Article

Clothing and Textiles

Research Journal

Culture Doesn’t Matter? 2016, Vol. 34(1) 20-36

ª The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
The Impact of Apparel sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0887302X15610010
Companies’ Corporate Social ctr.sagepub.com

Responsibility Practices
on Brand Equity

Hongjoo Woo1 and Byoungho Jin1

Abstract
Although Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a crucial issue for the apparel industry, it was lim-
itedly investigated whether consumers’ perceptions of CSR affect apparel companies’ brand equity in
previous research. The purpose of this study was (a) to examine the impact of apparel companies’ CSR
on brand equity compared to the impact of apparel product attributes; (b) to compare the relative
impact of different CSR activities (i.e., human rights, labor, social, environmental, product responsibility,
and economic) in enhancing brand equity; and (c) to discover the moderating effect of culture on the
influence of CSR on apparel brands’ equity. In testing the cultural moderating effect, the authors
selected the United States and South Korea as countries representing opposite sides of Hofstede’s
cultural values. The results of analyzing 447 survey data revealed that both intrinsic and extrinsic apparel
product attributes significantly enhance brand equity. Among the six types of CSR activities, only the
CSR practices for product responsibility, economic, and environmental issues were found to enhance
brand equity. There was no moderating effect of culture. However, additional analyses revealed that the
U.S. consumers evaluated the apparel brands’ CSR practices higher than do the Korean consumers.
Findings of this study suggest implications for apparel companies, such as the relative importance of the
specific CSR dimensions and apparel product attributes on brand equity, and if such relative importance
of CSR dimensions varies across cultures.

Keywords
corporate social responsibility, brand equity, apparel, cross-cultural

In 1996, the Kathy Lee sweatshop scandal shook up the United States by disclosing the working con-
ditions of U.S. apparel factories in Central America (NBC Dateline, 1996). Behind the fabulous

1
Department of Consumer, Apparel, and Retail Studies, Bryan School of Business and Economics, The University of North
Carolina–Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA

Corresponding Author:
Hongjoo Woo, Department of Consumer, Apparel, and Retail Studies, Bryan School of Business and Economics, The Uni-
versity of North Carolina-Greensboro, Stone 210 UNCG, Greensboro, NC 27402, USA.
Email: h_woo@uncg.edu

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

Woo and Jin 21

facade of the fashion industry, young female workers were working on sewing machines, being paid
13¢ per item while staying in packed dorm rooms. With this as a turning point, researchers began to
examine the topics of sweatshops, fair trade, and other social issues in the apparel industry (Dickson,
2000; Iwanow, McEachern, & Jeffrey, 2005; Laudal, 2010).
Against the ‘‘sweatshop’’ image, apparel companies are now investing substantial marketing
inputs to promote their social responsibility programs. The social responsibilities of companies are
part of the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which refers to the economic, legal,
ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations (Carroll, 1979). As the
Kathy Lee scandal showed, CSR has been especially important to the apparel industry due to its
labor-intensive production system (Laudal, 2010). Considering such importance, CSR issues in the
apparel industry have been approached from diverse perspectives, including supply chain manage-
ment (Abreu, Castro, Soares, & Filho, 2012; Dargusch & Ward, 2010).
However, there are important issues that have remained unanswered in the literature. First, the
overall concept of CSR in the apparel industry has yet to be sufficiently studied in general, although
CSR-related concepts such as ethical fashion and eco-friendly clothing are widely studied (Dickson,
2000; Gam, 2011). In particular, although previous researchers suggested that pursuing CSR can
influence brand values (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Maignan, Ferrell, & Hult, 1999), such influence
on apparel brands’ brand equity, compared to the impact of apparel product attributes, has been lim-
itedly examined. Considering the fact that apparel companies are investing substantial efforts in
CSR activities, the benefits of such activities on apparel brands—and whether such benefits out-
weigh those of improving an apparel product itself (i.e., apparel attributes)—could be researched.
Second, in the extant studies of CSR in the apparel industry, most are conducted from company per-
spectives (Abreu et al., 2012; Dargusch & Ward, 2010). Although a few studies were conducted on
consumers’ perceptions toward CSR (Gupta & Hodges, 2012; Kang & Hustvedt, 2014), not all CSR
dimensions were comprehensively examined in one study. Since CSR encompasses a wide range of
social issues such as human rights, labor, social, environmental, product responsibility, and eco-
nomic issues (Global Reporting Initiative [GRI] Guideline, 2011), the comparative effects of spe-
cific CSR dimensions on apparel brands’ equity could be compared. Third, although there are
cultural influences on consumers’ perceptions of CSR (Ramasamy & Yeung, 2009), limited studies
were conducted on whether the impact of CSR on apparel brands’ equity is the same across cultures.
The purpose of this study is to close these gaps in literature. Taking the consumer perspective, the objec-
tives of this study are (a) to examine the impact of apparel companies’ CSR on brand equity compared to the
impact of apparel product attributes; (b) to compare the relative impact of different CSR activities (i.e.,
human rights, labor, social, environmental, product responsibility, and economic CSR; GRI Guideline,
2011) in enhancing brand equity; and (c) to discover the moderating effect of culture on the influence of
CSR on apparel brands’ equity. In testing the cultural moderating effect, the authors selected the United
States and South Korea as countries representing opposite sides of Hofstede’s (2001) cultural values.
Among Hofstede’s cultural values are individualism/collectivism and long-term orientation/short-term
orientation (LTO/STO), both pairs of which have been examined in relation to differing CSR activities
across cultures in the literature (Ramasamy & Yeung, 2009; Williams & Zinkin, 2008). Findings of this
study will provide managerial implications for apparel brands, such as the relative importance of the specific
CSR dimensions on brand equity, and if such relative importance of CSR dimensions varies across cultures.

Literature Review
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Carroll (1979) defined CSR as the social responsibilities of business that ‘‘encompass the economic,
legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time’’

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

22 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 34(1)

Table 1. The GRI Dimensions of CSR and Previous Apparel Studies Conducted in Each Dimension.

Dimensions Human Rights Labor Social

Definition Concerns the business’
protection/violation of basic
human rights
Exemplary  Nondiscrimination
issues  Freedom of association
 Antichild labor
 Antiforced labor
 Indigenous rights
Previous Iwanow, McEachern, and
studies Jeffrey (2005)
Concerns the business’
compliance with labor
standards in workplace and
implementation of
employees’ well-being
 Compliance with labor laws
in factories
 Employee health and safety
 Training and education
Dickson (2000); Iwanow et al. Dargusch and Ward (2010);
(2005); Dargusch and Ward
(2010); Abreu, Castro,
Soares, and Filho (2012); and
Kang and Hustvedt (2014)
Concerns the business’ impacts
on the social systems within
which it operates, such as
local community and country
 Investment to local
community development
 Public welfare
 Compliance of social
regulations
 Anticorruption
Abreu et al. (2012); and
Kang and Hustvedt (2014)

Dimensions Environmental Product Responsibility Economic

Definition Concerns the business’ impacts
on natural systems related
to inputs (e.g., energy and
water) and outputs (e.g.,
emissions and waste)
Exemplary  Energy, water, and chemical
issues uses
 Biodiversity
 Emissions and wastes
 Environmental friendly
products and services
Previous Dargusch and Ward (2010);
studies Gam (2011); Abreu et al.
(2012); H. Kim, Lee, and Hur
(2012); and Lee et al. (2012)
Note. Summarized by authors based on GRI Guideline (2011). GRI ¼ Global Reporting Initiative; CSR ¼ corporate social
responsibility.
Concerns the ethics regarding Concerns the business’ impacts
the aspects of the business’ on the economic conditions
products and services that of its stakeholders and on
directly affect customers economic systems at local,
national, and global levels
 Customer health/safety  Disclosure of market
 Ethical product labeling and presence/costs/profits for
marketing communication the public
 Compliance of customer care  Ethical competition
and product regulations  Indirect contribution to the
local/national economies
Dargusch and Ward (2010) and
Abreu et al. (2012)

(p. 500). For another widely accepted definition, the World Business Council for Sustainable Devel-
opment (WBCSD) defined CSR as ‘‘the commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to
economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce as well as of the local
community and society at large’’ (WBCSD, 1999, p. 3). The essence of the CSR concept reflects the
social imperatives and the social consequences of business activities (Matten & Moon, 2008).

The dimensions of CSR. As the definition of CSR is broad and varied, efforts have been made to con-
ceptualize the categorical dimensions of CSR by capturing a variety of areas related to business.
Carroll (1979) suggested four dimensions of CSR that businesses have to fulfill: economic, legal,
ethical, and discretionary responsibilities. Garriga and Melé (2004) found that existing CSR liter-
ature falls into four territories, which are as follows: instrumental/wealth, political/social, integra-
tive, and ethical. As a more practical classification, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) offers a

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

Woo and Jin 23

framework consisting of six CSR categories: human rights, labor, social, environmental, product
responsibility, and economic (Bouten, Everaert, Liedekerke, Moor, & Christiaens, 2011). GRI is
an international nonprofit organization that provides CSR reporting services for global brands and
is endorsed by the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development (About Sustain-
ability Reporting, n.d.). Full definitions and exemplary CSR issues of the six dimensions are pro-
vided in Table 1. For instance, the human rights dimension concerns a company’s protection of
basic human rights, such as nondiscrimination, freedom of association, and antichild labor. The
labor dimension concerns the company’s compliance with labor standards in workplaces, such
as employees’ health and safety, while the social dimension is about corporate responsibilities for
local community welfare. The environmental dimension concerns issues related to water/energy
consumption and environmental protection, and product responsibility dimension points to the
ethics related to products/services that directly influence customers. Economic dimension focuses
on the contribution of business to the market and local economies (see Table 1).
Many global companies have preferred the GRI framework because of its provision of a
structured, categorized outline reducing the uncertainty of broadness in the areas of CSR
(Bouten et al., 2011; Nikolaeva & Bicho, 2011). As of 2012, 1,390 global companies, including
well-known apparel brands such as Gap, H&M, Adidas, and Inditex, reported their CSR practices
using GRI’s guidelines (Sustainability Disclosure Database, 2011). Thus, the authors adopted the
six CSR dimensions suggested by GRI.

Previous studies on CSR in the apparel industry. Noticing the importance of CSR in the apparel industry
(Laudal, 2010), many researchers in the apparel discipline discussed a variety of topics related to
CSR, such as socially responsible apparel, ethical fashion, and eco-friendly clothing. For example,
Dickson (2000) studied consumers’ purchase intentions of apparel products from socially responsi-
ble businesses. Iwanow, McEachern, and Jeffrey (2005) examined consumers’ product purchase
decisions for Gap Inc. products that were produced under the code of ethics, and Gam (2011) exam-
ined how consumers’ environmental concerns and eco-friendly behavior were related to their pur-
chase of eco-friendly clothing. Kim, Lee, and Hur (2012) explored how social norms influenced
consumers’ eco-friendly behaviors in the apparel market, and Lee, Choi, Youn, and Lee (2012)
examined how fashion retailers’ eco-friendly consumption campaigns encouraged consumers’ con-
sciousness toward green consumption. The gap existing in these studies, however, is that these
researchers did not define clear dimensions of CSR.
A few researchers conducting studies directly related to CSR in the apparel industry focused more
on company perspectives than on how consumers perceived apparel companies’ CSR practices. For
example, Dargusch and Ward (2010) studied outdoor apparel manufacturers’ integration of CSR in
their supply chain, and Abreu, Castro, Soares, and Filho (2012) examined the adoption of CSR by
textile firms. Gupta and Hodges (2012), in one of the few studies examining CSR specifically from
consumer perspectives, explored Indian consumers’ beliefs about CSR in the apparel industry. Kim
and Choi (2013) and Wesley, Lee, and Kim (2012) also examined U.S. and Korean consumers’ per-
ceptions toward CSR, but these researchers did not specify the focus as the apparel industry.
Although companies put effort into CSR with the idea that such activities will benefit their reputa-
tions as previous researchers suggested (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002; Maignan et al., 1999), limited studies
empirically revealed the impact of apparel companies’ CSR activities on brand equity. Since CSR is
especially a focal issue in the apparel industry (Laudal, 2010), the impact of CSR activities might be even
more critical to apparel brands’ equity than to brands from other industries. One of very few studies on
this is Kang and Hustvedt’s (2014); they found that footwear brands perceived to pursue labor transpar-
ency and corporate giving by consumers have increased brand equity compared to the other brands.
While Kang and Hustvedt’s work is seminal in that they examined the impact of CSR on brand equity
in the apparel discipline, they did not incorporate what dimensions of CSR activities specifically benefit

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

24 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 34(1)

brand equity. In addition, whether such apparel companies’ CSR activities are more effective on brand
equity compared to apparel product attributes has yet to be examined. Despite the importance of CSR,
product attributes were also found to have considerable influence on brand equity (Faircloth, Capella, &
Alford, 2001); therefore, it will be worthwhile to compare the effect of each.

Brand Equity
Customer-based brand equity is defined as ‘‘the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer
response to the marketing of the brand’’ (Keller, 1993, p. 1). In other words, a brand is said to have
positive (or negative) brand equity when consumers react more (or less) favorably to an element of
the marketing mix for the brand than they do for other brands (Keller, 1993).
The structure and components of brand equity were conceptualized by Aaker (1992). He defined
brand equity as a set of brand assets that create value for customers and firms (Aaker, 1992). Accord-
ing to him, brand equity consists of brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived brand (or product)
quality, brand associations, and other proprietary brand assets (Aaker, 1992). These advantageous
assets provide consumers with confidence in their purchase decisions and satisfaction with the
brand, as well as provide firms with competitive advantages, which allow them to achieve premium
prices and further brand extensions (Aaker, 1992).
Brand equity has been found as a significant predictor of a consumer’s brand preference and pur-
chase intention (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, & Donthu, 1995). Researchers in the apparel discipline also
studied brand equity adapting Aaker’s (1992) conceptualization (Faircloth et al., 2001; Farquhar, Han,
& Ijiri, 1991). However, while Kang and Hustvedt (2014) examined the effect of consumers’ percep-
tion of footwear brands’ labor transparency and corporate giving on brand equity, there are limited
empirical studies in which how apparel companies’ various CSR activities affect their brand equity.

CSR and Cultural Differences

If brands’ CSR practices affect brand equity, does such impact differ across cultures? Culture refers
to the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group from another
(Hofstede, 2001). Regarding the effect of culture on human behaviors, Hofstede’s dimensions of
national culture have been widely applied in the literature (Dutta-Bergman & Wells, 2002; Rama-
samy & Yeung, 2009; Waldman, Luque, Washburn, & House, 2006).
As CSR reflects society members’ expectations at a given time (Carroll, 1979), cultural tendencies of
the consumers within a society may shape their expectations of CSR. In fact, CSR researchers have pos-
ited that there is a cultural influence on consumers’ perception of CSR. Ramasamy and Yeung (2009)
argued that China’s collectivistic culture influenced Chinese consumers’ supportiveness of socially
responsible business and products. Williams and Zinkin (2008) compared consumers’ willingness to
punish irresponsible corporate behaviors in 28 countries, applying Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions,
and found that consumers in different countries perceived the importance of pursuing CSR differently.
However, previous researchers discussing cultural differences have focused more on how com-
panies’ adoptions of CSR differ by cultures than on the differences between consumers. For exam-
ple, Baughn, Bodie, and McIntosh (2007) found that European and U.S. companies are more likely
to pursue CSR than Asian companies. Directly applying Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions, Y.
Kim and Kim (2010) examined how Hofstede’s cultural values influenced public relations practi-
tioners’ perceptions of CSR. In addition, Waldman, Luque, Washburn, and House (2006) found that
collectivism is positively related to the corporate adoption of CSR by comparing 660 firms in 15
countries. Matten and Moon (2008) argued that an individualistic culture such as the United States
is more likely to have ‘‘explicit CSR programs,’’ a clearly articulated duty and responsibility of firms
(Matten & Moon, 2008).

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

Woo and Jin 25

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses. Note. LTO/STO: long-term orientation/short-term

orientation.

Collectively, previous CSR researchers from both consumer and corporate perspectives suggest
that people perceive CSR differently across cultures. However, very few researchers examining cul-
tural differences have focused on the apparel industry and apparel companies’ CSR practices,
although CSR is considered especially important to the apparel industry and has the potential to
increase apparel brands’ values (Laudal, 2010).

Framework and Hypotheses

Based on the above literature review, a total of 13 hypotheses were developed (see Figure 1). As
shown in Figure 1, the authors of this study examine the impacts of both apparel product attributes
(Hypothesis 1) and apparel brands’ six dimensions of CSR (Hypotheses 2a–2f) on brand equity. In
Hypotheses 3a–3f, the moderating effect of culture measured by two countries (i.e., the United
States vs. South Korea) is examined. The rationale for each hypothesis is as follows.
First, in terms of the impact of apparel product attributes on brand equity, Keller (1993) claimed
customers’ perceptions about product-related brand attributes constituted brand equity. This means
that customers’ positive perceptions of product-related attributes contributed to enhancing brand
equity (Keller, 1993). Faircloth, Capella, and Alford (2001) also found that consumer perception
of the attributes of a brand’s products influences brand attitude and brand image, which are the com-
ponents of brand equity. Therefore, consumers’ positive evaluations of a brand’s apparel product
attributes will enhance the brand’s equity.

Hypothesis 1: Consumers’ positive evaluations of a brand’s apparel product attributes

enhance brand equity.

Next, for the impact of apparel companies’ CSR practices on brand equity, Hoeffler and Keller
(2002) proposed that CSR marketing enhances brand awareness, brand image, and finally brand
equity. In addition, Torres, Bijmolt, Tribó, and Verhoef (2012) offered data showing that global
brands complying with social responsibility policies generate higher brand equity than do other

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

26 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 34(1)

brands. Kang and Hustvedt (2014) also found that the footwear brands that pursue labor transparency
and corporate giving have increased brand equity compared to the other brands that do not pursue
those. Following these, the researchers also posit that apparel companies’ CSR practices will posi-
tively affect brand equity. Specifically, this impact is examined by the six CSR dimensions following
the GRI framework to determine the relative importance of each CSR dimension on brand equity.

Hypothesis 2a: Apparel companies’ human rights CSR practices enhance brand equity.
Hypothesis 2b: Apparel companies’ labor CSR practices enhance brand equity.
Hypothesis 2c: Apparel companies’ social CSR practices enhance brand equity.
Hypothesis 2d: Apparel companies’ environmental CSR practices enhance brand equity.
Hypothesis 2e: Apparel companies’ product responsibility CSR practices enhance brand
equity.
Hypothesis 2f: Apparel companies’ economic CSR practices enhance brand equity.

Lastly, for the role of culture that moderates the relationship between CSR and brand equity, pre-
vious CSR researchers have posited that there is a cultural influence on consumers’ perceptions of
CSR (Ramasamy & Yeung, 2009). Specific hypotheses are developed for each of the six CSR
dimensions and two cultural values, individualism/collectivism and LTO/STO, that are suggested
in the literature to be relevant to cultural differences of CSR (Ramasamy & Yeung, 2009; Waldman
et al., 2006; Williams & Zinkin, 2008).
Individualism/collectivism refers to the extent that individuals view themselves linked to their
society (Dutta-Bergman & Wells, 2002). Individualistic people tend to put importance on their own
rights, personal values, and privacy more than people in collectivistic cultures (Hofstede, 2001) and
are more interested in protecting individual rights and personal values (Triandis, 1995); they would
be more concerned about human rights CSR practices than would collectivistic consumers. Indivi-
dualistic consumers would also be more concerned about labor-related CSR issues, because they
tend to care more for individual employees’ quality of life and development (e.g., health care, train-
ing, and equal opportunity; Triandis, 1995). On the other hand, collectivistic consumers who are
strongly concerned about their groups, communities, and social norms than individualists (Triandis,
1995) will be more likely to care about social CSR, such as community welfare and local environ-
mental development, than would individualists (Triandis, 1995). Based on these:

Hypothesis 3a: The positive relationship between human rights CSR and brand equity will be
stronger among individualistic consumers (the United States) than collectivistic consumers
(South Korea).
Hypothesis 3b: The positive relationship between labor CSR and brand equity will be stron-
ger among individualistic consumers (the United States) than collectivistic consumers (South
Korea).
Hypothesis 3c: The positive relationship between social CSR and brand equity will be stronger
among collectivistic consumers (South Korea) than individualistic consumers (the United States).

Next, LTO/STO refers to whether people put their importance on the present or on the future.
Because people in LTO cultures are more likely to invest, persevere, and prepare for the future
(Mooij & Hofstede, 2002), they are expected to care more about social CSR issues including invest-
ing in the local community, building schools, and other philanthropic efforts for next generations.
LTO consumers would also be more concerned about environmental CSR issues than STO

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

Woo and Jin 27

consumers, as they are suggested to be more concerned about the future environmental conse-
quences of current activities (Hofstede, 2001). STO consumers, on the other hand, may be more
interested in economic CSR as they would care more about current profitmaking and immediate con-
tributions to the economy rather than prospective investments for the future (Mooij & Hofstede,
2002). Based on the above,

Hypothesis 3d: The positive relationship between social CSR and brand equity will be stron-
ger among LTO consumers (South Korea) than STO consumers (the United States).
Hypothesis 3e: The positive relationship between environmental CSR and brand equity will
be stronger among LTO consumers (South Korea) than STO consumers (the United States).
Hypothesis 3f: The positive relationship between economic CSR and brand equity will be
stronger among STO consumers (the United States) than LTO consumers (South Korea).

Methods
Sample
The U.S. and South Korean college students aged 18 and above were selected as respondents. A total of
500 questionnaires were administered, and 447 usable responses (i.e., n ¼ 233 from the United States and
n ¼ 214 from South Korea) were entered for data analysis after eliminating incomplete responses. The
United States and South Korea were chosen for testing the moderating effect of culture because these
countries represent opposite sides with regard to individualism/collectivism and LTO/STO (i.e., the
United States ¼ 1st [highly individualistic], Korea ¼ 43rd [highly collectivistic] among 53 listed nations;
the United States ¼ 17th [highly STO], Korea ¼ 5th [highly LTO] among 23 nations; Hofstede, 2001).
A college student sample has often been criticized for its limited generalizability, but many
researchers argue that the difference between using student samples and general consumer samples
is minimal enough to be justified (Brown & Beltramini, 1989; Carpenter & Fairhurst, 2005; Khera &
Benson, 1970). In addition, college students are the specified major target of many apparel brands
(Carpenter & Fairhurst, 2005); therefore, it is worthwhile to examine the target consumer’s percep-
tion of apparel companies’ CSR. Moreover, a student sample provides a sociodemographically
homogeneous sample that is appropriate for a cross-cultural study, by controlling measurement
errors from other demographic variables such as personal income and education (Carpenter & Fair-
hurst, 2005). For these reasons, this study used a college student sample.

Data Collection
The respondents were asked to fill out the survey in a class situation and were given a course credit.
The classes were selected from various majors at universities in the Southeastern United States and
Seoul, South Korea. The questionnaire took 15–20 minutes to complete. The developed question-
naire underwent translation into Korean and then was back-translated into English by two external
bilingual adults with college degrees. They discussed the equivalency of the translations and reached
agreement after a minor editing of wordings.

Measurements
The questionnaire consisted of four sections. First, consumer evaluation of apparel product attributes
was measured following previous researchers (Jin & Kang, 2010) using the expectancy-value model
(consumers’ relative importance of each attribute was multiplied as a weight by their beliefs that a
brand provides each attribute). Here, product attributes were general product attributes for a brand,

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

28 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 34(1)

Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analyses Results.

Factor Eigen Variance Cronbach

Factor Measurement Item Loading Value Explained (%) a

Intrinsic product Durability .83 2.56 36.6 .81

attributes Comfort .81
Good quality .79
Good fit .71
Extrinsic product Latest fashion .87 1.76 25.2 .59
attributes Well-known brand .75
Reasonable price .54
Human rights/labor No use of child or forced labor .82 3.88 25.8 .93
CSR Freedom of labor union and antidiscrimination .81
Health-care benefits for employees .80
Human rights protection in factories .74
Training/education programs for employees .70
Social CSR Investment to local community welfare .72 1.26 8.4 .80
Anticorruption in business practices .56
Environmental CSR Proper uses of water and energy resources .84 2.70 17.9 .90
Pollution minimization in apparel production .78
Investment to environmental protection .77
Product Clear labeling of products for customers .85 1.69 11.3 .75
responsibility Compliance with product and customer .82
CSR care regulations
Economic CSR Contribution to the economies .83 2.64 17.6 .86
Transparent disclosure of revenue and .83
profit information
Consideration of indirect marketing impacts .75

Note. Total variances explained: apparel product attributes ¼ 61.8%; apparel brands’ CSR practices ¼ 81.0%. CSR ¼ corpo-
rate social responsibility.

not product category specific. First, respondents evaluated the importance of eight apparel product
attributes in their purchases by using a 7-point Likert-type scale (i.e., 1 ¼ not important at all to 7
¼ very important). The eight attributes, from Jin and Kang (2010), were comfort, durability, easiness
for coordination, good fit, good quality, latest fashion, reasonable price, and well-known brand. Next,
respondents were given five global apparel brands (i.e., Adidas, Nike, H&M, Gap, and Levi’s) to mea-
sure their beliefs toward a particular brand’s attributes. Those brands were chosen because they were
selected as the most active brands in CSR by two external discipline institutions (Corporate Respon-
sibility Magazine, 2012; Interbrand, 2012); therefore, the respondents were more likely to know about
those brands’ CSR practices in order to answer the survey. Respondents were asked to specify one
brand they had purchased most recently and then evaluate how much the brand was likely to provide
each of the eight attributes using a 7-point Likert-type scale (i.e., 1 ¼ very unlikely to 7 ¼ very likely).
In the second section, consumer evaluations of the selected apparel company’s CSR practices in six
dimensions were measured. A total of 18 items of CSR practices (3 for each dimension) were devel-
oped by the author based on the GRI framework (GRI Guideline, 2011). For the brand the respondents
selected in the previous section, they were asked ‘‘how much the brand performs each of the following
CSR practices’’ on a 7-point Likert-type scale (i.e., 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree).
Examples of CSR practices were ‘‘human rights protection in factories (human rights/labor dimen-
sion)’’ and ‘‘proper uses of water and energy resources (environmental dimension).’’
In the third section, consumers’ brand equity toward the selected brand was measured. Yoo and
Donthu’s (2001) 14 brand equity items measuring brand equity were provided using a 7-point

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

Woo and Jin 29

Table 3. Hypotheses 1–2 Testing Results.

Independent Variable R2 F b t-Value VIF

The individual impacts of apparel product attributes and CSR: two multiple regression
H1
Intrinsic apparel product attributesa .47 61.7 .195 4.46*** 1.1
Extrinsic apparel product attributesb .372 8.50*** 1.1
H2
H2a/b. Human rights/labor CSRc .50 29.5 .107 1.63 2.6
H2c. Social CSR .066 .98 2.7
H2d. Environmental CSR .195 3.18** 2.2
H2e. Product responsibility CSR .301 6.23*** 1.4
H2f. Economic CSR .275 4.50*** 2.2
The comparable impacts of apparel product attributes and CSR: one multiple regression
Intrinsic attributesa .34 31.9 .118 2.78** 1.2
Extrinsic attributesb .273 6.38*** 1.2
Human rights/labor CSRc .132 2.12* 2.6
Social CSR .063 0.99 2.7
Environmental CSR .169 2.90** 2.2
Product responsibility CSR .236 5.01*** 1.5
Economic CSR .221 3.78*** 2.3

Note. Dependent variable: brand equity. VIF ¼ variance inflation factor; H1 ¼ Hypothesis 1; H2 ¼ Hypothesis 2; CSR ¼ cor-
porate social responsibility.
a
Intrinsic attributes (i.e., comfort, durability, good fit, and good quality). bExtrinsic attributes (i.e., latest fashion, reasonable
price, and well-known brand). cHuman rights and labor CSR dimensions were combined as a factor through the exploratory
factor analysis.
***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

Likert-type scale (i.e., 1 ¼ strongly disagree to 7 ¼ strongly agree). The reported reliabilities of
items were acceptable (all Cronbach a  .78; Yoo & Donthu, 2001). In the final section, respondents
provided demographic information (age and gender).

Factor Analysis and Reliability Check

With collected data, exploratory factor analyses and reliability checks were conducted on two measures
(see Table 2). For consumer evaluation of apparel product attributes, two factors were revealed after
removing 1 cross-loaded item (i.e., easiness of coordination): intrinsic attributes (i.e., durability, com-
fort, good quality, and good fit) and extrinsic attributes (i.e., latest fashion, well-known brand, and rea-
sonable price; total variance explained ¼ 62%). The reliability was acceptable for intrinsic attributes
(Cronbach’s a ¼ .81), and while somewhat low for extrinsic attributes (.59), was still close to the criter-
ion of .60 (Malhotra, 2010). For the consumer evaluations of a brand’s CSR activities, after removing the
3 items with low factor loadings, five factors were found: human rights/labor, environmental, economic,
product responsibility, and social CSR dimensions (total variance explained ¼ 81%). Human rights and
labor dimensions were combined because the items were assigned to the same factor. Cronbach a for all
five factors were acceptable, ranging from .75 to .93.

Findings
Among the 447 usable responses (i.e., n ¼ 233 from the United States and n ¼ 214 from South
Korea), 72% of the total sample (n ¼ 321) was female, and 28% (n ¼ 126) was male. The average
age of the respondents was 21.6 (the United States ¼ 20.3 and South Korea ¼ 22.9).

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

30 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 34(1)

Table 4. Hypothesis 3 Testing Results.

Independent Variable R2 F F change Significance

Moderating effect of culture: moderated regressiona

H3a/b. Human rights/labor CSRb Model 1 .08 38.6 38.6 .00
Model 2 .14 35.0 29.0 .00
Model 3 .14 23.4 0.1 .71
H3c/d. Social CSR Model 1 .10 49.7 49.7 .00
Model 2 .16 42.6 32.0 .00
Model 3 .16 29.0 1.7 .19
H3e. Environmental CSR Model 1 .11 52.4 52.4 .00
Model 2 .17 46.3 36.1 .00
Model 3 .18 31.5 1.6 .20
H3f. Economic CSR Model 1 .17 90.2 92.2 .00
Model 2 .22 61.5 27.5 .00
Model 3 .22 42.1 0.5 .48

Note. H3 ¼ Hypothesis 3; CSR ¼ corporate social responsibility.

a
Equations used for the moderated regression are:
Model 1: y ¼ b0 þ b1 x
Model 2: y ¼ b0 þ b1 x þ b2 z
Model 3: y ¼ b0 þ b1 x þ b2 z þ b3 xz
y ¼ dependent variable (i.e., brand equity); x ¼ independent (predictor) variable (i.e., consumer evaluations of the apparel
brand’s CSR practices); z ¼ independent (moderator) variable (i.e., culture as a dummy variable; the United States and
Korea); b0 ¼ intercept; and b1 ¼ regression coefficient.
b
Human rights and labor CSR dimensions were combined as a factor through the exploratory factor analysis.

In order to test Hypotheses 1 and 2, two separate multiple regression analyses were conducted
to examine the solo impacts of each (i.e., apparel product attributes and CSR) on brand equity
(see Table 3). There was no multicollinearity issue in the regression models (variance inflation
factors < 10; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). As Table 3 shows, Hypothesis 1, the pos-
itive impact of consumer evaluations of apparel product attributes on brand equity is supported.
Both intrinsic (i.e., comfort, durability, good fit, and good quality) and extrinsic (i.e., latest fash-
ion, reasonable price, and well-known brand) attributes positively influenced brand equity. Com-
parably, extrinsic attributes affected brand equity more than intrinsic attributes did (extrinsic b ¼
.372 >; intrinsic b ¼ .195). Next, Hypotheses 2a–2f, which examined the impact of apparel
brands’ six CSR dimensions on brand equity, were partially supported. As Table 3 shows, only
three CSR dimensions of environment, product responsibility, and economics had a positive
effect on brand equity supporting Hypotheses 2d–2f. The effect was greatest for product respon-
sibility (b ¼ .301), followed by economic (b ¼ .275) and environmental (b ¼ .195) dimensions.
Because the other three dimensions did not significantly enhance brand equity, Hypotheses 2a–2c
are not supported.
Furthermore, to compare the relative influence of apparel product attributes and CSR on brand
equity, another multiple regression was conducted by entering apparel product attributes and CSR
factors together as independent variables into one regression model. As Table 3 displays, the impact
of extrinsic apparel product attributes was the greatest (b ¼ .273), followed by product responsibility
CSR (b ¼ .236), economic CSR (b ¼ .221), environmental CSR (b ¼ .169), and the intrinsic product
attributes (b ¼ .118). Human rights/labor CSR had the smallest and unexpected negative impact
(b ¼ .132), and the influence of social CSR was not significant.
Lastly, moderated regression analyses were performed to test the moderating effect of culture
(Hypothesis 3). The interaction terms between independent variables and the moderating variable

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

Woo and Jin 31

(i.e., the United States and South Korea as dummy variables) were created, and F changes were
observed by Models 1–3. The final effect of moderators was determined by comparing the sig-
nificance of F change between Models 2 and 3. As presented in Table 4, F changes in Model 3
were not significant across all independent variables, not supporting Hypotheses 3a–3f.
However, additional independent sample t-tests conducted to compare U.S. and South Korean
consumers’ evaluations for the five dimensions of CSR activities revealed significant results. That
is, U.S. respondents tended to give higher scores for all five dimensions of apparel companies’ CSR
practices than South Korean respondents did (U.S. means ¼ 4.37–5.90; South Korea means ¼ 3.94–
5.22; t ¼ 4.12–7.29; p < .001).

Discussion of Major Findings

First, the finding of Hypothesis 1 reveals that consumers’ positive evaluations of apparel product
attributes enhance brand equity. This supports Keller (1993) who posited that consumers’ positive
perception of a brand’s product attributes improves brand equity. Specifically, the authors found that
brand equity was more positively affected by the extrinsic attributes of apparel products such as
brand name, price, and fashionableness than it was by the intrinsic attributes. This might be related
to the sample of this study (i.e., college students), as Shim and Bickle (1994) found that young con-
sumers seek fashion image and social status from brands as the major benefits from clothing rather
than its functional attributes.
Hypothesis 2, testing the positive impacts of apparel brands’ CSR on brand equity, is par-
tially supported; product responsibility, economic, and environmental CSR practices of apparel
brands enhanced brand equity. This result is consistent with Hoeffler and Keller (2002) and
Torres et al. (2012) who suggested that brands’ CSR increases brand equity but is inconsistent
with Kang and Hustvedt (2014) who found that only labor transparency (similar to our labor
dimension) and corporate giving (similar to our social dimension) increase brand equity, as
those two dimensions were not significant in our study. Beyond that, this study further revealed
how three specific CSR aspects enhance brand equity (i.e., product responsibility, economic,
and environmental CSR). Among three dimensions, the impact of product responsibility CSR
was the greatest by implying that the brands’ most important responsibility for consumers in
enhancing brand equity is related to the product itself, such as providing reliable products and
treating customers well.
The comparison of the impacts of product attributes and CSR on brand equity revealed that appa-
rel product attributes contribute to enhancing brand equity more strongly than CSR activities do. In
other words, the brand, price, and fashionableness of products (i.e., extrinsic attributes) were found
to be more important for the respondents in improving brand equity. However, as shown in Table 2,
the negative influence of human rights/labor CSR on brand equity was unexpected because it means
that brands’ human rights/labor CSR practices lower brand equity. This might be because the
respondents, as consumers, considered human rights/labor CSR as something more beneficial to the
brands’ own employees than to the consumers themselves, thereby evaluating the product responsi-
bility CSR, including customer care, as more important than the human rights/labor CSR to brand
equity.
Although previous researchers suggested cultural differences in consumers’ CSR perceptions
(Matten & Moon, 2008; Williams & Zinkin, 2008), Hypothesis 3, testing the moderating effects
of culture, was not supported. This indicates that the impact of three supported CSR dimen-
sions—product responsibility, environmental, and economic CSR—on brand equity was significant
for both U.S. and South Korean consumers regardless of culture. A possible reason for the cultural
moderating effect not being significant could be the presumption of the moderator. A moderator is
the function of the presumed relationship between independent (i.e., CSR) and dependent (i.e., brand

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

32 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 34(1)

equity) variables (James & Brett, 1984); therefore, moderating effects were not found because the
positive relationship between CSR and brand equity was not fully supported in Hypothesis 2. As
another possibility, some researchers recently suggested measuring consumers’ cultural tendencies
at an individual level beyond Hofstede’s division (McSweeney, 2002). The cultural differences mea-
sured by the respondents’ nationalities in this study might not be sufficient to capture the moderating
effect of culture.
Thought not caused by moderators, additional t-test results revealed that U.S. consumers evalu-
ated the given apparel companies’ CSR activities more positively than did South Korean consumers.
This result matches with Baughn et al.’s (2007), who explained that Asian countries’ CSR awareness
and perception are lower than that of the United States. According to Chapple and Moon (2005), this
might be because the concept of CSR originated in Western countries.
In conclusion, the authors found that pursuing product responsibility, economic, and environmen-
tal CSR benefits enhances apparel brands’ equity. However, extrinsic apparel product attributes
were still more important than CSR practices for consumers in improving brand equity. The three
supported CSR dimensions were effective on brand equity among both U.S. and South Korean con-
sumers, without a moderating effect of culture.

Implications and Limitations

This study provides theoretical implications by closing the research gaps in three ways. First,
few researchers have examined the impacts of each CSR dimension on apparel brands’ equity,
particularly compared to the impact of apparel product attributes. This study demonstrated how
five CSR dimensions are effective for apparel brand equity compared to intrinsic and extrinsic
apparel product attributes. Second, few researchers have defined the specific dimensions of
CSR areas related to the apparel industry. The authors adopted GRI’s six internationally
accepted dimensions (Bouten et al., 2011; Nikolaeva & Bicho, 2011) and empirically examined
what specific dimensions influenced brand equity. Third, although the apparel industry is
highly global, few researchers have examined consumers’ perception of apparel brands’ CSR
cross-culturally. While the authors did not find a moderating effect of culture, it is hoped this
study will spark more research comparing how consumers perceive apparel brands’ CSR across
cultures.
This study also provides managerial implications. First, apparel companies are currently invest-
ing considerable inputs to promoting their goodwill through CSR marketing. These inputs can be
effectively managed if they are assigned to the right CSR programs. Since product responsibility
CSR was found to be the most important in enhancing brand equity, brand managers may assign
priority to managing product-related issues, such as ethical product labeling and compliance with
customer health and safety regulations. Since economic and environmental CSR activities were dis-
covered to be the second and the third most important, companies may also manage their economic
and environmental CSR by such practices as contributing to the local economy and developing
environmentally friendly products.
Second, although aforementioned CSR dimensions were found to be effective in enhancing brand
equity, extrinsic apparel product attributes such as the latest fashion, reasonable price, and well-
known brand name were still found to be more important in enhancing brand equity than those CSR
dimensions. Therefore, apparel companies should not ignore the importance of such basic product
attributes as key components in improving brand equity and should maintain managing the product
attributes while addressing the increasing needs of CSR.
Third, no moderating effect of culture found in this study indicates that the three supported CSR
practices (i.e., product responsibility, economic, and environmental CSR) are effective in improving
brand equity among both U.S. and South Korean consumers. However, because South Korean

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

Woo and Jin 33

consumers evaluated the given apparel companies’ CSR practices less positively than the U.S. con-
sumers did, more marketing efforts may be needed to increase South Korean consumers’ awareness
of what apparel companies are currently doing.
However, some limitations still exist. First, since the authors focused only on young consumers in
two countries (i.e., the United States and South Korea), further studies are deemed necessary for
other countries, consumer segments, and brands. The authors also examined the general apparel
product attributes of brands to examine those impacts on brand equity, but in the future researchers
may specify and compare apparel product categories. Moreover, although the authors examined the
outcome of CSR for brand equity, other researchers may examine the influence of original brand
equity on consumers’ perception toward the brands’ CSR. In addition, cultural tendencies such as
individualism/collectivism may be measured at the individual consumer level in future studies as
some researchers have suggested (McSweeney, 2002).

Acknowledgments
We appreciate the editors and the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note
1. This paper is a part of Woo, H. (2013). Do consumers want a ‘‘good’’ apparel brand? The effects of apparel
brands’ Corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices on brand equity moderated by culture (Unpublished
master’s thesis). The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC.

References
Aaker, D. A. (1992). The value of brand equity. Journal of Business Strategy, 13, 27–32.
About Sustainability Reporting. (n.d.). GRI: Empowering sustainable decisions. Retrieved from https://www.
globalreporting.org/information/sustainability-reporting/Pages/default.aspx
Abreu, M. C. S., Castro, F., Soares, F. A., & Filho, J. C. L. S. (2012). A comparative understanding of corporate
social responsibility of textile firms in Brazil and China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20, 119–126.
Baughn, C. C., Bodie, N. L., & McIntosh, J. C. (2007). Corporate social and environmental responsibility in
Asian countries and other geographical regions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Man-
agement, 14, 189–205.
Bouten, L., Everaert, P., Liedekerke, L. V., Moor, L. D., & Christiaens, J. (2011). Corporate social responsi-
bility reporting: A comprehensive picture? Accounting Forum, 35, 187–204.
Brown, S. P., & Beltramini, R. F. (1989). Consumer complaining and word of mouth activities: Field evidence.
Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 9–16.
Carpenter, J. M., & Fairhurst, A. (2005). Consumer shopping value, satisfaction, and loyalty for retail apparel
brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9, 256–269.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 4, 497–505.
Chapple, W., & Moon, J. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR
web site reporting. Business & Society, 44, 415–441.
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference, and purchase intent.
Journal of Advertising, 24, 25–40.

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

34 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 34(1)

Corporate Responsibility Magazine. (2012). Business ethics annual award winners: 1989-2006. Retrieved from
http://www.thecro.com/topics/business-ethics/business-ethics-annual-award-winners-1989-2006/
Dargusch, P., & Ward, A. (2010). Understanding corporate social responsibility with the integration of supply
chain management in outdoor apparel manufacturers in North America and Australia. International Journal
of Business and Management Science, 3, 93–105.
Dickson, M. A. (2000). Personal values, beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes relating to intentions to pur-
chase apparel from socially responsible businesses. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 18,
19–30.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J., & Wells, W. D. (2002). The values and lifestyles of idiocentrics and allocentrics in an
individualist culture: A descriptive approach. Journal of Consumers Psychology, 12, 231–242.
Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M., & Alford, B. L. (2001). The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand
equity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9, 61–75.
Farquhar, P. H., Han, J. Y., & Ijiri, Y. (1991). Recognizing and measuring brand assets (Working Paper Series
Report 91-119). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Gam, H. (2011). Are fashion-conscious consumers more likely to adopt eco-friendly clothing? Journal of
Fashion Marketing and Management, 15, 178–193.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of
Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.
Global Reporting Initiative Guideline of Sustainability Reporting. (2011). Version 3.1. Retrieved from https://
www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/G3.1-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-Protocol.pdf
Gupta, M., & Hodges, N. (2012). Corporate social responsibility in the apparel industry: An exploration of Indian
consumers’ perceptions and expectations. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16, 216–233.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, 21, 78–89.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations
across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Interbrand. (2012). Best global green brands 2012. Retrieved from http://www.lebensmittelzeitung.net/studien/
pdfs/437_.pdf
Iwanow, H., McEachern, M. G., & Jeffrey, A. (2005). The influence of ethical trading policies on consumer
apparel purchase decisions: A focus on the Gap Inc. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Manage-
ment, 33, 371–387.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 69, 307.
Jin, B., & Kang, J. H. (2010). Face or subjective norm? Chinese college students’ purchase behaviors toward
foreign brand jeans. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 28, 218–233.
Kang, J., & Hustvedt, G. (2014). The contribution of perceived labor transparency and perceived corporate
giving to brand equity in the footwear industry. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 32, 296–311.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of
Marketing, 57, 1–22.
Khera, I., & Benson, J. (1970). Are students really poor substitutes for businessmen in behavioral research?
Journal of Marketing Research, 7, 529–532.
Kim, S., & Choi, M.-I. (2013). A comparison of young publics’ evaluations of corporate social responsibility
practices of multinational corporations in the United States and South Korea. Journal of Business Ethics,
113, 105–118.
Kim, Y., & Kim, S.-Y. (2010). The influence of cultural values on perceptions of corporate social responsi-
bility: Application of Hofstede’s dimensions to Korean public relations practitioners. Journal of Business
Ethics, 91, 485–500.

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

Woo and Jin 35

Kim, H., Lee, E. J., & Hur, W. M. (2012). The normative social influence on eco-friendly consumer behavior:
The moderating effect of environmental marketing claims. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30,
4–18.
Laudal, T. (2010). An attempt to determine the CSR potential of the international clothing business. Journal of
Business Ethics, 96, 63–77.
Lee, N., Choi, Y. J., Youn, C., & Lee, Y. (2012). Does green fashion retailing make consumers more eco-
friendly? The influence of green fashion products and campaigns on green consciousness and behavior.
Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30, 67–82.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. (1999). Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business
benefits. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 455–469.
Malhotra, N. K. (2010). Marketing research: An applied orientation (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). ‘‘Implicit’’ and ‘‘explicit’’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a com-
parative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33,
404–424.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of
faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55, 89–118.
Mooij, M., & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence in consumer behavior: Implications for inter-
national retailing. Journal of Retailing, 78, 61–69.
NBC Dateline (YouTube). (1996, June 4). Dateline NBC sweatshops Kathy Lee scandal [Video]. Available
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼zCszZ5lwAgA.
Nikolaeva, R., & Bicho, M. (2011). The role of institutional and reputational factors in the voluntary adoption
of corporate social responsibility reporting standards. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39,
136–157.
Ramasamy, B., & Yeung, M. (2009). Chinese consumers’ perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 119–132.
Shim, S., & Bickle, M. C. (1994). Benefit segments of the female apparel market: Psychographics, shopping
orientations, and demographics. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 1–12.
Sustainability Disclosure Database. (2011). GRI: Empowering sustainable decisions. Retrieved from http://
database.globalreporting.org
Torres, A., Bijmolt, T. H., Tribó, J. A., & Verhoef, P. (2012). Generating global brand equity through cor-
porate social responsibility to key stakeholders. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29,
13–24.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism: New directions in social psychology. New York, NY:
Westview Press.
Waldman, D. A., Luque, M. S., Washburn, N., & House, R. J. (2006). Cultural and leadership predictors of
corporate social responsibility values of top management: A GLOBE study of 15 countries. Journal of
International Business Studies, 37, 823–837.
Wesley, S. C., Lee, M., & Kim, E. Y. (2012). The role of perceived consumer effectiveness and motivational
attitude on socially responsible purchasing behavior in South Korean. Journal of Global Marketing, 25,
29–44.
Williams, G., & Zinkin, J. (2008). The effect of culture on consumers’ willingness to punish irresponsible cor-
porate behavior: Applying Hofstede’s typology to the punishment aspect of corporate social responsibility.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 17, 210–226.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Meet-
ing changing expectations. Geneva, Switzerland: World Business Council for Sustainable
Development.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity
scale. Journal of Business Research, 52, 1–14.

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016

36 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 34(1)

Author Biographies
Hongjoo Woo is a doctoral student in the Department of Consumer, Apparel, and Retail Studies at the Univer-
sity of North Carolina–Greensboro.

Byoungho Jin is a Putman and Hayes distinguished professor in the Department of Consumer, Apparel, and
Retail Studies at the University of North Carolina–Greensboro. Her research interests center on international
apparel merchandising, cross-cultural consumer and retail studies, supply chain management in apparel indus-
try, and competitiveness of the apparel industry in global markets.

Downloaded from ctr.sagepub.com at CMU Libraries - library.cmich.edu on January 3, 2016