greater the perceived customer experience, the higher the level of commitment a consumer feels toward the brand.

Applying this to the context of brand social responsibility, prior research suggests that customers are strongly committed to a socially responsible brand. However, such a connection between the customer and brand comes about through consumers’ experiences (Mostafa & Kasamani, 2021). Thus, consumers with a positive experience with a socially responsible brand are likely to have a greater degree of brand attachment and commitment than those with a less positive experience. Essentially, it is expected that the effect of BSR on brand commitment is contingent on brand experience. Consistent with this reasoning, our qualitative findings highlighted that responsibility must be experienced rather than merely advertised. Participants stated that “the brand’s social campaign elicited a strong emotional response and made me feel genuinely connected to its cause” (P4) and that “engaging in a volunteering initiative organized by the brand created a lasting and personally meaningful experience for me” (P5). Such experiences validated the brand’s sincerity and deepened emotional attachment, reinforcing the notion that experiential involvement amplifies the perceived authenticity of BSR and strengthens its impact on commitment. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:

H2: Brand experience moderates the association between perceived BSR and brand commitment such that this linkage is stronger (weaker) when brand experience is higher (lower).

The proposed moderating role of brand experience on the BRS-commitment linkage raises a question of whether a similar boundary condition effect takes place with respect to the WOM-commitment linkage. Positive WOM generally means that customers share positive sentiments about a brand or recommend it to their peers (Cuong et al., 2024; Markovic et al., 2022). Notably, prior studies on WOM have concentrated on its relationship with brand experiences (Karjaluoto et al., 2016; Klein et al., 2016; Paramita et al., 2021). In the retail context, Nikhashemi et al. (2019) found that brand experience positively influences WOM, whilst Klein et al. (2016) highlighted brand experience as a mediator of the linkage between the advantages of pop-up stores (i.e. hedonic shopping value, store atmosphere, and store uniqueness) and WOM. Furthermore, Karjaluoto et al. (2016) assert that the length of brand experience moderates the positive effect of brand love on WOM.

As shown in prior studies (Albert et al., 2013; Alexandrov et al., 2013; Karjaluoto et al., 2016; Klein et al., 2016), the motives underlying customers’ willingness to speak about a brand can be classified into two types: social motivations and emotional motivations. Social motivations relate to customers’ social needs for contact with others or how they present themselves in their community. Alternatively, emotional motivation refers to the desire to share positive feelings about the brand from a personal or emotional aspect. As mentioned, positive WOM toward a brand can be driven by strong commitment. Moreover, WOM is relevant to real personal experiences and is affected by emotion (Alexandrov et al., 2013). Consistent with this perspective, our qualitative results revealed that advocacy behavior is activated when consumers are emotionally and experientially engaged. Participants described that “after experiencing the brand’s sustainability initiative, I wanted to recommend it to my friends” (P15) and “the campaign made me feel genuinely connected to its cause” (P9). These narratives substantiate that emotional resonance and experiential authenticity convert commitment into outward advocacy, reinforcing the moderating role of brand experience in the commitment–WOM linkage. Thus, favorable experiences can motivate customers to transmit WOM (Klein et al., 2016; Nikhashemi et al., 2019). In other words, brand experience is expected to be a boundary condition of commitment-WOM linkage. Consequently, we hypothesize as follows:

H3: Brand experience moderates the association between brand commitment and WOM.

Brand experience, brand commitment, BSR, and WOM

Brand experience plays a crucial role in building and nurturing customer-brand relationships (Brakus et al., 2009; Iglesias et al., 2011; Shahid et al., 2022). Previous research has examined and confirmed the meaningful and strong association between brand experience and other brand-related factors (e.g. ethics, commitment, brand equity, and WOM). Specifically, the interaction between perceived brand ethicality and brand experience can explain brand commitment (Das et al., 2019). Moreover, brand experience is found to directly affect WOM (Nikhashemi et al., 2019) and brand equity (Iglesias et al., 2019), as well as indirectly influence brand loyalty through commitment (Iglesias et al., 2011). Others (see Karjaluoto et al., 2016; Klein et al., 2016) explain the potential moderating and mediating role of brand experience.

In line with prior research, this study explores how BSR affects subsequent brand outcomes (i.e. brand commitment and WOM) under the contingent condition of brand experience. Importantly, brand experience reflects comprehensive interactions between customers and brands (Brakus et al., 2009). This suggests that those with higher experience more often interact with a brand, which can enhance their desire to keep a strong connection with the brand. Similarly, Nikhashemi et al. (2019) and Shahid et al. (2022) pointed out in their studies that customers establish an emotional bond with a brand as their experience with the brand increases. Furthermore, brand experience allows customers to connect with the brand on an emotional level (Klein et al., 2016). A meaningful experience can delight customers and motivate them to share positive stories about a brand with people in their social circles.

Echoing this theoretical reasoning, our qualitative findings indicate that rich and meaningful experiences strengthen the overall link between brand social responsibility, brand commitment, and positive word-of-mouth. Participants shared that “when I truly experience the brand’s responsibility, I feel proud to share it with others” (P9) and “I am more motivated to advocate when I directly engage in the brand’s social initiatives” (P5). These reflections demonstrate that brand experience validates the perceived sincerity of the brand and transforms identification and commitment into active advocacy. The qualitative evidence therefore supports the proposed moderated mediation effect, showing that moral identity is more likely to translate into behavior when consumers have personally experienced the brand’s responsibility.

Taken together, brand experience is expected in this research to moderate the mediation process, and the strength of the mediated effect (BSR-brand commitment-WOM) increases along with higher levels of brand experience. This moderated mediation mechanism may be especially relevant for service brands, where experiential evaluations play a central role in shaping consumer responses to brand social responsibility (Berry, 2000; Markovic et al., 2018). Thus, we hypothesize:

H4: Brand experience moderates the strength of the mediated relationship between perceived BSR and WOM through brand commitment, such that the mediated relationship will be stronger (or weaker) when brand experience is higher (or lower).

Quantitative studies

Based on the results obtained from the qualitative study and literature review, a conceptual model was proposed to examine the impact of BSR (see Figure 1). The quantitative study based on an experiment (Study 1) and a large-scale survey (Study 2) was implemented to examine the research model and proposed hypotheses. Study 1 used experimental methods to manipulate BSR and examined its causal effects on brand commitment and WOM. While Study 1 establishes internal validity, Study 2 used a large-scale sample survey to reinforce confidence in the generalizability of the findings from Study 1 (to establish external validity).

Figure 1.

Proposed model and hypotheses.

Study 1: Experiment

Study 1 employed a single-factor, two-level (BSR vs. non-BSR), between-subjects design. An advertisement with/without BSR messages was designed as the stimulus. Brand commitment and WOM were examined as the mediator and outcome measures, respectively. Study 1 tested the impact of BSR on brand commitment (H1a) and the mediating role of brand commitment (H1b) on the BSR-WOM relationship.

Sample and procedure: Participants were recruited from an online course cohort of students enrolled in a core business subject at a leading university in Vietnam. Data were collected via Google Forms, a widely adopted online survey platform commonly used for academic research (Basa-Martinez et al., 2018). The sampling frame initially included 277 participants, of which 19 were excluded due to missing data. Among the final sample of 158 respondents, 103 were female and 55 were male. The majority of the respondents were young adults, with 87.4% aged between 18 and 35 years. The most common monthly income level bracket was under US$15,000 per annum. Respondents were randomly allocated to a “BSR” or “non-BSR” design. In each condition, the participants were asked to evaluate an advertising message. In line with prior research (Lecuyer et al., 2017), messaging materials for a real retailer were used.

For both experimental conditions, the message focused on three company goals (commitment to service, continuous investments, and desire to improve). In the non-BSR condition, the message focused on these three goals in a broad sense. In the BSR condition, these three goals were presented in a specific BSR context (sustainable commitment to service, continuous investments in environmental protection, and desire to improve green consumption). The messaging emphasized how consumers could personally contribute to these outcomes through their brand interactions rather than corporate achievements or policies.

Measures

Brand commitment using a 4-item scale adapted from Eisingerich and Rubera (2010). For the focal dependent variable (WOM), the participants were asked three questions adapted from Alexandrov et al. (2013). We used a 3-item scale adapted from Eisingerich and Rubera (2010) to assess the manipulation of the BSR. All items were measured using 7-point Likert scales (1 = “disagree strongly” and 7 = “agree strongly”).

Manipulation checks

The manipulation of brand social responsibility (BSR) worked as intended. Results from the independent sample t-tests indicated that respondents in the BSR condition (n = 96) demonstrated higher BSR scores than those in the non-BSR condition (n = 62; M_BSR = 5.19, M_non-BSR = 4.53, t (156) = 4.328, p < .01).

Hypothesis testing

We employed an independent sample t-test to investigate the differential effects of the BSR and non-BSR conditions on brand commitment and WOM. According to the findings, those who participated in the BSR condition expressed a higher level of brand commitment than those in the non-BSR condition (M_BSR = 4.85, M_non-BSR = 3.54, t (156) = 8.013, p < .01). Thus, H1a is supported. The PROCESS Macro (Model 4) technique was used for mediation testing (Hayes, 2017). Supporting H1b, there is empirical evidence (b = 0.43, SE = 0.07; 95% CI: [0.30, 0.59]) showing that BSR influences brand commitment, which in turn leads to increased WOM. In summary, Study 1 shows that consumers show higher levels of brand commitment to socially responsible brands. They tend to leave positive reviews of brands committed to BSR (WOM), which could be due to high levels of brand commitment.

In the next step, Study 2 was conducted using a large-scale sample survey to strengthen the generalizability, as well as support the external validity of the results. Study 2 tested an additional moderator (i.e. brand experience).

Study 2: Large-scale survey

Study 2 replicated Study 1 with additional hypotheses examining the moderation effects of brand experience on the relationships among BSR, brand commitment, and WOM (H2, H3, and H4). To generalize the findings of Study 1 and enhance external validity, a large sample of consumers from the general population was examined.

Sample and procedure

The chosen retailer brand of Study 2 was the same as in Study 1. Our sampling frame consisted of shoppers at the largest retail store located in a metropolitan city. We adopted a systematic random sampling technique and a mall intercept approach, interviewing shoppers. The data collection period lasted for 8 weeks, during which we intercepted shoppers on varying days and times to reach a wide range of participants. We obtained 1,499 usable responses (43.8% male and 56.2% female). Regarding educational background, 69.1% of the respondents possessed at least a bachelor’s degree or higher. Regarding income level, close to one-third of the participants reported an annual income of less than US$15,000. A summary of the sample profile was presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Demographic Information of Respondents.

Variables and classification	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender
Male	657	43.8
Female	842	56.2
Age
18–21	425	28.4
21–25	503	33.5
26–35	409	27.3
36–45	110	7.3
46–55	42	2.8
>55	10	0.7
Income per annum
Under US$15,000	497	33.1
US$15,001–US$25,000	390	26.0
US$25,001–US$35,000	388	25.9
US$35,001–US$50,000	154	10.3
Over US$50,000	70	4.7

Measures

The same measures as in Study 1 were used to measure BSR, brand commitment, and WOM. The moderator, brand experience, had four dimensions, with scales adopted from Brakus et al. (2009). All 12 items were collapsed (α = .94) to create an index of brand experience.

Reliability and validity tests

The outer loadings of all items ranged from 0.82 to 0.92, exceeding the cutoff (0.50; Hulland, 1999). The corresponding t-values ranged from 67.34 to 181.46., exceeding the statistical significance threshold of 1.96. Furthermore, the composite reliabilities ranging from .91 to .93 were greater than .70. Lastly, all the AVE values were above 0.50. These findings repeatedly demonstrate that the measurement scales in our model are highly reliable. See Table 4 for scale items used in both Studies 1 and 2.

Table 4.

Scale Evaluation.

Item	Loading	t-value
Brand social responsibility (CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.79)
I consider [brand name] as a socially responsible brand.	0.88	87.17
This brand is more beneficial to society’s welfare than other brands.	0.90	120.51
This brand does not contribute something to society. (R)	0.88	100.10
Brand experience
Sensory brand experience (CR = 0.91; AVE = 0.77) [Brand name] makes a strong impression on my visual sense or other senses.	0.82	67.34
I find [brand name] interesting in a sensory way.	0.91	161.98
[Brand name] brand does appeal to my senses.	0.89	169.51
Emotional brand experience (CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.80) [Brand name] induces feelings and sentiments.	0.88	108.24
I have strong emotions for [brand name].	0.91	149.38
[Brand name] is an emotional brand.	0.89	138.94
Behavioral brand experience (CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.79) I engage in physical actions and behaviors when I use [brand name].	0.87	130.18
[Brand name] results in bodily experiences.	0.90	152.00
[Brand name] is action-oriented.	0.89	140.27
Think brand experience (CR = 0.93; AVE = 0.81) I engage in a lot of thinking when I encounter [brand name].	0.91	156.46
[Brand name] makes me think.	0.92	163.58
[Brand name] stimulates my curiosity and problem-solving.	0.87	107.73
Brand commitment (CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.75)
I feel loyal toward [brand name].	0.86	147.78
Even if [brand name] would be more difficult to buy, I would still keep buying it.	0.87	147.46
I am willing to go the extra mile to remain a customer of [brand name].	0.87	154.16
I will not buy [brand name] in the future. (R)	0.87	146.43
Words of mouth (CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.80)
I will say positive things about this store brand to other people.	0.89	162.25
I will recommend this store brand to someone who seeks my advice.	0.90	172.30
I will encourage friends and relatives to do shopping at this store brand.	0.89	181.46

Note. CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; R = reversed scale item.

Table 5 shows the measurements’ discriminant validity in accordance with Fornell and Larcker (1981), as the correlations between the components were all lower than the AVE values. Additionally, all the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratios (HTMT) were less than 1, which also supports the discriminant validity. Furthermore, according to O’Brien (2007), to rule out multicollinearity difficulties, we examined the variance inflation factors (VIF) for the dependent variable. Each VIF value was less than 10 (the highest VIF was 1.89), indicating that the study did not suffer from multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2010).

Table 5.

Discriminant Validity Analysis.

Construct	1	2	3	4
1. Brand social responsibility	0.89
2. Brand commitment	0.35**	0.87
	0.40
3. Word of mouth	0.23**	0.53**	0.89
	0.27	0.60
4. Brand experience	0.57**	0.43**	0.24**	0.79
	0.63	0.47	0.27

Note. First value = Correlation between variables (off diagonal); second value (italic) = HTMT ratio; Square root of AVE (bold diagonal)

Correlation significant at the 1% level (two-tailed t-test).

Common method bias (CMB) and model fit

As the data were collected based on the participants’ self-reported perceptions, an evaluation of CMB was essential to rule out potential bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Following Lindell and Whitney (2001), the marker variable method was employed to assess the CMB. Specifically, we used an evaluation of the location (i.e. shopping mall) as this variable is theoretically uncorrelated with the key elements of the suggested model. When the effects of rM were eliminated from the relationships between the key constructs (rU–rA), the average change was insignificant (p > .05). This result indicated that the likelihood of common method bias in this study was minimal. Finally, the proposed model had a good fit, as evidenced by an SRMR value of 0.07, which was below the threshold (0.08; Henseler et al., 2016).

Hypothesis testing

We employed three hierarchical models to analyze the research model and hypotheses. Model 1 establishes a link between the BSR and WOM. Model 2 extends Model 1 by including brand commitment as a mediating variable. We developed Model 3 (the full model) by adding brand experience to Model 2 as a moderator of the relationships between (1) BSR and brand commitment and (2) brand commitment and WOM.

Table 6 presents the summary statistics for hypothesis testing using the bootstrapping procedure for 5,000 samples. In all three hierarchical models, WOM’s adjusted R² values ranged from .10 to .28, demonstrating that the dependent variable’s variance is significant (Falk & Miller, 1992).

Table 6.

Hypothesis Testing Results.

Dependent variables	Model 1	Model 2 (with BCOM as a mediating variable)		Model 3 (with BCOM as a mediating variable and BEX as a moderating variable)
	WOM	BCOM	WOM	BCOM	WOM
Independent variables
BSR	0.19 (7.01)^c	0.35 (14.53)^c	0.03 (1.07)	0.22 (8.11)^c	0.00 (0.04)
BCOM			0.51 (27.41)^c		0.51 (25.13)^c
BEX				0.33 (12.35)^c	0.00 (0.18)
BEX × BSR				0.18 (10.71)^c
BEX × BCOM					0.16 (8.13)^c
Control variables
Gender	0.05 (1.91)^a		0.06 (2.86)^c		0.02 (1.10)
Age	−0.06 (2.13)^b		−0.04 (1.77)^a		−0.06 (2.30)^b
Education	−0.03 (1.15)		−0.05 (2.14)^b		−0.03 (1.58)
Income	0.12 (4.46)^c		0.10 (4.27)^c		0.11 (4.64)^c
Adjusted R²	0.07		0.29		0.32
Indirect effect			Estimate	LLCI	ULCI
BSR→BCOM→WOM			0.11 (7.54)^c	0.08	0.14

Note. BSR = brand social responsibility; BCOM = brand commitment; BEX = brand experience; WOM = word of mouth; BEX × BSR = interaction between BEX and BSR; BEX × BCM = interaction between BEX and BCOM; LLCI = lower limit confidence interval; ULCI = upper limit confidence interval.

Numbers in brackets: t-values; ^a, ^b, ^c denote significance at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels.

The findings presented in Table 6 provide additional support that perceived BSR positively influences brand commitment (model 2: β = .35, t = 14.53; model 3: β = .22, t = 8.11; H1a) and indirectly affects WOM via brand commitment (β = .11, t = 7.54; 95% CI [0.08, 0.14]; H1b). After adding brand commitment as a mediating variable in the link between perceived BSR and WOM, the direct impact of perceived BSR on WOM went from being highly significant (model 1: β = .19, t = 7.01) to being insignificant (model 2: β = .03, t = 1.07). This indicates that brand commitment fully mediates the relationship between perceived BSR and WOM, thus providing conclusive support for H1b.

For the moderation effect testing purpose (H2), we create an interaction term between brand experience and BSR (BEX × BSR). The findings show that the interaction term (BEX × BSR) positively influences brand commitment (Model 3: β = .18, t = 10.71), confirming H2. Next, an additional interaction term was created between brand experience and brand commitment (BEX × BCOM) to test H3 in relation to the moderating role of brand experience in the commitment-WOM linkage. The findings also showed that the interaction term (BEX × BCOM) was significant and positively influenced WOM (Model 3: β = 0.16, t = 8.13), confirming H3.

To highlight the nature of these significant interactions with H2 and H3, the Johnson-Neyman method (Hayes & Matthes, 2009) was used to plot the impact of BSR on brand commitment and word of mouth (WOM) for brands with low (−1 standard deviation), medium (mean), and high (+1 standard deviation) brand experience. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate how these impacts were significantly greater for respondents with a high level of brand experience than for those with a medium or low level of brand experience.

Figure 2.

Interaction effect of brand social responsibility and brand experience on brand commitment.

Figure 3.

Interaction effect of brand commitment and brand experience on WOM.

Finally, to test the moderated mediation mechanism between brand experience and BSR-brand commitment-WOM (H4), PROCESS Macro v3.4 Model 58 was employed (Hayes, 2017) to calculate the indirect effect of BSR on WOM at low (−1 SD), mean, and high (+1 SD) levels of the moderator (i.e. brand experience) using 5,000 bootstrap samples. The results indicated that all conditional indirect effects were significant, except when brand experience was low (−1 SD). The conditional indirect effect of BSR and WOM through brand commitment, as shown in Table 7, was weak at 0.02 when brand experience was low (−1 SD) and strong at 0.35 when brand experience was high (+1 SD). These results provide evidence to support H4.

Table 7.

Conditional Indirect Effect Estimates for the Independent Variables.

Conditional indirect effect of BSR on WOM via BCOM
BEX	Estimate	SE	LLCI	ULCI
−1 SD	0.02	0.01	−0.01	0.04
Mean	0.14	0.02	0.11	0.18
1 SD	0.35	0.03	0.29	0.41

Notes: LLCI = lower limit confidence interval; ULCI = upper limit confidence interval; SE = standard error; SD = standard deviation; BSR = brand social responsibility; BCOM = brand commitment; BEX = brand experience; WOM = word of mouth.

General discussion

The findings reported here shed new light on the dynamic mechanisms that enable BSR to generate improved customer perceptions and behavior in the service context. Employing a mixed-method approach, these studies demonstrate not only the importance of BSR in generating WOM but also how brand commitment mediates such relationships. Furthermore, the contingent conditions of brand experience (both direct and indirect effects) explain the important mechanisms that allow the BSR strategy to translate into WOM effectively.

Theoretical implications

This study contributes to the existing knowledge of BSR and its behavioral outcomes in several aspects. First, the results empirically demonstrated the essential role of BSR in building strong customer relationships. Specifically, perceived BSR increases brand commitment, which in turn leads to positive WOM. Comparison of these findings with those of other studies confirms the mediating role of commitment on the BSR—customers’ responses link (Lacey & Kennett-Hensel, 2010; Markovic et al., 2018). When brands invest in social responsibility activities, they can make an emotional connection with potential customers and thus generate stronger customer relationships (Dang et al., 2020; Iglesias et al., 2020).

Second, the current paper also indicates the moderating impact of brand experience on the association between brand commitment and its positive outcomes (i.e. WOM). The more experience customers have with a brand, the closer the association between brand commitment and WOM will be. These results corroborate the findings of Iglesias et al. (2019) and Karjaluoto et al. (2016) that brand experience plays a crucial role in inducing positive behavioral intentions toward the brand.

Third, another important finding is the support for a moderated mediation mechanism explaining how BSR affects WOM. This study found that the strength of the mediated effect among perceived BSR, brand commitment, and WOM increased along with levels of brand experience. By examining this dynamic mechanism, the current work contributes to existing knowledge on the effectiveness of brand experience (Iglesias et al., 2019; Klein et al., 2016) and sheds further light on how BSR strategies can create positive behavioral intentions. Brands are looking to establish a superior relationship with customers so that they are willing to not only share their experiences with others but also make recommendations and encourage others to trust that the brand will deliver on its social responsibility promises. These findings emphasize the significant role of BSR efforts in generating brand commitment, as well as explaining how brand experience and brand commitment interact with BSR initiatives to generate positive WOM. Such an understanding allows brands to foster long-term brand-customer relationships.

Fourth, we contribute to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2004) by demonstrating how BSR initiatives function as moral identity verification mechanisms that transform value congruence into brand commitment through a dual-stage process of identity incorporation and commitment activation. This refinement addresses a critical gap in understanding the psychological pathways linking responsibility initiatives to consumer–brand relationships (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). Unlike conventional SIT applications that treat identity as a static alignment outcome, our findings conceptualize BSR as a dynamic identity signal that triggers progressive self-categorization processes. These processes first enable consumers to verify their moral self-concept through perceived value alignment (identity incorporation stage), then motivate strengthened relational bonds through enhanced brand commitment (commitment activation stage). This perspective shifts the understanding of responsibility-driven identity alignment from a purely attitudinal outcome to a process that actively fosters commitment. Finally, this study contributes to the refinement of Social Identity Theory by specifying the boundary conditions under which identity-based mechanisms become behaviorally salient. The findings demonstrate that the well-established pathway from brand social responsibility to commitment and word-of-mouth operates conditionally rather than universally. Brand experience acts as a contextual amplifier that activates the identity–behavior link only when consumers engage with the brand at sufficient depth. This clarification enhances theoretical precision by explaining why some socially responsible brands fail to generate advocacy despite strong value alignment between the brand and its consumers. Accordingly, this research positions its contribution as a boundary refinement of social identity theory within service-based CSR contexts, offering a more contingent and context-sensitive account of how moral identity processes translate into observable consumer behaviors.

Managerial implications

The evidence from the current study offers insights for practitioners in the field of marketing and brand management. First, our qualitative insights demonstrate that consumers evaluate BSR not merely as abstract commitments but through concrete dimensions such as societal value creation, ethical and sustainable orientation, and experiential resonance. These perceptions strongly influence how customers form trust, loyalty, and subsequent advocacy intentions. Service brands should therefore conduct systematic audits to identify which dimensions, whether community contribution, sustainability practices, or emotionally resonant experiences, most strongly resonate with their target segments. By embedding these dimensions into brand strategy and creating personally meaningful experiences (e.g. volunteering programs or emotionally engaging campaigns), brands can transform responsibility initiatives into distinctive relational value. This differentiation strategy enables brands to be perceived as authentic and purpose-driven actors, thereby fostering more profound consumer commitment and stronger WOM.

Second, as our results demonstrate a strong positive relationship between BSR and brand commitment, service brands must embed social responsibility deep within organizational culture rather than treating it as a marketing add-on. Brands should implement comprehensive BSR training programs that transform every employee into an authentic brand ambassador. This involves developing detailed ethical service protocols, creating reward systems that recognize socially responsible employee behaviors, and establishing clear accountability metrics for sustainable practices across all customer touchpoints. By institutionalizing BSR at the human resource level, brands can ensure consistent delivery of trust-building service encounters that cultivate enduring customer loyalty (Iglesias et al., 2020; Markovic et al., 2018).

Third, as our analysis demonstrates that brand experience significantly moderates the relationship between BSR and customer outcomes, managers must ensure BSR initiatives are accompanied by rich experiential activation. Brands should develop integrated BSR communication strategies that amplify the impact of responsibility initiatives through memorable touchpoints. This includes developing interactive sustainability communications that illustrate the brand’s social impact and designing campaigns that demonstrate BSR practices transparently and authentically. As our findings confirm, BSR initiatives yield substantially stronger effects on commitment and WOM when customers have high brand experience levels. Therefore, managers should view experience design not as a separate marketing function but as a critical amplifier of BSR effectiveness, ensuring every responsibility initiative is paired with compelling experiential elements that deepen emotional engagement.

Finally, as our results confirm the strong predictive power of BSR perceptions on brand commitment and WOM behaviors, brands must prioritize substantial investments in authentic BSR initiatives that foster emotional connections and advocacy. Companies should develop comprehensive BSR programs that go beyond surface-level activities to create genuine social impact. This includes establishing measurable sustainability targets aligned with customer values, implementing transparent impact reporting systems, and creating participatory platforms where customers can witness and engage with the brand’s social contributions. By treating BSR as a strategic driver of relationship building and customer advocacy rather than a compliance checkbox, brands can optimize the return on their responsibility investments in an era of heightened social consciousness (Xie et al., 2019).

Limitations and future research

While these studies provide novel and insightful findings that contribute to the existing literature, they are not without their limitations. First, as this research uses real brands to assess perceptions of BSR and its impact on subsequent attitudes and behaviors, there are several factors that were not accounted for, such as marketing efforts, environmental conditions, competition, and the timing of BSR initiatives introduced. Future research should attempt to measure and control strategic initiatives and other market conditions that could influence and impact findings. Second, individual-level differences must be accounted for in future research. Customer disposition, personality, orientation toward social responsibility, moral and ethical orientation, and so on could all influence one’s perceptions and sensitivity to perceived BSR activities. Additionally, customers’ propensity to engage in online activities (e.g. need for and usage of social media) could potentially influence their motives for and engagement in WOM activities. Future research should measure and account for individual-level differences as they are likely to influence BSR perceptions and subsequent behavior. Third, we cannot deny the existence of other contingency factors (e.g. customer reliance and customer trust) that could influence how BSR drives WOM (Iglesias et al., 2020; J. Park et al., 2014; E. Park et al., 2017). Thus, further studies that take these constructs into account should be undertaken. Fourth, since the data were collected in one country only, the generalizability of the findings to other settings is limited. There is evidence that customers in different countries evaluate service brands differently (Guesalaga et al., 2016); hence, future research should attempt to replicate the findings of the current studies in other countries and service brand industries. Fifth, this study is limited by its reliance on self-reported data, which restricts the findings to attitudinal rather than behavioral inferences. Although this approach is consistent with prior CSR and branding research, it does not capture consumers’ actual behaviors such as sharing, recommending, or purchasing. Future research could address this limitation by employing behavioral tracking, observational methods, or field experiments to validate how perceived brand responsibility translates into real advocacy and engagement over time. Finally, although attempts were made to triangulate findings across experimental and cross-sectional survey methods, future research should attempt to collect additional data linking customer perceptions of BSR initiatives to actual WOM behavior. This requires collecting customer perceptions, implementing BSR strategy, and tracking subsequent WOM behavior over time.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Liem Viet Ngo

Xuan-Doanh Nguyen-Le

Trang Thi-Thuy Duong

Nguyen Phong Nguyen

Gary Gregory

Quynh Thi Thuy Nguyen

References

Ahmad

Wilkins

(2025). Purposive sampling in qualitative research: A framework for the entire journey. Quality & Quantity, 59, 1461–1479.

Albert

Merunka

Valette-Florence

(2013). Brand passion: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 904–909.

Alexandrov

Lilly

Babakus

(2013). The effects of social-and self-motives on the intentions to share positive and negative word of mouth. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 531–546.

D. K. X.

Ngo

L. V.

Quan

T. H. M.

(2019). Turning brand credibility into positive word-of-mouth: Integrating the signaling and social identity perspectives. Journal of Brand Management, 26(2), 157–175.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Bartikowski

Walsh

(2011). Investigating mediators between corporate reputation and customer citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 39–44.

Basa-Martinez

D. D. F.

Cabrera

J. Y.

Dionaldo

L. G.

Orillo

J. G. R.

Ramos

P. J. M.

Ocampo

L. A.

(2018). An exploration of a respondent pre-qualifying framework to increase response rates in social media initiated online surveys. Australasian Marketing Journal, 26(3), 239–261.

Baumgartner

K. T.

Ernst

C. A.

Fischer

T. M.

(2020). How corporate reputation disclosures affect stakeholders’ behavioral intentions: Mediating mechanisms of perceived organizational performance and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 175, 361–389.

Berry

L. L.

(2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 128–137.

10.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

Sen

(2003). Consumer–company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.

11.

Boddy

C. R.

(2016). Sample size for qualitative research. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 19(4), 426–432.

12.

Bradley

E. H.

Curry

L. A.

Devers

K. J.

(2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research, 42(4), 1758–1772.

13.

Brakus

J. J.

Schmitt

B. H.

Zarantonello

(2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68.

14.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

15.

Brown

T. J.

Barry

T. E.

Dacin

P. A.

Gunst

R. F.

(2005). Spreading the word: Investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 123–138.

16.

Cuong

P. H.

Nguyen-Le

X. D.

Ngo

L. V.

Nguyen

N. P.

(2024). How brand innovativeness generates positive word of mouth. Australasian Marketing Journal, 32(1), 56–64.

17.

Dang

V. T.

Nguyen

Wang

(2020). Consumers’ perceptions and responses towards online retailers’ CSR. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 48(12), 1277–1299.

18.

Das

Agarwal

Malhotra

N. K.

Varshneya

(2019). Does brand experience translate into brand commitment? A mediated-moderation model of brand passion and perceived brand ethicality. Journal of Business Research, 95, 479–490.

19.

Deng

(2017). Consumers’ responses to corporate social responsibility initiatives: The mediating role of consumer–company identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 515–526.

20.

Eisingerich

A. B.

Rubera

(2010). Drivers of brand commitment: A cross-national investigation. Journal of International Marketing, 18(2), 64–79.

21.

Falk

R. F.

Miller

N. B.

(1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.

22.

Fatma

Khan

Rahman

Pérez

(2021). The sharing economy: The influence of perceived corporate social responsibility on brand commitment. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 30(7), 964–975.

23.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

24.

Gaskell

(2000). Individual and group interviewing. Qualitative researching with text, image and sound (pp. 38–56). SAGE.

25.

Guesalaga

Pierce

Scaraboto

(2016). Cultural influences on expectations and evaluations of service quality in emerging markets. International Marketing Review, 33(1), 88–111.

26.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.

27.

Harrison-Walker

L. J.

(2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60–75.

28.

Haumann

Quaiser

Wieseke

Rese

(2014). Footprints in the sands of time: A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of customer satisfaction and customer–company identification over time. Journal of Marketing, 78(6), 78–102.

29.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.

30.

Hayes

A. F.

Matthes

(2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3), 924–936.

31.

Henseler

Hubona

Ray

P. A.

(2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20.

32.

Hulland

(1999). Use of partial least square (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 113–131.

33.

Iglesias

Markovic

Bagherzadeh

Singh

J. J.

(2020). Co-creation: A key link between corporate social responsibility, customer trust, and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 16 3(1), 151–166.

34.

Iglesias

Markovic

Rialp

(2019). How does sensory brand experience influence brand equity? Considering the roles of customer satisfaction, customer affective commitment, and employee empathy. Journal of Business Research, 96, 343–354.

35.

Iglesias

Singh

J. J.

Batista-Foguet

J. M.

(2011). The role of brand experience and affective commitment in determining brand loyalty. Journal of Brand Management, 18(8), 570–582.

36.

Inoue

Funk

D. C.

McDonald

(2017). Predicting behavioral loyalty through corporate social responsibility: The mediating role of involvement and commitment. Journal of Business Research, 75, 46–56.

37.

Johnson

J. M.

Rowlands

(2012). The interpersonal dynamics of in-depth interviewing. In Gubrium

J. F.

Holstein

J. A.

Marvasti

A. B.

McKinney

K. D.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 99–113). SAGE Publications, Inc.

38.

Kantar. (2025, July 9). The future of growth is sustainable. Kantar. https://www.kantar.com/inspiration/sustainability/the-future-of-growth-is-sustainable

39.

Karjaluoto

Munnukka

Kiuru

(2016). Brand love and positive word of mouth: The moderating effects of experience and price. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 25(6), 527–537.

40.

Klein

J. F.

Falk

Esch

F. R.

Gloukhovtsev

(2016). Linking pop-up brand stores to brand experience and word of mouth: The case of luxury retail. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5761–5767.

41.

Kremez

Frazer

Thaichon

(2019). The effects of e-commerce on franchising: Practical implications and models. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3), 158–168.

42.

Lacey

Kennett-Hensel

P. A.

(2010). Longitudinal effects of corporate social responsibility on customer relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 581–597.

43.

Lam

S. K.

Ahearne

Schillewaert

(2010). Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand is introduced: A social identity theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 128–146.

44.

Lecuyer

Capelli

Sabadie

(2017). Corporate social responsibility communication effects: A comparison between investor-owned banks and member-owned banks. Journal of Advertising Research, 57(4), 436–446.

45.

Lindell

M. K.

Whitney

D. J.

(2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

46.

Maon

Swaen

De Roeck

(2021). Corporate branding and corporate social responsibility: Toward a multi-stakeholder interpretive perspective. Journal of Business Research, 12 6, 64–77.

47.

Maree

Wiese

(2025). Does fortune favor the brave? Brand bravery’s impact on green-and inclusive marketing. International Journal of Advertising. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2025.2466337

48.

Markovic

Iglesias

Qiu

Bagherzadeh

(2022). The CSR imperative: How CSR influences Word-of-Mouth considering the roles of authenticity and alternative attractiveness. Business and Society, 61(7), 1773–1803.

49.

Markovic

Iglesias

Singh

J. J.

Sierra

(2018). How does the perceived ethicality of corporate services brands influence loyalty and positive word-of-mouth? Analyzing the roles of empathy, affective commitment, and perceived quality. Journal of Business Ethics, 14 8(4), 721–740.

50.

Mostafa

R. B.

Kasamani

(2021). Brand experience and brand loyalty: Is it a matter of emotions? Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 33(4), 1033–1051.

51.

Ngo

L. V.

Gregory

Miller

(2022). Understanding the role of brand salience in brand choice decisions in the charity sector. Australasian Marketing Journal, 30(3), 258–270.

52.

NielsenIQ. (2023). Shaping the future: How sustainable brands and retailers can thrive in the Middle East and Africa FMCG market. https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/analysis/2023/shaping-the-future-how-sustainable-brands-and-retailers-can-thrive-in-the-middle-east-and-africa-fmcg-market/

53.

Nikhashemi

S. R.

Jebarajakirthy

Nusair

(2019). Uncovering the roles of retail brand experience and brand love in the apparel industry: Non-linear structural equation modelling approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 48, 122–135.

54.

O’Brien

R. M.

(2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.

55.

Paramita

Nhu

H. B. C.

Ngo

L. V.

Tran

Q. H. M.

Gregory

(2021). Brand experience and consumers’ social interactive engagement with brand page: An integrated-marketing perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 62, Article 102611.

56.

Parasuraman

Zeithaml

V. A.

Berry

L. L.

(1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.

57.

Park

C. W.

MacInnis

D. J.

Priester

Eisingerich

A. B.

Iacobucci

(2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1–17.

58.

Park

Kim

K. J.

Kwon

S. J.

(2017). Corporate social responsibility as a determinant of consumer loyalty: An examination of ethical standard, satisfaction, and trust. Journal of Business Research, 76, 8–13.

59.

Park

Lee

Kim

(2014). Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust and corporate reputation: South Korean consumers’ perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 67(3), 295–302.

60.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

61.

Porter

M. E.

Kramer

M. R.

(2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

62.

PwC. (2024). Voice of the consumer survey 2024. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/press-releases/2024/pwc-2024-voice-of-consumer-survey.html

63.

Saunders

Sim

Kingstone

Baker

Waterfield

Bartlam

Jinks

(2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907.

64.

Schmitt

(2012). The consumer psychology of brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 7–17.

65.

Shahid

Paul

Gilal

F. G.

Ansari

(2022). The role of sensory marketing and brand experience in building emotional attachment and brand loyalty in luxury retail stores. Psychology and Marketing, 39(7), 1398–1412.

66.

Singh

J. J.

Iglesias

Batista-Foguet

J. M.

(2012). Does having an ethical brand matter? The influence of consumer perceived ethicality on trust, affect and loyalty. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(4), 541–549.

67.

Stobierski

(2021). 15 eye-opening corporate social responsibility statistics, available at: 15 Eye-Opening Corporate Social Responsibility Statistics (hbs.edu). Retrieved February 8, 2022.

68.

Stokburger-Sauer

Ratneshwar

Sen

(2012). Drivers of consumer–brand identification. International Journal of Research In Marketing, 29(4), 406–418.

69.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Jost

J. T.

Sidanius

(Eds.), Political psychology (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.

70.

Thomassen

J. P.

Leliveld

M. C.

Ahaus

Van de Walle

(2020). Prosocial compensation following a service failure: Fulfilling an organization’s ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 162(1), 123–147.

71.

Toegel

Kilduff

Anand

(2013). Emotion helping by managers: An emergent understanding of discrepant role expectations and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 334–357.

72.

Tuškej

Golob

Podnar

(2013). The role of consumer–brand identification in building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 53–59.

73.

Upadhyay

Tuli

Kumar

(2024). Crafting inclusive marketing campaigns: Insights and influential factors in the Indian context. Australasian Marketing Journal, 32(3), 223–238.

74.

Verma

Chakraborty

Verma

(2023). Barriers of food delivery applications: A perspective from innovation resistance theory using mixed method. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 73, Article 103369.

75.

Xie

Bagozzi

R. P.

Grønhaug

(2019). The impact of corporate social responsibility on consumer brand advocacy: The role of moral emotions, attitudes, and individual differences. Journal of Business Research, 95, 514–530.

76.

Zeithaml

V. A.

Parasuraman

(2004). Service quality. Marketing Science Institute.

77.

Zeithaml

V. A.

Parasuraman

Berry

L. L.

(1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 33–46.

78.

Zhou

Wang

Zheng

Liu

(2023). Effects of brand community social responsibility: Roles of collective self-esteem and altruism. Journal of Brand Management, 30, 347–366.