Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility On Customer Loyalty Behaviors: Evidence From Vietnam

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY

-----------------------
NGO THANH THANH HUYEN
IMPACT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON CUSTOMER
LOYALTY BEHAVIORS: EVIDENCE
FROM VIETNAM
MASTER'S THESIS
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Hanoi, 2020
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY
------------------------
NGO THANH THANH HUYEN
IMPACT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY ON CUSTOMER
LOYALTY BEHAVIORS: EVIDENCE
FROM VIETNAM
MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

CODE: 8340101.1
RESEARCH SUPERVISORS:
Prof. TOHRU INOUE
Dr. TRAN THI BICH HANH
Hanoi, 2020
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
To finish the process of researching and complete this graduation project, there are no
words to express my gratitude to Professor. Tohru Inoue and Dr. Tran Thi Bich Hanh
who accompanied me and guided me directly during this time. Thank you for not
hesitating to help me a lot, from topic suggestions to how to do the topic even though
you are very busy with your task. Without your help, I could not to get very useful advice
and could not go in the right direction. I would like to choose this moment in order to
acknowledge their contribution gratefully.
On this occasion, I am very impatient for showing my appreciation to all staffs at

Vietnam Japan University- Vietnam National University in particular for creating
conditions and time for me during the course. Especially, I am extremely grateful to Mrs.
Nguyen Thi Huong for giving me needed information and answered all my questions
during the period of working on this project.
Besides, my family, relatives and friends are very worthy to receive thanks from the
bottom of my heart for always stood by and encouraged me to finish the graduation thesis
and all participants who help me complete my survey.
Lastly, I am so grateful for great learning environment and opportunities that Vietnam
Japan University and Yokohama National University have brought for me. Thanks to
these, I have improved myself a lot.
Sincerely,
Ngo Thanh Thanh Huyen

ABSTRACT
The study investigated how corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance including
towards society, environment and stakeholders affect brand likeability and relational
switching cost. Concurrently, the relationship between brand likeability and relational
switching cost and customer loyalty behaviors including word-of-mouth and repurchase
intention. The study’s sample size is 212 responses from Vietnamese respondents. The
hypotheses are tested by regression analysis through SPSS software. The findings show
CSR practice affects brand likeability and relational switching cost. However, the effect
is different in term of degree. When looking into the relationship between CSR
dimensions and brand likeability, CSR towards stakeholders is a more significant
predictor than others while CSR towards environment and society are supposed to have
more remarkable impact on relational switching cost. Additionally, brand likeability and
relational switching cost positively affect word of mouth and repurchase intention. Brand
likeability has more significant influence on word of mouth while both brand likeability
and relational switching cost affect nearly equally repurchase intention.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1

1.1. Background and necessary of the research .................................................. 1
1.2. The research objectives ................................................................................. 3
1.3. Research questions ........................................................................................ 3
1.4. Research scope ............................................................................................... 3
1.5. Research structure ........................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT 5
2.1 Corporate social responsibility (CSR) .......................................................... 5
2.2 Customer loyalty behaviors ........................................................................ 11
2.3 CSR performance and brand likeability. ................................................... 12
2.4 CSR performance and relational switching cost ........................................ 16
2.5 Brand likeability on Word-of-mouth and Repurchase intention. ............. 19
2.6 Relational switching cost on Word-of-mouth and Repurchase intention. 20
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................... 23
3.1 Research design ........................................................................................... 23
3.2 Sampling ...................................................................................................... 24
3.3 Data collection process ................................................................................ 25
3.4 Questionnaire design ................................................................................... 25
3.5 Data analysis ................................................................................................ 28
CHAPTER 4: DATA PRESENTATION AND FINDINGS ................................... 31
4.1 Data description .......................................................................................... 31
4.2 Reliability analysis ....................................................................................... 35
4.3 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) ............................................................. 36
4.3.1 EFA of CSR scale .................................................................................. 36
4.3.2 EFA of Brand Likeability scale ............................................................. 39
4.3.3 EFA of Relational Switching cost scale ................................................. 41
4.3.4 EFA of WOM scale ................................................................................ 42
4.3.5 EFA of Repurchase Intention scale ....................................................... 43
4.4 Regression analysis results .......................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 5: RESULT DISCUSSION ................................................................... 49
5.1 Result discussion.......................................................................................... 49
5.2 Contributions of the research ..................................................................... 52
5.2.1 Theoretical contribution ........................................................................ 52
5.2.2 Practical contribution ............................................................................ 53
5.3 Limitations and future research direction ................................................. 55
REFERENCE ........................................................................................................... 57
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Measurement items ................................................................................. 26

Table 3.2: Likert scale for Agreement extent .......................................................... 28
Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of 212 respondents ............................................... 31
Table 4.2: Samples’ demographic data ................................................................... 32
Table 4.3: Summary of retailing companies ............................................................ 34
Table 4.4: Reliability statistic of all scales ............................................................... 36
Table 4.5: EFA for CSR scale – 1st test .................................................................... 36
Table 4.6: Rotated components matrix for CSR scale - 1st test ............................. 37
Table 4.7: EFA for CSR scale – 2nd test ................................................................... 38
Table 4.8: Rotated components matrix for CSR scale - 2nd test ............................ 38
Table 4.9: EFA for Brand Likeability scale ............................................................ 39
Table 4.10: Component matrix for Brand Likeability scale ................................... 40
Table 4.11: EFA for Relational Switching cost scale .............................................. 41
Table 4.12: Component matrix for Relational Switching Cost scale ..................... 41
Table 4.13: EFA for WOM scale ............................................................................. 42
Table 4.14: Component matrix for WOM scale ...................................................... 42
Table 4.15: EFA for Repurchase Intention scale .................................................... 43
Table 4.16: Component matrix for Repurchase Intention ..................................... 43
Table 4.17: Correlations ........................................................................................... 45
Table 4.18: Collinearity Statistics ............................................................................ 45
Table 4.19: Regression analysis coefficients ............................................................ 46
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Proposed theoretical model ................................................................... 22

Figure 3.1: Research process proposed by the author ............................................ 23
Figure 4.3: Retailing companies distribution .......................................................... 34
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background and necessary of the research
Retailing alluded to direct sale of goods to the ultimate consumers who do not
commercialize or reselling. In the other words, these products or services are just for
their own use. There are many different types of retailing organizations such as
independent stores, conjoint retailers, hypermarkets, chain stores or shopping malls.
Retailing activities could be directly related many environmental issues such as “energy
and water consumption, waste, the volume of packaging, land use, and transportation,
the use of chemicals by suppliers and offering genetically modified food” (Martinuzzi,
et al., 2011). Additionally, retailing is an intensely competitive market. Therefore,
maintaining repurchase behavior of customers is very important to retailing companies.
Especially in the case that costs of attracting and getting new customer are estimated to
6 times as big as retaining the existing ones (Huddleston, et al., 2004). Moreover,
customer loyalty can benefit firms by an increase in loyal customers’ spending and
appealing potential customers through oral communication among people (Curasi &
Kennedy, 2002). At the same time, customers are believed to be unlikely to purchase
products or service which has low or unacceptable corporate social performance
(Castaldo & Perrini, 2004) and they expect the brand they are going to buy product or
service to meet some certain minimum level of social performance as well (Meijer &
Schuyt, 2005). In this case, CSR is considered as integral value when customers make
purchase decision. In other words, retailing companies are supposed to implement their
social responsibilities as a corporate citizen so that they can create their positive public
image and opinion (Jones, et al., 2007) besides their purpose of economic gain.
Vietnamese retailing industry has been thriven consecutively and impressively over the
recent years (McKinsey & Company, 2019) .This is so fascinating an emerging market
that the flock of foreign investors would like to jump into. According to Vietnamese
1
General Statistics Office, in 2019, retailing sales of goods reached nearly USD $ 162
billion, accounting for 75.9% of the total and increasing by 12.7% compared to 2018. In
2018, retailing sales Vietnam's goods were estimated at nearly 143 billion USD which
increased by 12.4% over the previous year. In 2017, it was nearly 130 billion USD which
increased by 10.9%. In 2016, retailing sales reached about USD 118 billion, increasing
by 10.2% compared to USD 110 billion of 2015. Along with the impressive growth rate,
the fact that the Vietnamese retailing market fully opened to allow foreign enterprises to
invest 100% capital since January 11, 2015 and the signing of a series of new generation
of Free Trade Agreements have led to fierce competition between retail supermarket
systems in Vietnam market with the arrival of many large enterprises from abroad such
as Lotte, K Mart , Central Group, Aeon, , Auchan, Family Mart or Circle K. Therefore,
maintaining repurchase behavior of customers and efforts to differentiate itself from
others are very important to retailing companies in Vietnam now. In the current context
of Vietnam, many businesses are not paying attention to their social responsibility, which
includes frauds in business, production of poor quality goods or intentionally causing
environmental pollution have made many customers annoyed (Hoang, 2019). Whereas,
customers are believed to be unlikely to purchase products or service which has low
corporate social performance (Meijer & Schuyt, 2005). Therefore, executing social
responsibilities is an effective marketing tool and an indispensable condition for retailing
companies in Vietnam in term of creating positive opinion (Jones, et al., 2007) and
meeting customers’ certain minimum level of social engagement (Meijer & Schuyt,
2005) which in turn can help them increase loyal customers’ spending, appeal potential
consumers through WOM communication (Curasi & Kennedy, 2002) and make
themselves become more outstanding relative to their competitors (Porter & Kramer,
2007) through enhancing customer loyalty (Martínez & Bosque, 2013).
Additionally, CSR has gotten lots of attention from researchers and become a main topic
in customer behavior literature (Amatulli, et al., 2018). In addition to literature which
2
explained the direct influence of CSR on customer behaviors, many researchers made
their effort to explain the effect of CSR initiatives on customer behaviors through many
different routes such as the enhancement of satisfaction, valuation of service,
identification, trust, corporate image, reputation, commitment, perceived value or social
media engagement. However, the impact of CSR on “brand likeability” and “relational
switching cost” and ultimately on customer loyalty behaviors are underexplored.
Therefore, exploring these relationships is essential and is going to be conducted in this
research.
1.2. The research objectives
The research aims at exploring the chain effect of CSR on brand likeability as well as
relational switching cost and ultimately on customer loyalty behaviors. Also, the study
provides the Vietnamese companies with managerial implication.
1.3. Research questions
The thesis is answering the questions as follows:
1. How significant do CSR dimensions (environment, society, stakeholders) affects

brand likeability which in turn impacts on customer loyalty behaviors (word of
mouth and repurchase intention) ?
2. How significant do CSR dimensions (environment, society, stakeholders) impact
on relational switching cost which in turn impacts on customer loyalty behaviors
(word of mouth and repurchase intention) ?
1.4. Research scope
The research focuses on CSR dimensions (environment, society, stakeholders) and

customer loyalty behaviors ( word of mouth and repurchase intention) in Vietnamese
context. Also, the sample was collected in Hanoi, the capital of Vietnam in the period
from the end of 2019 to 2020.
3
1.5. Research structure
This study will be split into five parts as follows:
- Chapter 1: Introduction
 The general overview of research including necessity, objectives, questions
and scope are briefly presented.
- Chapter 2: Literature review and hypothesis development
 The theoretical framework will be presented in detail by displaying the
fundamental concept and explaining the relationship of key variables. From
that, the hypothesis will be developed.
- Chapter 3: Research methodology
 Data collection and analysis plan as well as questionnaire designing is about
to be shown.
- Chapter 4: Data presentation and findings
 Data description will be shown. Also, the results of data analysis and
hypothesis test that are taken from SPSS software will be presented.
- Chapter 5: Discussions and conclusion
 Answers for the questions which are mentioned in chapter 1 will be revealed.
Besides, the findings will be discussed and from that some suggestions are
about to be shown. Moreover, limitations as well as future research direction
are being mentioned.
4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESIS
DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
Corporate social responsibility is not really a new concept but it is still an academic and
management subject that receives a lot of growing attention (Maon, et al., 2010; Peloza
& Shang, 2011) since it was first mentioned by Sheodon (1923) in his work and first
formally defined by (Howard Bowen, 1953). CSR is defined as “the commitment of
business to contribute to sustainable economic development working with employees,
their families, the local community and society to improve their quality of life in ways
that are good for both business and good for development.” Moreover, there have been
37 definitions of CSR published (Dahlsrud, 2008) and a lot of research have been done
to bring a better understanding of CSR concept.
Although there are not any CSR definitions that are universally recognized (Freeman &
Hasnaoui, 2011), most defined CSR as multidimensional concept (Rowley & Berman,
2000). The most well-known CSR concept was introduced by Carroll (1991), which
suggested pyramid of CSR including economic, legal, ethical as well as philanthropic.
According to Carroll’s work (1991), he supposed that businesses initially need to fulfill
their economic responsibilities by providing the goods and services that customers
demand and earning acceptable profits because it is almost the basic condition for
businesses to perform their other responsibilities. Many authors accepted this definition
and some found out the positive relationship between economic CSR and customer
satisfaction (Akroush, 2012). Legal dimension of CSR referred to the corporates’
responsibilities of doing business within the framework of the law and regulations that
promulgated by the government (Carroll, 1991). There are some researches that
supported the positive link of legal CSR with customer satisfaction which led to an
increase in customer retention such as Nareeman and Hassan (2013). Carroll (1991)
5
supposed ethical dimension of CSR to be responsibilities including acknowledged
standards, norms or expectations in society. Most of the previous studies indicated that
the companies behaving ethically can improve the customers’ satisfaction and retention
(Galbreath, 2010; Hassan & Nareeman, 2013). According to Carroll & Shabana’s work
(2010), philanthropic dimension of CSR contains all activities of the companies in effort
to improve that the companies are good corporate citizen, which is society’s expectation.
Contributing to better community would make business become their preference (Jamali
& Mirshak, 2007). Lev, et al., (2010) revealed that firms involving in charitable
contribution would increase their customer retention.
Similarly, Maignan, et al., (1999) also considered CSR as multidimensional concept with
“economic, legal, ethical and discretionary” responsibilities of businesses toward their
stakeholders. Pinney (2001) simply regarded CSR as set of management practices which
organizations choose to minimize their negative impact on society. Among the many
different definitions of CSR, Mohr et al. (2001) grouped them into two major sorts
including CSR towards stakeholders which is based on multidimensional definitions and
CSR towards society relied on societal marketing principle. Specially, multidimensional
definitions describe most duties of companies towards their diversified stakeholders such
as owners, customers, employees or the community. Societal marketing concept was
defined as companies’ decision making that improves the well-being of both customers
and society (Kotler, 1991). Mohr et al. (2001) used this to define CSR at more abstract
level.
Faced with the constant increase in environmental issues that are supposed to be related
to the unethical business interests and human careless attitudes (Banyte, et al., 2010),
businesses are turning to try to integrate environmental consideration into their business
activities and consider this as a payback tool (Rashid, et al., 2015). Therefore, CSR
towards environment has been focused in numerous researchers’ studies recently (Mohr
& Webb, 2005; Dahlsrud, 2008; Liu, et al., 2014) beside these major classifications of
6
CSR from Mohr et al.’s work (2001) which are used in various researches (Maignan &
Ferrell, 2004; Maloni & Brown, 2006; Mandhachitara & Poolthong, 2011; Pomering &
Dolnicar, 2009). CSR toward environment is supposed to be visible and feasible in
business operations (Liu, et al., 2014). In the other words, it is easy for CSR toward
environment to be understood and recognized by media and consumers (Rahbar &
Wahid, 2011).
Therefore, this study chose to focus on studying three aspects of CSR including: society,
stakeholders and environment. There exist a number of researches that also have
concentrate on studying these three aspects of CSR environment (Liu, et al., 2014;
Mohammed & Al-Swidi, 2019; Dahlsrud, 2008).
Turker (2009) defined CSR toward society as activities contributing to well-being of

society. These activities contains “philanthropy, public welfare contributions, culture
promotion and sustainable development” (Liu, et al., 2014). Environmental CSR is
viewed as the companies’ contribution in balancing and improving environmental effects
without damaging economic performance in order to sustain their development
(Williamson, et al., 2006). It is supposed to include environmental pollution prevention,
energy conservation as well as green production or service provision. From stakeholders
viewpoint, Turker (2009) viewed CSR towards stakeholders as businesses’
responsibility which go beyond economic interest and have a positive influence over
their stakeholders including “owners, customers, employees or the community”.
Stakeholders activities comprise returns to investors, employee treatment, community
development, monitoring and influencing supplier behaviors (Liu, et al., 2014; Dahlsrud,
2008).
CSR practices was well-known as a factor that affects consumer responses which
determines the success of companies (Castro-Gonzalez, et al., 2019), especially when
customers are likely to ask for more than just a good quality or low price product from
7
companies (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004). In other words, social and environmental
standards are increasingly being considered by customers when making purchasing
decision (Knox & Maklan, 2004). Customers, nowadays, expect organizations to offer
superior products or services and contribute to improving societal issues in addition to
the task of economy development (Polychronidou, et al., 2014). Therefore, many
organizations have been increasingly conscious of CSR’s magnitude (Hemingway &
Maclagan, 2004) and thus enhance its CSR initiatives. Also, CSR has gotten lots of
attention from researchers and become a main topic in customer behavior literature
(Amatulli, et al., 2018).
Many literature indicates that CSR can have direct or indirect impact on customer
behaviors in nature. In addition to literature which explained the direct influence of CSR
on customer behaviors, many researchers made their effort to explain the effect of CSR
initiatives on customer behaviors through many different routes such as the enhancement
of satisfaction, valuation of service, identification, trust, corporate image, reputation,
commitment, perceived value or social media engagement. Among them, many
researchers focused on cognitive aspects to explain the way that CSR efforts have impact
on customer behaviors. For example, in empirical survey with 203 Islamic banks in
Bahrain, Mostafa & ElSahn, (2016) showed that CSR association drives customers
identify themselves with the banks based on their cognitive evaluation, which is then
positively related to customer loyalty. Similarly, Pérez, et al., (2013) revealed similar
relationship between CSR activities and customer identification with the company in
empirical study with sample of 781 financial services users. Besides, Gürlek, et al.,
(2017) contended that CSR activities can create positive corporate image which is
“primary antecedent of perception” (Kasliwal, et al., 2017) based on its effect on
customer’s assessment and opinion, which in turn contribute to customer loyalty.
Additionally, “satisfaction” defined as customers’ overall appraisal of commodities and
services relying on customers’ previous experience with them is also found as a factor
8
which are positively influenced by companies’ CSR activities (Pérez & Rodríguez-del-
Bosque, 2015; Martínez & Bosque, 2013; Barcelos, et al., 2015). Moreover, “trust”
which is defined as belief of customers about the products or services regarding the
company’s appropriate or good characteristics, goals or policies is believed to be linked
with CSR initiatives (Kennedy, et al., 2001; Swaen & C., 2018). There are several
researchers even supported the role as a mediator of “trust” in CSR initiatives’
association with customer loyalty such as (Choi & La, 2013; Barcelos, et al., 2015) .
In addition to cognitive aspect, emotional aspect was found to be positively affected by

companies’ CSR efforts. Being supported by previous literatures proving the effect of
CSR activities on customer emotion (Pérez & Bosque, 2015) as well as the effect of
emotion on buying decision (Wang & WU, 2016), Castro-Gonzalez, et al., (2019) proved
the exist of CSR performance’s association with admiration that is then linked to
customer advocacy behaviors. They supposed that the company performs CSR activities
which is likely to associated with a heartfelt drive customer feel warm because customers
tend to think CSR activities as something company do beyond their profit and try to
contribute to society. That finally leads them to experience moral emotions, namely,
admiration which make them willingly purchase products or service of the companies.
Moreover, following the trend of companies in integrating CSR activities into their
business strategy to obtain advantages from branding (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002), several
scholars make an attempt to scrutinize the link of CSR performance with results of
branding strategy. For example, Ho (2017) revealed CSR activities positively affect
customer’s brand love which in turn contributes to consumer behavioral intentions
including repurchase intention as well as willingly paying a premium price. Besides,
with a convenience sample of 243 responders in China, (Liu, et al., 2014) found that
CSR towards stakeholders impact brand preference the most in comparison with one
towards society and environment.
9
Based on the literature of CSR and its relationship with customer behavior, it is very
obvious that it has gotten a lot of attention from the researchers with many different
explanation about the route that CSR activities affect customer behavior. However, there
is still theoretical gap that need to be filled. It is the fact that the effect of CSR on
branding has gotten great attention recently with research of “brand love” (Ho, 2017) or
“brand preference” (Liu, et al., 2014). Nevertheless, those researches just focused on
understanding the effect from affect-based perspective, namely, emotion, rather than
examining the customers’ perceptions. “Brand likeability” which is perception-oriented
has not been fully examined in the relationship with CSR initiatives in order to bring
more various view of CSR-branding relationship. Besides, likeability is suggested to
appear in all phase of transaction and to be a precursor of brand love, brand preference
and other important outcomes such as satisfaction or favorable attitudes toward brand as
well (Nguyen, et al., 2013); so “how to increase the likelihood that firms are perceived
to be likeable” is very important question for firm’s managers. Therefore, exploring the
connection of CSR activities with “brand likeability” and the clout of “brand likeability”
on customer loyalty behaviors including word of mouth as well as repurchase intention
is extremely necessary because they are underexplored.
In addition, “relational switching cost” which is known as positive one among several
types of switching cost which is a barrier that makes customers “willing to stay” with
brands rather than other “have to stay” types of switching cost (Marcos, 2018) is also
believed to be linked to company’s CSR activities. The positive effects from a positive
like barrier “relational switching cost” are suggested to be “antecedents of customer
loyalty” (Blut, et al., 2015; Barroso & Picón, 2012; Ngo & Pavelková, 2017) . Although
there are many literature studying of “switching cost” in general and “relational
switching cost” in particular and their effects on customer loyalty and intention, few
literature focused on relational switching cost in relationship with CSR. Therefore it can
10
be said that a study of effect of CSR activities on relational switching cost which then
affects customer loyalty behaviors is essential.
2.2 Customer loyalty behaviors
Oliver (1997) defined loyalty as “ a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a

preferred product/service consistently in the future, thereby causing repetitive same
brand or same brandset purchasing, despite marketing efforts to cause ‘switching
behavior”. In addition, Dick and Basu (1994) defined customer loyalty as the link
between relative attitude and repeated purchase. However, the concept of customer
loyalty hasn’t got much consensus in spite of its popularity (Zhang and Bloemer, 2008).
For instance, some researches conceptualized customer loyalty by “behavioral,
attitudinal and integrated perspectives” (Dick and Basu, 1994; Homburg and Giering,
2001; Hur et al., 2012). Important to the this study, Fullerton (2003) and Zhang and
Bloemer (2009) constructed customer loyalty as essentially “behavioral intention” and
named “customer loyalty behaviors” which includes willing to pay, word of mouth
communication and repurchase intention. The study is going to focus on the two later
dimensions.
An actual customer behavior of buying the same brand more than one time can define
repurchase (Ibzan, et al., 2016). Intention is defined as a motivation of someone when
they wants to perform their behavior (Rezvani, et al., 2012). While repeated purchase is
considered as actual action, repurchase intention is explained as consumers’ decision of
continuing to purchase a product or service when it comes in handy (Keller, 2001).
Dodds, et al., (1991) insisted repurchase intention is representatives for consumers’
possibility of keeping on purchasing a product or service. Therefore, intention to
repurchase can be considered as customer loyalty.
Word-of-mouth (WOM) was defined by Söderlund (1998) as the extent to which

customers will share their consumption experience with their friends, relatives, and
11
colleagues consumption experience. Put another way, WOM is verbal communication
related to a product, service, organization or brand. There are 2 types of word-of-mouth
including positive and negative. The research focused on positive WOM which is
defined as “a desire to help the company, altruism, a desire to signal expertise to others
and product involvement” (Angelis, et al., 2012). WOM is widely accepted by customers
and they consider them as an important communication source. People enjoy talking
about their possibilities and experiences (Kelly, 2007). Also, when making purchase
decision, customers have more confidence in WOM communication rather than radio,
television, and publications (Cakim, 2010). There are between 50-70% of buying
decisions are affected by WOM (Sweeney, et al., 2008). Therefore, firms’ effort in
enhancing positive WOM is very vital not only since it can bring them more new
customers but only because it is like an express of their success in increasing the
customer loyalty.
2.3 CSR performance and brand likeability.
The concepts of brand love and brand preference have been getting lots of attention in
an academic and management subject recently. It is very easy to confuse brand likeability
with them because they “may have similar cognitive and some emotional elements”
(Nguyen, et al., 2013). However, while brand love contains multiple cognition, emotion
and behavior that are a mental prototype orientation (Batra, et al., 2012), Nguyen, et al.
(2013) regarded brand likeability as a less emotional and perception-oriented concept.
Whereas brand preference indicates a comparison among numerous brands, brand
likeability is less behavioral (Nguyen, et al., 2013). Customers have their own idea about
the company they like and dislike and their perceptions of likeability affect customers’
reaction to firms (Reysen, 2005). The brands that are liked by the customers would get
advantages and privilege which the disable brands would not (Nguyen, et al., 2013).
Therefore, it is very essential for the oranizations to understand the concept along with
12
divers of likeability so that they can raise the likelihood that customers would perceive
them as more likeable ones (Nguyen, et al., 2013).
Likeability is described to be “a persuasion tactic and a scheme of self-presentation”

(Cialdini, 1993; Reysen, 2005) and is considered as multidimensional concept including
cognitive and affective elements (Alwitt, 1987). Attribution theory, “the study of the
causal interpretations that persons give to events in their environment” (Crittenden,
1983) is very helpful in defining “likeability”. That means it was supposed that when
people face or cope with an surprising or negative event, they tend to look for causal
interpretation for that event. The way people interpret that event can imply their thinking
and behavior. As the attribution concept’s suggestions, the likeability is expected to
occur when consumers have positive inference from firm’s activities (Nguyen, et al.,
2013). Once a positive assessment attaches to a firm, that firm will be found likeable and
vice versa. In order to make any inference about any firms, customers usually assess
firm’s profit and motives, past behavior and reputation (Cox, 2001; Campbell, 2007).
Therefore, building and maintaining good reputation can affect more positively inference
of customers towards firms, which increases brand likeability.
Besides, attractiveness model (McGuire, 1985) also provides insight in defining

likeability. The connection of customers’ negative or positive awareness of
attractiveness with likeable firm are found (Nguyen, et al., 2013) . This finding suggests
that firms improving their offerings’ attractiveness which may comprise “building
relationships with fair trade organizations, delivering green products, and supporting
charities” are well regarded by their customers. In addition, good reputation can be also
a kind of attractiveness (Nguyen, et al., 2013).
Many previous studies showed that CSR toward environment affects perception of
customer. Laroche, et al., (2001) revealed that people pursuing a more environmentally
friendly lifestyle would have high purchasing intention toward firms related to
13
environmental practices. Brown & Dacin (1997) believed that what customers know
about the companies would determine their belief and attitude toward the products of the
company. They suggested that when the customers consider CSR performance of the
companies as positive, they make positive inference of the companies’ business. Mohr
& Webb (2005) showed that customers’ positive company evaluation and strong
purchase intention was impacted by the manufacturers who implement CSR towards
environment. Reputation could be one of criteria for customer to determine their
perception toward a company and its attractiveness (Nguyen, et al., 2013). A bank ’s
reputation for CSR activities, for example, environmental efforts, therefore, positively
affects customer’s liking towards it. (Rives, et al., 2009). A green brand image is
supposed to have a positive link with consumers’ satisfaction (Chen, 2010). It is very
obvious that consumers tend to like the companies which make donation for
environmental organizations (Nguyen, et al., 2013) because when firms support to these
activities, they can develop goodwill among customers which would generate likeability
effect. While Kucukusta, et al., (2013) found the CSR factors related to environment,
mission and vision could be predictor the visitors’ stay preference, Liu, et al. (2014)
contended that environmental CSR would yield more brand preference by customers. In
sum, with the support and evidence from the literature for the environmental CSR’s
positive association with brand likeability, the first hypothesis is defined as:
H1: CSR towards environment positively impacts brand likeability.
Daub & Ergenzinger (2005) supposed that several customers care many things rather
than just consumption experience. These consumers are tendentiously more contented
with the products of socially responsible companies (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006) .
Therefore, firm’s CSR activities, in general, bring positive context for customer’s
perception and assessment about them (Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006). Especially, the firms
which integrates with social CSR also deeply impress their customer (Murray & Vogel,
1997) and enhance consumers’ evaluation (Henderson, 2007). Similarly, CSR activities
14
intended to enhance social interests increase and enhance brand image (Singh, et al.,
2008) and brand association (Ricks, 2005). In support, there are various researchers
including Hassan & Nareeman (2013), Galbreath (2010) and Lee, et al., (2013) provided
the evidence proving that the businesses’ philanthropic activities which contribute to
community’s well-being could generate higher level of customer satisfaction. The
contribution to community’s well-being which are regarded as meeting community
expectation would drive the firm be its favor (Jamali & Mirshak, 2007; Wood, 2010). In
support, (Nguyen, et al., 2013) contended that customer is likely to like the companies
which involve in social activities such as supporting charity. With supportive evidence
from the literature, engaging in CSR towards society can make the firms become more
likeable. As a result, the hypothesis is:
H2: CSR towards society positively impacts brand likeability.
CSR activities that affects positively the firm’s stakeholders also have been studied
recently. CSR effort toward stakeholders can decrease customers’ skepticism and
increase customers’ trust towards firms (Vlachos, et al., 2008). Therefore, Creyer (1997)
indicated that the company’s CSR activities which are related to their stakeholders are
favored by the customers. This study also contended that CSR towards stakeholders is
also a very important factor determines customers’ purchase decision. Evaluation of CSR
efforts of firms in managing relationship with their stakeholders can be effective for
assessment of stakeholders’ satisfaction (Clarkson, 1995). Customer satisfaction is
regarded as a predictor of brand preference. Sen, et al., (2006) concluded consumers’
perception of businesses’ employee treatment and investment behavior are linked to
more positive responses. Liu, et al., (2014) showed that CSR endeavor towards
stakeholders such as customers and staffs can increase customers’ degree of preference.
Based on those previous studies related to CSR towards stakeholders’ positive link with
brand likeability, the third hypothesis is shown as:
15
H3: CSR towards stakeholders positively impacts brand likeability.
2.4 CSR performance and relational switching cost
Due to the increasingly high competition and the decline in market growth rate,
protecting market share towards companies has become more important than ever.
Switching costs can be one of the effective strategy to create customer loyalty which
helps companies to maintain their market share against their competitors. In (1998),
Poster defined switching cost as the costs consumers incur once they migrate to another
products or service provider. Chen & Wang (2009) contended that switching costs could
be “the form of termination costs from the current service provider to joining costs with
the alternative service provider”.
Klemperer (1987) supposed that there were 3 kinds of switching cost including
“transaction, learning and contractual costs”. Transaction cost arises when customers
stop buying products or using services from a provider and find a new one. Learning cost
refers the cost of immigrating to a new brand after learning to use another brand.
Contractual cost is supposed to be the expense of losing programs for loyal customers
that they got from current brand such as “repeat-purchase coupons or frequent-flyer
program” (Klemperer, 1987).
In addition to those explicit cost, there exists implicit switching costs which are
psychological and emotional costs. Burnham, et al., (2003) divided switching costs into
3 kinds, in which these psychological and emotional costs are mentioned as relational
costs. Relational costs are “affective losses associated with breaking the bonds of
identification that have been formed before" (Burnham, et al., 2003). They could be
“with the people with whom the customer interacts” or “with the brand or company with
which a customer has associated” (Poster, 1980). In other words, the social bonds,
personal rapport and trust have been formed over a period of time between the brand and
the customer can become a huge psychological exit barrier. The customers would have
16
to experience or incur emotional discomfort because of the loss of identity, the breaking
of bonds, the risk and the uncertainty that the termination of the current relationship
could bring.
According to social identity theory, people connect themselves with the multitude of
social categories that they feel familiar with through self-definition (Tajfel, 1981) .
Identification research drawing on “social identity theory” supposes people usually tend
to identify themselves with the organizations whose perceptions overlap with their
perception, reflect their self-concept and enhance their self-esteem as well (Tajfel &
Turner, 1985). Moreover, people also desire to differentiate themselves from others
(Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Hence, they are likely to find groups or organizations that are
distinctive to identify with. Meanwhile, CSR plays a transmitter-receiver role which
transmits distinctive values as well as bolsters company identities’ attractiveness (Sen,
et al., 2006). Thus, identification with the organizations engaged in CSR initiatives are
supposed to contribute to self-esteem of the customers. In support, firms’ CSR efforts
were found to increase customers’ perceptions of customer-company identification (Sen
and Bhattacharya, 2001; Lichtenstein et al., 2004). CSR actions related to environment
can contribute to the company’s distinctive characters (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004),
which can drive the company more attractive in the customer’s eyes and then foster them
to form the identification with. Besides, customers consider the company to be doing
something good for environment on their behalf and thus, help them enhance their self-
esteem and self-expression regarding their ethical and moral social image (Aquino &
Reed, 2002). Martínez & Bosque (2013) also revealed that CSR (including responsibility
towards environment) can impact positively C-C identification which enhance customer
loyalty. Moreover, customers usually have greater satisfaction and trust with products
which do not harm the environment (Balabanis, et al., 1998). The bonds of trust and
identification are formed over period of time towards organizations implementing
environmental CSR activities can increase discomfort and resistance toward switching
17
to another provider or brand of customers. With supportive evidence from the literature,
the following is hypothesized:
H4: CSR towards environment positively impacts relational switching cost.
The characters that are contributed to organizations by CSR actions, for example, fair
employment policies, supports for society and environment are much more distinctive
than other facets of the company-schema (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004), which becomes
attractive point for customers to identify themselves with. Besides, all CSR efforts
towards society, for example, funding to community programs, create both added-value
for community and for business on account of their reflection about company
identification matching with beneficent values. Those values can create the company’s
association as well as identification with its purchasers (Sen, et al., 2006). Consumers
always desire a better society and that is also the reason why they are likely to feel the
overlap between their value and company which involves in CSR for the welfare of
society (Abbas, et al., 2018). In support, Pérez & Rodríguez-del-Bosque (2015) ,in a
survey with saving bank customer, found that CSR oriented to society can enhance C-C
identification. Mostafa & Elsahn (2016) also revealed consumer-bank identification was
positively affected by philanthropic CSR initiatives. Those bonds of identification that
are enhanced by CSR towards society strengthen the discomfort that customers incur if
they switch to another provider. With supportive evidence from the literature, engaging
in CSR towards society can increase psychological barriers called relational switching
cost. As a result, the hypothesis is:
H5: CSR towards society positively impacts relational switching cost
It is known that customers specifically notice the tangible aspects of organizations, for
example, “quality, innovation, compliance to standards, guarantees, and other
information provided about the product” are much influenced by them (Maignan &
Ferrell, 2001) . Therefore, purchasers are likely to react more positively to customer-
18
centric CSR activities. In support, Saleem & Gopinath (2015) indicated that consumer
CSR was found to affect positively customers’ trust towards firms. Also, Marquina &
Vasquez-Parraga (2013) indicated that CSR image related to employee affairs has
positive impact on customer behavior. Moreover, CSR effort toward stakeholders can
decrease customers’ skepticism and increase customers’ trust towards firms (Vlachos, et
al., 2008). Consumers are supposed to found an association with their favorable firms or
show consumers’ personality through those (Fournier, 1998); while Liu, et al., (2014)
showed CSR endeavor towards stakeholders can make the brands become customers’
preference. As a consequence, the sixth hypothesis is defined as:
H6: CSR towards stakeholders positively impacts relational switching cost.
2.5 Brand likeability on Word-of-mouth and Repurchase intention.
Nguyen, et al., (2013) stated that consumers assess companies’ brand likeability and
tendentiously link the assessment to positive outcomes, namely, “customer satisfaction
and positive word of mouth”. Besides, consumers experiencing feelings of love towards
a brand (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006), consequently, value it more (Roberts, 2005).
Therefore, when a brand is loved by their customers, those people are likely to involve
in spreading their positive experience about that brand’s product or service and
recommend that to others. There are a lot of researchers supporting the strong positive
association of brand love with WOM such as Carroll & Ahuvia (2006), Kudeshia, et al.,
(2016) and Niyomsart & Khamwon, (2015). Moreover, the degree of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction about experience with a brand’s product or service could be prerequisite
word of mouth about them (Bitner, 1990; Arndt, 1967; Dichter, 1966; Yi, 1990;
Westbrook, 1987).When customers are satisfied or impressed by the brand, they would
engage in positive WOM about that firm (Bitner, 1990; Bloch, 1986; Hunt, 1977; Oliver,
1980; Reichheld & W. Earl Sasser, 1990). In support, a direct positive connection of
customer satisfaction with word of mouth was found by Schlesinger & Heskett (1991)
19
and Taghizadeh, et al., (2013). With supportive evidence from the literature, the
hypothesis is:
H7: Brand likeability positively impacts word of mouth.
Suetrong, et al. (2018) revealed that in short-term, customers like a brand if they are
contented with its characteristics or benefits. In case of customers’ keeping this feeling
relative to alternatives, it is conceivable that they would keep on repurchase that brand
(Suetrong, et al., 2018). Also, a favorable attitude towards a firm can lead to repeat
purchase (Buil, et al., 2013) based on theory of reasoned action related to explanation
for relationships between “attitudes, intentions and behavior” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
Theoretically, consumer preference is a direct premise of intention (Bagozzi, 1983).
Consistent with this perspective, there are some researchers’ empirical evidences support
positive link between customers’ favor toward a brand and their willingness to buy it
again. In other words, they supported the role of brand preference in motivating
customers’ intention to repurchase (Hellier, et al., 2003; Ebrahim, et al., 2016; Roest &
Pieters, 1997; Hellier, et al., 2003; Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998). Besides, feeling of
attachment such as brand love is considered a great predictor of repurchase intention
(Suetrong, et al., 2018). Moreover, a satisfied customers are also supposed to be more
likely to be interested in repurchasing intention. In support, there are some researchers
found that customer satisfaction is the precedent of customer repurchase intention such
as Bearden & Teel (1983), Anderson & Sullivan (1993), Innis (1991) , Roest & Pieters
(1997) or Olive (1980). With supportive evidence from the literature, a likeable brand
can positively affect repurchase intention. As a result, the hypothesis is:
H8: Brand likeability positively impacts repurchase intention.
2.6 Relational switching cost on Word-of-mouth and Repurchase intention.
Positive switching cost are found to be a premise of loyalty (Blut, et al., 2015; Barroso
& Picón, 2012; Ngo & Pavelková, 2017). Whereas, customer loyalty can benefit firms
20
by an increase in loyal customers’ spending and appealing more consumers through
WOM communication (Curasi & Kennedy, 2002). Besides, Vasudevan, et al., (2006)
and Patterson, et al., (2001) contended that relational switching cost are positively
associated with commitment; whereas commitment was found to be likely to enhance
positive WOM (Bougie, et al., 2003; Derbaix & Vanhamme, 2003; Fazal-e-Hasan, et al.,
2017). With supportive evidence from the literature, relational switching cost can
positively affect WOM . As a consequence, the hypothesis is:
H9: Relational switching cost positively impacts word-of-mouth.
When customers perceive barriers or switching cost which prevents them from migrating
to another brand or provider, consumers tendentiously continue staying with the current
brand or provider (Burnham, et al., 2003). The direct effects of switching cost was
proved at both industry and the global switching cost level (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993;
Bansal & Taylor, 1999; Weiss & Heide, 1993). More specifically, when Burnham, et al.,
(2003) along with Blut, et al., (2015) was studying about effects of various kinds of
switching cost, they found the positive impact of relational switching cost on repurchase
intention. Blut, et al., (2015) even proved relational switching cost has stronger
association with repurchase intention rather than other types of costs including financial
as well as procedural switching cost. In support, Blut, et al., (2016) revealed
that relational switching cost is the most important type which could have positive link
with share of wallet. In other words, relational switching cost can lead to customers’
purchasing more product from the key brand relative to its competitors. Moreover,
Vasudevan, et al., (2006) and Patterson, et al., (2001) contended that relational switching
cost are positively associated with commitment; while commitment was found as the
determinant of customer retention (Ercis, et al., 2012; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). With
supportive evidence from the literature, relational switching cost can positively affect
repurchase intention. As a result, the hypothesis is:
21
H10: Relational switching cost positively impacts repurchase intention.
Figure 2.1: Proposed theoretical model
22
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research design
The research was conducted as follows:
Identify research interest and motivation
Review the literature
Develop conceptual
Identify theoretical
framework and propose
and practical gaps
research model
Determine research methods:

questionnaire/survey
Determine research sample
Develop questionnaire
Pilot test
Correct and finalize questionnaire
Distribute questionnaire online
Analyze data by SPSS
Interpretation, conclusions, discussions

and suggestions
Figure 3.1: Research process proposed by the author
23
3.2 Sampling
According to the study of Hair, et al., (1998) about the expected sample size for
Exploratory Factor Analysis, the minimum number of sample is determined by the total
measurement item in questionnaire multiple by 5. This research’s questionnaire includes
30 measurement items. Therefore, the number of respondents, or in other words, the
minimum sample size needed to conduct this should be: 30*5=150.
Besides, Tabachnick & Fidell (2007) suggested that the minimum sample size for
multivariate regression models must be calculated by 50 plus (8*the number of
independent variable). The maximum amount of independents is 3 for this study.
Therefore, the minimum sample size needed to conduct this should be: 50+8*3=74.
Normally, if a paper incorporates multiple analysis methods, the sample size would be
the largest required one of all the methods. In this study, the author intends to use two
methods including EFA and multivariate regression analysis. Therefore, the minimum
sample size shall be 150 which is minimum sample size needed to conduct EFA.
However, in case there is invalid responses that need eliminating and to boost reliability
and validity of the research, the author decided to distribute 225 questionnaires.
The research uses convenience sampling method to sample data. Because time is limited
and data availability is rare and expensive, the convenience sampling method is suitable
in term of easy and promptness. Besides, the survey is conducted in Hanoi because there
are the concentration of a lot of different types of retail such as supermarket, convenience
store or shopping mall there and it is infeasible to conduct the survey throughout Vietnam.
Moreover, the questionnaires is distributed randomly online without any limitation of
respondents’ demographic characteristics.
24
3.3 Data collection process
To ensure that the final questionnaire that was officially distributed to the respondents
was understandable and error-free, 30 questionnaires were sent to 30 people who are
highly educated and have high perception of CSR initiatives of companies with
expectation of getting useful comments about the content and wording of the
questionnaire. In general, the questionnaire received good feedback from these people.
Some errors in word usage have been corrected and modified before being formally
contributes to main respondents.
After finalizing the questionnaires, these were distributed online via google doc file in
order to collect the primary data. The data then was used to be analyzed and found out
the results for the research.
3.4 Questionnaire design
The measurement items for all variables in this study was obtained from the similar
previous literature. Also, each item is evaluated on 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Measurement items of 3 different CSR
dimensions was taken from different studies. In detail, CSR towards Society and
Environment are measured using 6-item scale which are proposed by Herrera (2017) and
CSR toward Stakeholders are measured by 8-item scale introduced by (Liu, et al., 2014).
Besides, the measurement of Brand Likeability was adopted from Nguyen, et al., (2013)
while Relational Switching Cost are measured with 3-item scale from Özer, et al.,
(2009). In addition, the study measures Word of Mouth by 3-item scale taken obtained
from (Abbas, et al., (2018). Also, Repurchase Intention is measured 3-item scale
developed by Fang, et al., (2011).
Additionally, questionnaires is designed in English and translated in Vietnamese before

distributing online to responders because the research’s targeting responders are
Vietnamese people. The questionnaire is divided and presented into 2 parts:
25
- Part 1: contains 4 demographic questions.
- Part 2: comprises of 30 measurement items for measuring: CSR towards Society,
CSR towards Environment, CSR towards Stakeholders, Brand Likeability,
Relational Switching Cost, Word of Mouth and Repurchase Intention. However,
those measurement items is mixed randomly and not arranged in order
corresponding with the variables it measures. Thanks to that, responders cannot
come up exactly with the purpose of the research. Therefore, the research can
limit the potential biases and increase its reliability.
Table 3.1: Measurement items
Construct Items Label Sources

This brand is trying to sponsor educational
SCSR1
programmes
This brand is trying to sponsor public health
SCSR2
programmes
CSR
This brand is trying to sponsor cultural Herrera
towards SCSR3
programmes (2017)
Society
This brand is trying to make financial
SCSR4
donations to social causes
This brand is trying to help to improve quality
SCSR5
of life in the local community
This brand is trying to sponsor pro-
ECSR1
environmental programmes
This brand is trying to allocate resources to

ECSR2
offer services compatible with the environment
CSR This brand is trying to carry out programmes to
towards ECSR3 Herrera
reduce pollution
Environm (2017)
ent This brand is trying to protect the environment ECSR4
This brand is trying to recycle its waste

ECSR5
materials properly
This brand is trying to use only the necessary
ECSR6
natural resources
26
This brand respects consumer rights beyond
StCSR1
the legal requirements
This brand provides full and accurate
information about its products/services to StCSR2
customers
Customers’ satisfaction is highly important Liu, et
CSR towards StCSR3
for this brand al.,
Stakeholders
This brand provides a healthy and safe (2014)
StCSR4
working environment for employees
This brand complies with legal regulations
StCSR5
completely and promptly
Pornography, gambling and drug abuse are
StCSR6
prohibited in this brand
I believe that this brand continues to get
BL1
better and better. Nguyen,
Brand
I feel attached to this brand. BL2 et al.,
Likeability
I would say that the brand is approachable. BL3 (2013)
Overall, I approve of this brand. BL4
It is important for me that this brand is a
Relational trusted corporation (when I bethink of factors RSC1 Özer, et
Switching like pricing, service quality etc.) al.,
Cost I am thinking positive about this brand RSC2 (2009)
The name of this brand is important for me RSC3
I say positive things about this brand to
WOM1
others.
Positive Abbas,
I recommend the services or products of this
Word of WOM2 et al.,
brand to friends, relatives and other people.
Mouth (2018)
I mention favorable things of this brand to
WOM3
friends, relatives and other people.
If I could, I would like to continue purchase
RI1
products of this brand
Fang, et
Repurchase It is likely that I will continue purchasing
RI2 al.,
Intention products from this brand in the future
(2011)
I intend to continue purchasing products from
RI3
this brands in the future
27
5-point Likert-type scale for agreement extent is presented as follows:
Table 3.2: Likert scale for Agreement extent
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

disagree agree
3.5 Data analysis
The research uses SPSS to analyze data and test hypothesis. The process is presented as
follows:
a. Reliability analysis
Before analyzing data, checking the reliability of scale is very necessary, especially
towards questionnaires using multiple Likert questions. Campbell & Fiske (1959)
contended that a valid measurement has to accurately measure what needs to be
measured. Cronbach’s alpha is proposed to facilitate checking the reliability of scale.
However, Cronbach’s alpha can be only used for a scale whose the number of
measurement items are 3 or more. This coefficient is understood and used as follows:
- Cronbach’s alpha varies from 0 to 1.

- Theoretically, this value is understood as the higher, the better. It is supposed to
be great as it is higher than 0.9 and poor when it is lower than 0.5 (George &
Mallery, 2010). However, that α is higher than 0.95 is believed to lead to
duplication in scale.
Besides, when doing reliability analysis by Cronbach’s alpha in SPSS software, there
are some indicators needing to be paid much attention as follows:
28
- “Corrected Item – Total Correlation” of each measurement item: should be equal
or more than 3 in order not to be removed.
- If “Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted” of a measurement item is more than
Cronbach’s alpha, that item will be removed.
b. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
Besides assessing the reliability of scale, assessing the value of the scale is also essential.
EFA is used to shorten a set of k variables into a smaller set of variables, namely, F (F<k),
which makes them more meaningful. When doing EFA by SPSS software, there are
something needing to be paid much attention as follows:
- “Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin” (KMO) which is used to consider whether factor analysis

is suitable or not, must be equal or more than 0.5. (0.5 ≤ KMO ≤ 1). If KMO is
less than 0.5, factor analysis is likely to be inappropriate for the data set.
- “Bartlett's test of sphericity” is used to consider correlation of the observed
variables in a factor. “Sig Bartlett's Test” must be less than 0.5 in order to
demonstrate that they are correlated with each other.
- The “Eigenvalue value” is to figure out the amount of factors for EFA. Those
whose Eigenvalue is equal or more than 1 are retained and vice versa.
c. Pearson correlation analysis
After finishing reliability analysis and exploratory factor analysis, “Pearson correlation
analysis” is conducted to explore linear relationship among the variables in the model.
Based on Pearson correlation coefficient which is abbreviated as R, the author could

determine strict degree of linear relationship between two quantitative variables:
- R ranges from -1 to 1. The more R approaches to 1 and -1, the stronger the linear
correlation is; in which more approaches to 1 is positive correlation and more
approaches to -1 is negative correlation.
29
- The more R approaches to 0, the weaker the linear correlation is.
- If R equal 0, there is no linear correlation.
However, when doing this analysis by SPSS, it is necessary to notice “Sig” indicator
which shows whether the correlation between 2 variables is meaningful. The correlation
is supposed to be meaningful when “Sig” is less than 0.5.
d. Regression analysis
Regression analysis is used to analyze the relationship between a dependent variable and
one or more than one independent variables. When doing this by SPSS, there are some
indicators needing to be paid attention as follows:
- “R Square and Adjusted R Square”: which indicate magnitude of interpretation

of dependent variable of independent variables in regression model range from 0
to 1. It is believed that the higher this indicator, the better model.
- “Durbin – Watson”: should be from 1.5 to 2.5 in order not to lead to first-order
correlation with each other.
- “VIF”: check for multi-collinear phenomena should be less than 2.
30
CHAPTER 4: DATA PRESENTATION AND FINDINGS
4.1 Data description
A summary of data description including the minimum, maximum, mean and standard
deviation are shown as follow.
Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of 212 respondents
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
SCSR1 212 1 5 3.37 1.020
SCSR2 212 1 5 3.43 .979
SCSR3 212 1 5 3.30 .940
SCSR4 212 1 5 3.49 1.014
SCSR5 212 1 5 3.57 1.035
ECSR1 212 1 5 3.23 .973
ECSR2 212 1 5 3.42 .988
ECSR3 212 1 5 3.39 1.022
ECSR4 212 1 5 3.46 1.055
ECSR5 212 1 5 3.24 1.004
ECSR6 212 1 5 3.20 1.006
StCSR1 212 1 5 3.72 .787
StCSR2 212 1 5 4.00 .803
StCSR3 212 1 5 3.90 .941
StCSR4 212 1 5 3.86 .747
StCSR5 212 1 5 3.74 .783
StCSR6 212 1 5 4.13 .825
BL1 212 1 5 4.00 .763
BL2 212 1 5 3.70 .867
BL3 212 1 5 3.99 .815
BL4 212 1 5 3.99 .840
RSC1 212 1 5 3.76 .915
RSC2 212 1 5 3.72 .846
RSC3 212 1 5 3.43 .913
WOM1 212 1 5 3.67 .874
WOM2 212 1 5 3.65 .871
WOM3 212 1 5 3.66 .918
RI1 212 1 5 3.81 .904
RI2 212 1 5 3.83 .885
RI3 212 1 5 3.89 .896
Valid N (listwise) 212
(Source: Data analysis by SPSS)
31
The author distributed 225 questionnaires via google doc file. However, after screening
all received responses, the author eliminated 13 disqualified samples and retained the set
of 212 valid samples as presented in table above. The reason that those 13 samples were
removed is the respondents of them chose the same option for all questions in
questionnaires.
Table 4.2: Samples’ demographic data
Demographics Frequencies Percentage

Total 212 100
1. Gender
Female 137 64.6
Male 75 35.4
2. Age
18 - 24 years old 38 18.1
25 - 30 years old 102 48.3
31 - 40 years old 37 17.2
> 41 years old 35 16.4
3. Education level
Vocational training 15 7.1
College 9 4.2
University 146 68.9
Postgraduate 38 17.9
Others 4 1.9
4. Income
< 5M 46 21.7
5M - 10M 55 25.9
10M - 15M 66 31.1
15M - 30M 31 14.6
> 30M 14 6.6
Taking a look at the table 4.2 about samples’ demographic data, it is obvious that the
amount of male and female respondents are not equal. Among all 212 subjects, there are
32
137 female respondents accounting for 64.6 per cent and 75 male responders accounting
for 35.4 per cent.
Additionally, it is obviously seen that among 212 participants, 38 people accounting for
18.1 per cent are from 18 to 24 years old, 102 people making up for 48.3 percent are
from 25 to 30 years old, 37 people constituting 17.2 percent are from 31 to 40 years old
and more than 41 year-old respondents make up for 16.4 percent. In a nutshell, the
majority of respondents are young people in the age from 25 to 30.
Besides, most of participants are highly educated people in which group of people whose
educational levels are university are largest with ratio of 68.9 per cent. The second largest
group is postgraduate people accounting for 17.9 per cent. Besides, the group of people
whose educational levels are vocational training and college making up for 7.1 percent
and 4.2 per cent respectively. The group of people who just graduated from high school
or lower, namely, others accounts for 1.9 per cent and it also constitutes the lowest per
cent among all subjects.
Moreover, among 212 respondents, the number of people whose income is from 10
million VND to 15 million VND is greatest with ratio of 31.1 per cent. The respondents
who can earn from 5-10 million VND, under 5 million VND and 15-30 million VND per
month account for 25.9 percent, 21.7 percent and 14.6 percent in turn. The smallest
number of people are those whose income is equal or more than 30 million VND, which
makes up for 6.6 percent.
33
Retailing companies
35 30.3
30
25
20 14.7
15 9.8 8.6
6.1 6.8 7.6
10 4.2 5 3.4
5 2.3 1.2
0
Figure 4.1: Retailing companies distribution
Figure 4.3 indicates that The Gioi Di Dong, Vinmart, Big C, Lotte Mart, Sai Gon Co.op,
Media Mart, Aeon Mall, TH true Mart, FPT shop, Circle K, Fivi Mart , Pico and Dien
May Xanh are retailing companies mentioned in respondents’ answers. In which,
Vinmart is shown up the most in respondents’ answers, which accounts for 30.3%.
Besides, Big C, The Gioi di Dong or AeonMall significantly take up proportion, which
are respectively 14.7 %, 9.8 % and 8.6%.
General information about these retail companies is shown in the table below:
Table 4.3: Summary of retailing companies
Retailing
No. companies Products Distribution Origin
Mobile phones, digital devices,
1 The Gioi Di Dong and consumer electronics 1890 stores Vietnam
Electronics refrigeration,
appliances, technology
2 Dien May Xanh products 750 stores Vietnam
Mobile digital products include
mobile phones, tablets, laptops,
accessories and technology
3 FPT shop services 635 stores Vietnam
4 Media Mart Consumer electronics products 190 stores Vietnam
34
Consumer electronics products
5 Pico and refrigeration. 23 stores Vietnam
Fresh food, foodstuffs and
6 Vinmart groceries 111 stores Vietnam
7 Big C groceries 35 stores Thailand
8 Lotte Mart Grocery, clothes, toys 14 stores Korea
9 Sai Gon Co.op groceries 110 stores Vietnam
Fresh food, semi-processed
food grocery and consumer
10 Aeon Mall electronics 4 stores Japan
11 TH true Mart Fresh food from nature 250 stores Vietnam
12 Circle K Groceries 393 stores US
Table 4.4 shows that although the companies mentioned in the respondents' responses
are only a part of the Vietnamese retail market, they also illustrate this market’s fierce
competition well. In detail, in addition to some Vietnamese retailing companies such as
The gioi di dong or FPT shop, the market also welcomed the arrival of a huge number
of foreign players such as Lotte mart, Aeon Mall or Circle K. Also, the retailing
companies mentioned mainly operate in 3 areas including sales of refrigeration and
electronics; technology; food products and groceries. Moreover, although the scale is
different now, most retailers are trying to increase coverage and brand recognition by
opening more stores across the country.
4.2 Reliability analysis
Before going into further analysis, the reliability of the variables’ scales in the model
must be checked. The reliability of CSR towards Society scales, CSR towards
Environment scales, CSR towards Stakeholders scales, Brand Likeability scales,
Relational Switching Cost scales, WOM scales and Repurchase Intention scales with the
35
number of items of five, six, six, four, three, three and three respectively are checked by
Cronbach’s Alpha and summarized as the following table:
Table 4.4: Reliability statistic of all scales
Scale Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

CSR towards Society - (SCSR) 0.878 5
CSR towards Environment - (ECSR) 0.915 6
CSR towards Stakeholder - (StCSR) 0.912 6
Brand Likeability - (BL) 0.923 4
Relational Switching cost - (RSC) 0.855 3
Word of Mouth - (WOM) 0.900 3
Repurchase Intention - (RI) 0.929 3
Looking at table 4.4, it can be seen that Cronbach’s Alpha value of all variables’ scales
are greater than 0.5 and less than 0.95. This proves that all variables’ scales are very
reliable. In the other words, all measurement items are acceptable for next analysis step
and none of them are removed to increase the reliability of scales.
4.3 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
4.3.1 EFA of CSR scale
Table 4.5: EFA for CSR scale – 1st test
Condition Value
KMO index 0.931
Sig. (Bartlett's Test) 0.000
Total Variance Explained 69.987
Eigenvalue 1.310
36
Table 4.6: Rotated components matrix for CSR scale - 1st test
Component
1 2 3
ECSR3 0.836
ECSR4 0.829
ECSR6 0.813
ECSR1 0.801
ECSR2 0.716
ECSR5 0.692
StCSR4 0.793
StCSR2 0.790
StCSR3 0.787
StCSR6 0.763
StCSR1 0.745
StCSR5 0.640 0.453
SCSR4 0.761
SCSR2 0.756
SCSR3 0.737
SCSR1 0.715
SCSR5 0.709
CSR scale initially contains 17 measurement items. After doing reliability analysis, none
of them are removed. Therefore, the EFA is conducted with these 17 measurement items
in order to examine convergence of items along with components.
Looking at table 4.5, it is obvious that KMO value is 0.931 (greater than 0.5 and less
than 1) and Sig. is 0.000 ( less than 0.05). Therefore, it can be concluded that the set of
data is valid for EFA. Additionally, there are three components extracted with greater
than 1 Eigenvalue. Besides, the cumulative variance is 69.987 %. Therefore, it can be
contended that there are 3 components explaining 69.987 % of variance of CSR.
When looking at table 4.6, every items’ factor loading is higher than 0.5 and they are
loaded to each corresponding component but “StCSR5”. ‘StCSR5” is loaded to both
component 2 and 3 with factor loading of 0.640 and 0.453 in turn, which violates the
37
distinction in rotated component matrix. Moreover, the factor loading difference
between them which is 0.187 is less than 0.3. Therefore, “StCSR5” is removed.
After removing “StCSR5”, Exploratory Factor Analysis of CSR scale is conducted again
as the following tables:
Table 4.7: EFA for CSR scale – 2nd test
Condition Value
KMO index 0.926
Eigenvalue 1.307
Table 4.8: Rotated components matrix for CSR scale - 2nd test
Component
1 2 3
ECSR3 0.838
ECSR4 0.830
ECSR6 0.817
ECSR1 0.803
ECSR2 0.715
ECSR5 0.689
StCSR3 0.798
StCSR4 0.789
StCSR2 0.787
StCSR6 0.769
StCSR1 0.734
SCSR4 0.769
SCSR2 0.760
SCSR3 0.737
SCSR1 0.719
SCSR5 0.711
38
Taking a look at table 4.7, it can be seen that after eliminating “StCSR5” item, KMO
index is 0.926 (greater than 0.5 as well as less than 1) and Sig. is 0.000 ( less than 0.05),
which proves that the set of data is valid for EFA. Additionally, there are three
components extracted with greater than 1 Eigenvalue. Besides, the cumulative variance
is 70.336 %. Therefore, it can be contended that there are 3 components explaining
70.336 % of variance of CSR.
loaded to each corresponding component. In other words, the first component is formed
by 6 items of CSR towards Environment, the second is defined by 5 items of CSR
towards Stakeholders and the last is defined by 5 items of CSR towards Society.
In conclusion, after doing Exploratory Factor Analysis, CSR scale has 16 items which
are grouped into CSR towards Environment, CSR towards Stakeholders and CSR
towards Society.
4.3.2 EFA of Brand Likeability scale
Table 4.9: EFA for Brand Likeability scale
Condition Value
KMO index 0.847
Eigenvalue 3.254
39
Table 4.10: Component matrix for Brand Likeability scale
Component
1
BL4 .919
BL1 .901
BL2 .896
BL3 .893
Brand likeability initially contains 4 measurement items. After doing reliability analysis,
none of them are removed. Therefore, EFA is conducted with these 4 measurement items
in order to examine convergence of items along with components, which is presented in
table 4.13.
Table 4.9 shows that KMO value is 0.847 (greater than 0.5 and less than 1) and Sig. is
0.000 ( less than 0.05). Therefore, it can be concluded that the set of data is valid for
EFA. Additionally, there is a component extracted with greater than 1 Eigenvalue.
Besides, the cumulative variance is 81.344 %. Therefore, it can be contended that there
is a component explaining 81.344 % of variance of Brand Likeability.
When looking at table 4.10, all items’ factor loading are higher than 0.5 and they are
loaded to a component, namely, Brand Likeability.
In a nutshell, Brand Likeability has 4 items that extracted to 1 component, namely, Brand
Likeability.
40
4.3.3 EFA of Relational Switching cost scale
Table 4.11: EFA for Relational Switching cost scale
Condition Value
KMO index 0.708
Eigenvalue 2.333
Table 4.12: Component matrix for Relational Switching Cost scale
Component
1
RSC2 .916
RSC1 .871
RSC3 .858

Relational Switching cost initially contains three measurement items. After doing
reliability analysis, none of them are removed. Therefore, the EFA is conducted with
these 3 measurement items in order to examine convergence of items along with
components, which is presented in table 4.14.
Table 4.11 indicates that KMO value is 0.708 (greater than 0.5 and less than 1) and Sig.
is 0.000 ( less than 0.05). Therefore, it can be concluded that the set of data is valid for
Exploratory Factor Analysis. Additionally, there is a component extracted with greater
41
contended that there is a component explaining 77.777 % of variance of Relational
Switching Cost.
loaded to a component, namely, Relational Switching Cost.
In a nutshell, Relational Switching Cost has 3 items that extracted to 1 component,

namely, Relational Switching Cost.
4.3.4 EFA of WOM scale
Table 4.13: EFA for WOM scale
Condition Value
KMO index 0.749
Eigenvalue 2.502

Table 4.14: Component matrix for WOM scale
Component
1
WOM1 .923
WOM2 .917
WOM3 .899

WOM initially contains three measurement items. After doing reliability analysis, none
of them are removed. Therefore, the EFA is conducted with these three measurement
42
items in order to examine convergence of items along with components, which is
presented in table 4.15.
contended that there is 1 component explaining 83.404 % of variance of Word of Mouth.
loaded to a component, namely, WOM.
In conclusion, WOM has 3 items that extracted to a component.
4.3.5 EFA of Repurchase Intention scale
Table 4.15: EFA for Repurchase Intention scale
Condition Value
KMO index 0.755
Eigenvalue 2.625
Table 4.16: Component matrix for Repurchase Intention
Component
1
RI3 .948
RI1 .938
RI2 .920
43
Repurchase Intention initially contains three measurement items. After doing reliability
analysis, none of them are removed. Therefore, the EFA is conducted with these three
measurement items in order to examine convergence of items along with components,
which is presented in table 4.16.
contended that there is 1 component explaining 87.507 % of variance of Repurchase
Intention.
loaded to a component, namely, Repurchase Intention.
In conclusion, Repurchase Intention has 3 items that extracted to a component.
To sum up, after doing Exploratory Factor Analysis, there is one item called “StCSR” is
removed from the model. Therefore, the model retains 29 measurement items instead of
30 items.
4.4 Regression analysis results
The correlation analysis for all variables in the model is conducted and summarized as
follows:
44
Table 4.17: Correlations
SCSR ECSR StCSR BL RSC WOM RI

SCSR 1
**
ECSR .582 1
StCSR .631** .540** 1
BL .658** .571** .789** 1
RSC .592** .530** .511** .620** 1
WOM .686** .568** .741** .800** .646** 1
RI .665** .499** .682** .736** .756** .760** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Looking at table 4.17, it can be concluded that all dimensions of CSR have significant
relationship with BL and RSC. Additionally, it can be seen that WOM and RI
respectively have significant link with both BL and RSC. However, the correlations
among independent variables in the relationship of CSR dimensions with BL and RSC
as well as ones in the relationship of customer loyalty behaviors (WOM and RI) with BL
and RSC are really high (higher than 0.3). Therefore, it is necessary to check whether
there exists Multi-collinear problem or not by looking at Variance Inflation Factor (VIF)
value.
Table 4.18: Collinearity Statistics
Components VIF
SCSR 1.924
ECSR 1.634
STCSR 1.796
BL 1.625
RSC 1.625
45
Table 4.18 indicates that the VIF value of independent variables are less than 2. Hence,
there is no Multi-collinear issue and Regression Analysis is appropriate for independent
variables.
Regression analyses are used to examine the relationships in model and the results are
shown as following table:
Table 4.19: Regression analysis coefficients
Standardized Adjusted Sig.level

Independent variable Dependent variable Coefficients R2 T-value (1-tailed) Resulted
H1 CSR towards Society Brand Likeability 0.212 0.672 3.872 0.000 Supported
H2 CSR towards Environment 0.132 2.620 0.0045 Supported
H3 CSR towards Stakeholders 0.584 11.052 0.000 Supported
H4 CSR towards Society Relational Switching Cost 0.352 0.408 4.794 0.000 Supported
H5 CSR towards Environment 0.239 3.537 0.000 Supported
H6 CSR towards Stakeholders 0.159 2.246 0.013 Supported
H7 Brand Likeability WOM 0.649 0.673 12.927 0.000 Supported
H9 Relational Switching Cost 0.243 4.841 0.000 Supported
H8 Brand Likeability Repurchase Intention 0.434 0.685 8.821 0.000 Supported
H10 Relational Switching Cost 0.487 9.882 0.000 Supported

Looking at table 4.19, the results of the relationship between CSR dimensions and Brand
Likeability can be seen. Adjusted R2 is 0.672, which means 67.2 % in variance of BL are
explained by three independent variables including SCSR, ECSR and STCSR. Moreover,
Sig. F is 0 < 0.05, so linear regression model is suitable for the set of data and can be
used.
More importantly, Sig. value of all three independent variables are less than 0.05.
Therefore, it can be said that all three independent variables including SCSR, ECSR and
STCSR explain dependent variable, namely, BL. In which, CSR towards stakeholders is
found to have more significant impact on BL (β = 0.584, p<0.001). The other domains
are CSR towards Society (β = 0.212, p<0.001) and CSR towards Environment(β = 0.132,
46
p<0.01) having lower significant effective level. Hence, hypotheses H1, H2, H3 are all
supported.
In addition, the results of the relationship between CSR dimensions and Relational
Switching can be shown in table 4.19. Adjusted R2 is 0.408, which means 40.8 % in
variance of RSC are explained by three independent variables including SCSR, ECSR
and STCSR. Moreover, Sig. F is 0 < 0.05, so linear regression model is suitable for the
set of data and can be used.
All above, Sig. value of all three independent variables are less than 0.05. Therefore, it
can be said that all three independent variables including SCSR, ECSR and STCSR
explain dependent variable, namely, RSC. Among CSR dimensions, CSR towards
Society (β = 0.352, p<0.001) and Environment (β = 0.239, p<0.001) have more
significant impact on Relational Switching Cost rather than CSR towards Stakeholders
(β = 0.159, p<0.05). Hence, hypotheses H4, H5, H6 are all supported.
Besides, table 4.19 also indicates the link of WOM with BL and RSC. Adjusted R2 is
0.673, which means 67.3 % in variance of WOM are explained by three independent
variables including BL and RSC. Moreover, Sig. F is 0 < 0.05, so linear regression model
is suitable for the set of data and can be used.
Importantly, Sig. value of all three independent variables are less than 0.05. Therefore,
it can be said that all two independent variables including BL and RSC explain dependent
variable, namely, WOM. Also, it is obvious that BL (β = 0.649, p<0.001) has more
significant on WOM rather than RSC(β = 0.243, p<0.001). Hence, hypotheses H7 and
H9 are all supported.
Last but not least, the results of the relationship of RI with BL and RSC are revealed in
table 4.19. Adjusted R2 is 0.685, which means 68.5 % in variance of WOM are explained
by three independent variables including BL and RSC. Moreover, Sig. F is 0 < 0.05, so
linear regression model is suitable for the set of data and can be used.
47
More importantly, Sig. value of all three independent variables are less than 0.05.
Therefore, it can be said that all two independent variables including BL (β = 0.6434,
p<0.001) and RSC (β = 0.487, p<0.001) explain dependent variable, namely, RI. Also,
it is obvious that the effect of Brand Likeability and Relational Switching Cost on
Repurchase Intention is not largely different. Thus, hypotheses H8 and H10 are all
supported.
48
CHAPTER 5: RESULT DISCUSSION
5.1 Result discussion
This research examined the impact of 3 domains of CSR on Brand Likeability in context
of Vietnamese retailing industry. After collecting and analyzing data by SPSS software,
the obtained results shows that retail companies can increase brand likeability by
enhancing their various CSR initiatives. This finding is consistent with the previous
literature which suggested that company’s CSR effort is a predictor of branding
consequences (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Hoeffler & Keller, 2002). Besides, the result
can also reveal that Vietnamese purchasers are aware of CSR initiatives of the companies
and based on that to evaluate the brands. However, impact of each domain of CSR
initiatives on Brand Likeability is not the same degree. In detail, the research indicates
that CSR towards Stakeholders has the most significant impact on Brand Likeability in
comparison with the other domains of CSR including Environment and Society. One of
possible reasons for this effective inequality among those CSR dimensions is that in
Vietnam, doing business for just profit without caring the ethical standards of companies
is very common. This is reflected in poor quality products, violating the law by tax
evasion or import of unidentified inputs..etc.., which directly affects health and benefits
of customers. Therefore, it is understandable when Stakeholders CSR which is likely to
provide direct benefits to customers affects more a customer’s likeable company
evaluation.
Besides, the study also suggests that retail companies can enhance Relational Switching
Cost by implementing CSR activities. Similar to Brand Likeability, CSR domains do not
affect Relational Switching Cost equally. This finding is consistent with research of Liu,
et al., (2014) and Mohammed & Al-Swidi (2019) which supported the different effective
levels of CSR dimensions. This study reveals that CSR towards Environment and
49
Society have stronger impact on Relational Switching Cost. In other words, the study
suggests that company’s environmental and social CSR activities can much increase the
barrier which prevents Vietnamese customers from moving to another brand. It can be
understood that Vietnamese customers are aware of environmental social CSR activities
and more identify them with the companies which invested in those activities. This result
can be understandable because recently harmful activities of companies towards
environment detected have been very common in Vietnam, which has annoyed a lot of
Vietnamese people and led to their really serious responses. Besides, the Vietnamese
themselves seem to care much about charitable activities which was probably originated
from the Vietnamese’s solidarity spirit. This is clearly expressed in the popularity of
charity organization established by individual or small group of people. Hence, it might
be said that the Vietnamese in general and Vietnamese customers in particular
appreciate activities towards community and would like to show their ethical and social
image by involving in these activities or through connection with the companies
participating in these activities. It can be said that, in other words, CSR towards
environment and society which can bring the feeling of caring for others rather than just
own benefits might be supposed to able to create more favorable self-definition for
customers rather than CSR stakeholders. Therefore, investing in environmental social
CSR activities can make customers more be willing to stay with current brand in order
to avoid psychological discomfort that they can suffer in case of breaking their
identification with the company to switch to another brand.
Moreover, the research analyzed the association between Brand Likeability and
customers loyalty behaviors including WOM and Repurchase Intention. The finding is
the more likeable the brand is, the more customers intent to share positive information
and experience they have with the brand. This finding is consistent with the previous
researches which suggested that companies can gain positive responses thanks to
customers’ favorable attitude towards brands such as Nguyen, et al., (2013) or (Heikki
50
Karjaluoto (2016). Besides, it is revealed that the higher likeable the companies are, the
higher level of repurchase intention they can get. The result is consistent with the
previous study that supposed that the persistence of likeability relative to other offerings
can drive customers to repurchase the products (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). Similarly,
Relational Switching Cost can lead to higher Repurchase Intention. The finding
consolidates the long-standing belief that makes customers stay with the companies and
is also consistent the previous researches of Burnham, et al. (2003) or Blut, et al. (2015).
Moreover, Relational Switching Cost is also found to be linked with WOM.
However, the effective degree is also not the same. This is point that not many research
focused on yet. According to this research, the WOM is found to be impacted more
significantly by Brand Likeability than Relational Switching Cost. Whereas, the
relatively equal effective degree of Brand Likeability and Repurchase Intention on
Repurchase Intention is also found by SPSS analysis. One possible reason for the
relatively equal effective degree of brand likeability and relational switching cost to
repurchase intention is due to their positive nature. Both brand likeability and relational
switching cost are factors that make customers feel more willing to stay and continue
buying current brands rather than being forced to stay. However, although it is positive,
relational switching cost is still a barrier. Hence, compared to the eagerness and
willingness to share the positive things about brands that Brand Likeability brings to
customers, Relational Switching Costs are still somewhat inferior. Besides, it may be
because for people, sharing with others about the things they are impressed with or like
about the brand is easier and somehow more specific than sharing about the emotional
discomfort that are quite abstract that they may face when switching to another brand. In
sum, although Brand Likeability can affect more significantly customer loyalty
behaviors in comparison with Relational Switching Cost in general, it can be included
that Brand Likeability and Relational Switching Cost are very vital for the firms if they
want to enhance their customer loyalty.
51
To sum up, empirical results from the study can help the company understand and learn
more about customer responses towards CSR initiatives. According to the findings from
the research, it is obvious that Vietnamese customers are increasingly aware of various
CSR practices and take into account CSR activities when evaluating the brand and
considering moving to another brand. In other words, CSR activities can increase Brand
Likeability and Relational Switching Cost which can enhance customer loyalty.
Therefore, investing in CSR practices is necessary for Vietnamese companies. However,
in reality, not all companies can integrate various CSR into their business because of
limited resource. It is the fact that of the more than 500,000 businesses currently, 97%
are small and medium enterprises (SME) according to data from the Vietnam Chamber
of Commerce and Industry (VCCI). Therefore, the study’s findings of differently
effective level of various CSR practices can provide evidence to suggest small and
medium Vietnamese retail companies electing to relatively more concentrate on the
stakeholders CSR activities.
5.2 Contributions of the research
5.2.1 Theoretical contribution
The research examined the influence of CSR practices on Brand Likeability and
Relational Switching Cost and the impact of these 2 variables on Word of Mouth and
Repurchase Intention in context of retailing industry. There were many literature
analyzing the effect of CSR practices on customer behaviors based on many different
routes such as cognitive aspect, affective aspect or branding strategy. However, in the
stream of analyzing effect of CSR activities on branding, most of researchers focused on
explore this relationship from affective-base cognitive such as “brand love” or “brand
preference”. It is pretty obvious that few researcher has noticed this relation from
cognitive-based perspective. Therefore, theoretically, this study contributes the
understanding of effect of CSR practices on company’s branding from cognitive-based
52
perspective. In detail, this study reveals the positive relationship between CSR activities
and Brand Likeability. Besides, the study also reveals the effect of various CSR on
Relational Switching Cost which has not been gotten much attention in previous
literature.
Another contribution to the literature of this study is providing effect of each domain of
CSR on Brand Likeability and Relational Switching Cost. The finding indicates that CSR
towards stakeholders has the most significant impact on CSR activities’ relationship with
Brand Likeability while CSR towards Environment and Society are more significant
predictors in CSR activities’ relationship with Relational Switching Cost. Moreover, the
study also provides the relationship between Brand Likeability and Relational Switching
Cost and customer loyalty behaviors including WOM and Repurchase Intention. Word
of Mouth is found to be impacted more significantly by Brand Likeability than
Repurchase Intention. Whereas, the relatively equal effective degree of Brand
Likeability and Repurchase Intention on Repurchase Intention is also revealed.
5.2.2 Practical contribution
The results of this paper enrich the companies’ knowledge of the Vietnamese customers'
reaction to the company's CSR activities. The study revealed Vietnamese customers are
increasingly aware of various CSR practices and take into account CSR activities when
evaluating the brand and considering moving to another brand. In other words, a brand
can become more likeable and build stronger positive barriers towards customers’
switching intention by investing in CSR activities. Therefore, the Vietnamese companies
are recommended to invest in CSR activities related to Stakeholders, Society and
Environment, for example, donations to social or environmental issues, creating fair and
safe working environment or offering high-quality products with its full and accurate
information.
53
Although benefits and advantages that investing in various CSR activities brings for
companies cannot be denied, not many Vietnamese companies have enough resources
for all of them at once. It is the fact that there are up to 97 % of SME in Vietnam.
Therefore, the study provides an evidence of the different effective level of CSR
dimensions on Brand Likeability and Relational Switching Cost. Therefore, depending
on their different purpose and strategy, the companies can choose to integrate suitable
CSR activities into their business to enhance positive customer responses which leads to
an increase in customer loyalty. In detail, if a company would like to make it more
likeable by their customers and spread that love to more potential customers through
word of mouth communication, it should focus much on satisfying stakeholders by
creating “fair trade relationships with suppliers or safe workplace conditions” (Vermeir
and Verbeke, 2006) or “a law-abiding image” McWilliams and Siegel (2001); because
CSR towards Stakeholder is found to have the most significant influence on customers’
liking for brands. Besides, if a company would like to positively prevent customers from
moving to other brands or increase repurchase intention, it ought to invest more in CSR
activities related to Society and Environment, for instance, by showing their
environment-friendly image or donating for projects related to community’s well-being;
because they are factors affecting more significantly Relational Switching Cost.
While increasing brand likeability and relational switching costs can have different
benefits and can positively affect customer loyalty in general, brand likeability is a little
bit better than relational switching cost because While the effect of these two factors on
both repurchase intention is almost the same, brand likeability is found to have a much
stronger effect on word of mouth. Therefore, for those companies that are too limited in
resources, investing in CSR activities for stakeholders, the one that affects the Brand
Likeability most strongly seems to be the most economical and optimal option.
However, investing in CSR activities will not be effective, if not useless, if the customer
is not aware of their existence. Therefore, communicating CSR activities to customers is
54
really necessary. Companies should integrate their CSR activities into advertisements
for their products to increase customer awareness about CSR. Moreover, nowadays, with
the popularity of the internet, companies should also take advantage to communicate
their CSR activities on online sites. For example, the company can create its fan page on
some social networking sites such as facebook or instagram. In addition to promoting
the company's main activities and products, the company can also post its CSR activities
there. Moreover, the company can also launch environmental or charitable activities that
encourage customer contribution and cooperation. These activities not only promote the
company's CSR image but can also create cohesion between the company and its
customers.
5.3 Limitations and future research direction
This study analyzed how CSR performance affects Brand Likeability and Relational
Switching Cost in Vietnamese retail industry. Because each industry has different
property and characteristics, the findings cannot be generalized and applied for all
industry. Therefore, it is impossible for other authors to explore these relationship in
other industries. In turn, the comparison among industries is highly recommended.
Besides, the study is conducted in only Hanoi and the respondents are mostly highly
educated. Therefore, it is difficult for it to be representative for all throughout countries.
It can be suggested for other authors to conduct this research with more various sample
in term of location and education level as well.
In addition, CSR dimensions including stakeholders, environment and society are all
familiar and easy to understand. The questions regarding companies' CSR activities are
well defined and address very specific and familiar activities, which make it easy for
responders to correctly grasp and respond. However, there may still be some respondents
not paying much attention to the company's activities. Therefore, other research in the
55
future may need to consider data collection by interviewing to get more insight about
this phenomenon.
Additionally, although word of mouth is still one of the effective ways to attract more
customers, it has changed to new form before the popularity of the internet today. In
particular, instead of face-to-face sharing experiences of buying or using products or
services, customers have become accustomed to sharing them on various media channels
such as social networking sites or review sites, which is called electronic word of mouth
(eWOM). eWOM has been becoming increasingly so prominent that “77 percent of
online consumers check online reviews and ratings of products before deciding to make
a purchase” ( Mc Guigan, 2008). Therefore, that just focusing on general word of mouth
can be considered as the study’s limitation. Hence, eWOM can be suggested for other
authors in the future.
Moreover, the research did not analyze the mediating role of Brand Likeability and
Relational Switching Cost in the relationship between CSR practice and customer loyalty
behaviors. Hence, it is impossible for other authors to explore the mediating role of
Brand Likeability and Relational Switching Cost and from that, realize the differently
effective level of CSR on customer behaviors through different mediators.
56
REFERENCE
Abbas, M., Gao, Y. & Shah, S. R. A., 2018. CSR and Customer Outcomes: The
Mediating Role of Customer Engagement. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute,
Volume 10, p. 4243.
Akroush, M. N., 2012. An empirical model of marketing strategy and shareholders value:
A value based marketing perspective. Competiveness Review: An International Business
Journal, 22(1), pp. 48-89.
Albert, N. & Merunka, D., 2013. The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(3), pp. 258-266.
Anderson, E. W. & Sullivan, M. W., 1993. The antecedents and consequences of

customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12(2), pp. 125-143.
Andreassen, T. W. & Lindestad, B., 1998. Customer loyalty and complex services.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9(1), pp. 7-23.
Angelis, M. D. et al., 2012. On Braggarts and Gossips: A Self-Enhancement Account of

Word-of-Mouth Generation and Transmission. Journal Of Marketing Research, 49(4),
p. 552.
Aquino, K. & Reed, A. I., 2002. The self-importance of moral identity.. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), pp. 1423-1440.
Arndt, J., 1967. Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New

Product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4(3), pp. 291-295.
Bagozzi, R. P., 1983. A holistic methodology for modeling consumer response to

innovation. Operations Research, 31(1), pp. 128-176.
57
Bansal, H. S. & Taylor, S. F., 19999. "The Service Provider Switching Model (SPSM).
Journal of Service Research , 2(2), pp. 200-218.
Banyte, J., Brazioniene, L. & Gadeikiene, A., 2010. Expression of Green Marketing
Developing the Conception of Corporate Social Responsibility. Engineering Economics ,
21(5), pp. 550-560.
Barroso, C. & Picón, A., 2012. Multi-dimensional analysis of perceived switching costs.
Industrial Marketing Management, 41(3), pp. 531-543.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. C. & Bagozzi, R., 2012. Brand love. Journal of Marketing , 76(2),
pp. 1-16.
Bearden, W. O. & Teel, J. E., 1983. Selected determinants of consumer satisfaction and
complaint reports. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(1), pp. 21-28.
Bitner, M. J., 1990. Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical

Surroundings and Employee Responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), pp. 69-82.
Bloch, P. H., 1986. the product enthusiast: implications for marketing strategy. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 3(3), pp. 51-62.
Blut, M. et al., 2016. Securing Business-to-Business Relationships: The Impact of

Switching Costs. Industrial Marketing Management, Volume 52, pp. 82-90.
Brown, T. J. & Dacin, P. A., 1997. The Company and the Product: Corporate
Associations and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), pp. 68-84.
Buil, I., Chernatony, L. d. & Martínez, E., 2013. Examining the role of advertising and
sales promotions in brand equity creation. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), pp. 115-
122.
58
Burnham, T., Frels, J. & Mahajan, V., 2003. Consumer Switching Costs: A Typology,
Antecedents, and Consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(2),
p. 109.
Cakim, I. M., 2010. Implementing word of mouth marketing: online strategies toidentify
influencers, craft stories, and draw customers. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons..
Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W., 1959. Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), p. 81–105.
Carroll, A. B., 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral
management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), pp. 39-48.
Carroll, A. B. & Shabana, K., 2010. The business case for corporate social responsibility:
A review of concepts, research, and practice. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 12(1), pp. 85-105.
Carroll, B. A. & Ahuvia, A. C., 2006. Some Antecedents and Outcomes of Brand Love.
Marketing Letters, 17(2), pp. 79-89.
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N. & Tencati, A., 2009. The Missing Link Between
Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumer Trust: The Case of Fair Trade Products.
Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), pp. 1-15.
Castro-Gonzalez, S., Bande, B., Fernandez-Ferrín, P. & Kimura, T., 2019. Corporate
social responsibility and consumer advocacy behaviors: The importance of emotions and
moral virtues. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 231, pp. 846-855.
Chen, M.-F. & Wang, L.-H., 2009. The moderating role of switching barriers on
customer loyalty in the life insurance industry. Service Industries Journal, 29(8), pp.
1105-1123.
59
Chen, Y.-S., 2010. The Drivers of Green Brand Equity: Green Brand Image, Green
Satisfaction, and Green Trus. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), pp. 307-319.
Choi, B. & La, S., 2013. The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and
customer trust on the restoration of loyalty after service failure and recovery. Journal of
Services Marketing, 27(3), pp. 223-233.
Cialdini, R. B., 1993. Influence: Science and Practice. 3 ed. s.l.:New York:
HarperCollins .
Clarkson, M. B. E., 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating

corporate social performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1), pp. 92-117.
Cox, J., 2001. Can differential price be far?. Journal of product and brand managment,
10(5), pp. 264-275.
Creyer, E. H., 1997. The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: do consumers
really care about business ethics. Journal of Consumer Marketing,, 14(6), pp. 421-432.
Crittenden, K. S., 1983. Sociological aspect of attribution. Annual Reviews of sociology,

Volume 9, pp. 425-446.
Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37

definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , 15(1),
pp. 1-13.
Derbaix, C. & Vanhamme, J., 2003. Inducing word-of-mouth by eliciting suprise-a pilot
investigation. Journal of Economic Psychology , 24(1), pp. 99-116.
Dichter, E., 1966. How word-of-mouth advertising works. Harvard Business Review,
44(6), pp. 147-166.
60
Ebrahim, R., Ghoneim, A., Irani, Z. & Fan, Y., 2016. A brand preference and repurchase
intention model: the role of consumer experience. Journal of Marketing Management,
32(13/14), pp. 1230-1259.
Fang, Y.-H., Chiu, C.-M. & Wang, E. T. G., 2011. Understanding Customers'
Satisfaction and Repurchase Intentions: An Integration of IS Success Model, Trust, and
Justice. Internet Research, 21(4), pp. 479-503.
Fazal-e-Hasan, S. M., Lings, I. N., Mortimer, G. & Neale, L., 2017. How Gratitude
Influences Customer Word-OfMouth Intentions and Involvement: The Mediating.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 25(2), pp. 200-211.
Fishbein, M. A. & Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley ed. s.l.:MA.
Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), pp. 343-353.
Galbreath, J., 2010. How does corporate social responsibility benefit firms? Evidence
from Australia. European Business Review, 22(4), pp. 411-431.
George, D. & Mallery, P., 2010. SPSS for Windows Step-by-Step: A Simple Guide and
Reference, 14.0 update. 7th ed. Boston: Pearson.
Gürlek, M., Duzgun, E. & Uygur, S. M., 2017. How does corporate social responsibility
create customer loyalty? The role of corporate image. Social Responsibility Journal,
13(3), pp. 409-427.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E. & Black, W., 1998. Multivariate data analysis.
5th ed. Englewood Cliffs: N.J. : Prentice Hall.
61
Hassan, Z. & Nareeman, A., 2013. Impact of CSR Practices on Customer Satisfaction
and Retention: An Empirical Study on Foreign MNCs in Malaysia. International Journal
of Accounting and Business Management, 1(1), pp. 63-81.
Heikki Karjaluoto, J. M. K. K., 2016. Brand love and positive word of mouth: the
moderating effects. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(6), pp. 527-537.
Hellier, P. K., Geursen, G. M., Carr, R. & Rickard, J. A., 2003. Customer repurchase
intention: A general structural equation model. European Journal of Marketing,
37(11/12), p. 1762–1800.
Hemingway, C. A. & Maclagan, P. W., 2004. Managers' Personal Values as Drivers of

Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), pp. 33-44.
Ho, C.-W., 2017. Does Practicing CSR Makes Consumers Like Your Shop More?
Consumer-Retailer Love Mediates CSR and Behavioral Intentions. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), p. 1558.
Hoeffler, S. & Keller, K. L., 2002. Building Brand Equity Through Corporate Societal
Marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing , 21(1), pp. 78-89.
Howard Bowen, 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. s.l.:Harper and Row:
New York.
Huddleston, P., Whipple, J. M. & VanAuken, A., 2004. Food store loyalty: Application
of a consumer loyalty framework. Journal of Targeting Measurement and Analysis for
Marketing , 12(3), pp. 213-230.
Hunt, H. K., 1977. CS/D : overview and future research directions. In: H. K. Hunt, ed.
Conceptualization and measurement of consumer satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Cambridge: MA: Marketing Science Institute, pp. 455-448.
62
Ibzan, E., Balarabe, F. & Jakada, B., 2016. Consumer Satisfaction and Repurchase
Intentions. Developing Country Studies , 6(2), pp. 96-100.
Innis, D. E., 1991. Customer service, repurchase intentions, market orientation and firm
performance in the channel. Ohio State University.
Jones, P., Comfort, D. & Hillier, D., 2007. What's in store? Retail marketing and
corporate social responsibility. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(1), pp. 17-30.
Kasliwal, N., Khan, I. & Joshi, M. C., 2017. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Consumer Behavior: A Review to Establish a Conceptual Model. International Journal
of Emerging Research in Management &Technology, 6(9), pp. 2278-9359.
Keller, K. L., 2001. Building customer-based brand equity: creating brand resonance
requires carefully sequenced brand-building efforts. Marketing Management, 10(2), pp.
15-19.
Kelly, L., 2007. Beyond buzz: The next generation of word-of-mouth marketing.
s.l.:Amacom Books.
Kennedy, M. S., Ferrell, L. & LeClair, D. T., 2001. Consumers' trust of salesperson and
manufacturer: an empirical study. Journal of Business Research,. Journal of Business
Research , 51(1), pp. 73-86.
Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. L. & Cialdini, R. B., 2002. Social Psychology: Unraveling
the Mystery. 2 ed. Boston: MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kim, Y., 2017. Consumer responses to the food industry's proactive and passive
environmental CSR, factoring in price as CSR tradeoff. Journal of Business Ethics,
Volume 140, p. 307–321.
63
Kiziltas, O. & Çalıyurt, K. T., 2018. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Retail Sector:
A Case from Turkey. In: Sustainability and Social Responsibility of Accountability
Reporting Systems. s.l.:s.n., pp. 95-124.
Klemperer, P. D., 1987. Markets With Consumer Switching Costs. Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 102(2), pp. 375-394.
Knox, S. & Maklan, S., 2004. Corporate social responsibility: moving beyond
investment towards measuring outcomes. European Management Journal, 22(5), pp.
508-516.
Kotler, P., 1991. Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and

Control. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs: NJ:Prentice Hall.
Kucukusta, D., Mak, A. & Chan, X., 2013. Corporate social responsibility practices in
four and five-star hotels: Perspectives from Hong Kong visitors. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, Volume 34, pp. 19-30.
Kudeshia, C., Sikdar, P. & Mittal, A., 2016. Spreading love through fan page liking: a
perspective on small scale entrepreneurs. Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 54,
pp. 257-270.
Kukar-Kinney, M., Xia, L. & Monroe, K. B., 2007. Consumers' perceptions of the
fairness of price-matching refund policies. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), pp. 325-337.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J. & Barbaro‐Forleo, G., 2001. Targeting consumers who are
willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 18(6), pp. 503-520.
Lee, S., Seo, K. & Sharma, A., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and firm
performance in the airline industry: The moderating role of oil prices. Tourism
Management, Volume 38, pp. 20-30.
64
Lee, Y.-K., Kim, S. Y., Lee, K. H. & Li, D.-x., 2012. The impact of CSR on relationship
quality and relationship outcomes: A perspective of service employees. International
Journal of Hospitality Management , 31(3), pp. 745-756.
Lev, B., Petrovits, C. & Radhakrishnan, S., 2010. Is doing good good for you? how
corporate charitable contributions enhance revenue growth. Strategic Managment
Journal, 31(2), pp. 182-200.
Liu, M. T. et al., 2014. The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance
and perceived brand quality on customer-based brand preference. Journal of Services
Marketing, 28(3), pp. 181-194.
Luo, X. & Bhattacharya, C., 2006. Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction,
and market value.. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), pp. 1-18.
Maignan, I. & Ferrell, O., 2001. Corporate citizenship as a marketing instrument ‐

Concepts, evidence and research directions. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), pp.
457-484.
Maignan, I. & Ferrell, O. C., 2004. Corporate social responsibility and marketing: an
integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), pp. 3-19.
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C. & Hult, G. T. M., 1999. Corporate Citizenship: Cultural
Antecedents and Business Benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4),
pp. 455-469.
Maloni, M. J. & Brown, M. E., 2006. Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain:
an application in the food industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), pp. 35-52.
Mandhachitara, R. & Poolthong, Y., 2011. A model of customer loyalty and corporate
social responsibility. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(2), pp. 122-133.
65
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A. & Swaen, V., 2010. Organizational Stages and Cultural Phases:
A Critical Review and a Consolidative Model of Corporate Social Responsibility
Development. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), pp. 20-38.
Marcos, A., 2018. The Role of the Positive Switching Costs in the Insurance Industry.
International Journal of Marketing, Communication and New Media , 10(6), pp. 7-31.
Marcos, A. & Coelho, A., 2017. Antecedents and consequences of perceived value in
the insurance industry. European Journal of Applied Business Management, 3(2), pp.
29-51.
Marquina, P. & Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z., 2013. Consumer social responses to CSR

initiatives versus corporate abilities. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(2), pp. 100-
111.
Martínez, P. & Bosque, I. R. d., 2013. CSR and customer loyalty: The roles of trust,
customer identification with the company and satisfaction. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Volume 35, pp. 89-99.
Martinuzzi, A., Kudlak, R., Faber, C. & Wiman, A., 2011. CSR Activities and Impacts
of the Retail Sector. RIMAS Working Papers, Volume 4.
McGuire, W., 1985. Attitudes and attitude change. 2 ed. New York: In: Lindzey, G. and
Aronson, E., Eds., Handbook of Social Psychology.
Meijer, M.-M. & Schuyt, T., 2005. Corporate Social Performance as a Bottom Line for
Consumers. Business and Society, 44(4), pp. 442-461.
Mohammed, A. & Al-Swidi, A., 2019. The influence of CSR on perceived value, social
media and loyalty in the hotel industry. Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC, 23(3), pp.
373-396.
66
Mohr, L. A. & Webb, D. J., 2005. The effects of corporate social responsibility and price
on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), pp. 121-147.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J. & Harris, K. E., 2001. Do Consumers Expect Companies to be
Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying
Behavior. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(1), pp. 45-72.
Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(3), pp. 20-38.
Mostafa, R. B. & ElSahn, F., 2016. Exploring the mechanism of consumer responses to
CSR activities of Islamic banks The mediating role of Islamic ethics fit. International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(6), pp. 940 - 962 .
Murray, K. & Vogel, C. M., 1997. Using a hierarchy-of-effects approach to gauge the
effectiveness of corporate social responsibility to generate goodwill toward the firm:
Financial versus nonfinancial impacts. Journal of Business Research, 38(2), pp. 141-159.
Nareeman, A. & Hassan, Z., 2013. Customer perceived practice of CSR on improving
customer satisfaction and loyalty. International Joural of Accounting and Business
Management, 1(1), pp. 30-49.
Nguyen, B., Melewar, T. & Chen, J., 2013. A framework of brand likeability: an
exploratory study of likeability in firmlevel brands. Journal of Strategic Marketing,
21(4), pp. 369-390.
Nguyen, B., T.C.Melewar & Chen, J., 2013. The brand likeability effect: can firms make
themselves more likeable?. Journal of general management, 38(3), pp. 25-50.
Niyomsart, S. & Khamwon, A., 2015. brand love, brand loyalty, and word of mouth: a
case of airasia. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 9(1), pp. 263-268.
67
Oliver, R. L., 1980. A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of
Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), pp. 460-469.
Özer, G., Kazan, H. & Cüneyd, M., 2009. The Measurement of Switching Costs as a
Perception of Customer in the Turkish Credit Card Market. Journal of Electrical and
Electronics Engineering, 9(2), pp. 1015-1028.
Patterson, P. G., “A”, R. M. & Smith, T., 2001. Switching Costs as a Moderator of
Service Satisfaction Processes in Thailand. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 14(1), pp. 1-21.
Pedersen, E. R., 2010. Modeling CSR: how managers understand the responsibilities of
business towards society. Journal of Business Ethics , 91(2), pp. 155-166.
Peloza, J. & Shang, J., 2011. How can corporate social responsibility activities create
value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39(1), pp. 117-135.
Pérez, A. & Bosque, I., 2015. An Integrative Framework to Understand How CSR
Affects Customer Loyalty through Identification, Emotions and Satisfaction. Journal of
Business Ethics, 129(3), pp. 571-584.
Pérez, A. & Rodríguez-del-Bosque, I., 2015. Corporate social responsibility and

customer loyalty: Exploring the role of identification, Satisfaction and type of company.
Journal of Services Marketing, 29(1), pp. 15-25.
Pérez, A., Salmones, M. d. M. G. d. l. & Bosque, I. R. d., 2013. The effect of corporate
associations on consumer behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 47(1/2), pp. 218-
238.
Pinney, 2001. Imagine Speaks Out. How to Manage Corporate Social Responsibility and
Reputation in a Global Marketplace: the Challenge for Canadian Business.
68
Polychronidou, P., Ioannidou, E. & Kipouros, A., 2014. Corporate
socialresponsibilityinGreekbankingsector – anempiricalresearch. Procedia Economics
and Finance, Volume 9, p. 193–199.
Porter, M. E., 1998. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior

Performance. New York: The Press.
Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R., 2007. Strategy & society: The link between competitive
advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review , 84(12), pp. 78-
92.
Rahbar, E. & Wahid, N. A., 2011. Investigation of green marketing tools’ effect on
consumers’ purchase behavior. Business Strategy Series, 12(2), pp. 73-83.
Rashid, N. R. N. A., Khalid, S. A. & rahman, N. i. a., 2015. Environmental Corporate

Social Responsibility (ECSR): Exploring its Influence on Customer Loyalty. Procedia
Economics and Finance, Volume 31, pp. 705-713.
Reichheld, F. F. & W. Earl Sasser, J., 1990. Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services.
Harvard Business Review 68, Volume 5, pp. 105-111.
Reysen, S., 2005. Construction of a new scale: The Reysen Likability Scale. Social
Behavior and Personality An International Journa, 33(2), pp. 201-208.
Rezvani, S., Dehkordi, G. J., Rahman, M. S. & Fouladivanda, F., 2012. A Conceptual
Study on the Country of Origin Effect on Consumer Purchase Intention. Canadian
Center of Science and Education, 8(12), pp. 205-215.
Ricks, J. M., 2005. An assessment of strategic corporate philanthropy on perceptions of

brand equity variables. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3), pp. 121-134.
69
Rives, L. M., Maya, S. R. d. & Bañón, A. R., 2009. The Role of Identity Salience in the
Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Consumer Behavior. Journal of Business
Ethics, 84(1), pp. 65-78.
Roest, H. & Pieters, R., 1997. The nomological net of perceived service quality. The
nomological net of perceived service quality, 8(4), pp. 336-351.
Rowley, T. & Berman, S., 2000. A Brand New Brand of Corporate Social Performance.
Business & Society, 39(4), pp. 397-418.
Saleem, F. & Gopinath, C., 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility and Customer
Behavior: A. The Lahore Journal of Business, 4(1), pp. 1-22.
Schlesinger, L. A. & Heskett, J., 1991. The Service Driven Service Company. Harvard
Business Review 69, Volume 5, pp. 71-81.
Sen, S. & Bhattacharya, C., 2001. Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better?
Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(2), pp. 225-243.
Sen, S., Bhattacharya, C. & Korschun, D., 2006. The role of corporate social
responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: a field experiment.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), pp. 158-166.
Sheodon, O., 1923. The philosophy of management. Sir Issac Pitman & Sons, Bath,
England.
Singh, J., Sanchez, M. d. M. G. d. l. S. & Bosque, I. R. d., 2008. Understanding corporate

social responsibility and product perceptions in consumer market: a cross-culture
evolution. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), pp. 597-611.
70
Suetrong, P., Pires, G. D. & Chen, T., 2018. Conceptualising the effect of brand love on
consumers’ repurchase intentions for consumer products. Global Business and
Economics Review, 20(2), pp. 213-230.
Taghizadeh, H., Taghipourian, M. J. & Khazaei, A., 2013. The Effect of Customer
Satisfaction on Word of Mouth Communication. Research Journal of Applied Sciences,
Engineering and Technology, 5(8), pp. 2569-2575.
Turker, D., 2009. Measuring corporate social responsibility: a scale development study.
Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), pp. 411-427.
Vasudevan, H., Gaur, S. S. & Shinde, R. K., 2006. Relational switching costs,
satisfaction and commitment A study in the Indian manufacturing context. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 18(4), pp. 342 - 353 .
Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P. & Avramidis, P., 2008. Corporate
social responsibility: attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), pp. 170-180.
Wallace, E., Buil, I. & Chernatony, L. d., 2014. Consumer engagement with self-
expressive brands: Brand love and WOM outcomes. Journal of Product & Brand
Managemen, 23(1), pp. 33-42.
Wang, J. & WU, L., 2016. The impact of emotions on the intention of sustainable
consumption choices: evidence from a big city in an emerging country. Journal of
Cleaner Production, Volume 126, pp. 325-336.
Yi, Y., 1990. A Critical review of consumer satisfaction. In: Review of Marketing 1989.
s.l.:Chicago: America Marketing Association.
71
APPENDIX 1. QUESTIONNAIRE
Introduction
Welcome to my survey!
I am studying Master of Business Administration program at Vietnam Japan University

- Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Currently, I am doing a research related to
customer behaviors. My research cannot be completed without your helps. Therefore, I
hope that you can feel comfortable to share your opinion by answering some following
questions. I guarantee that your answers will be kept strictly confidential and used for
scientific research purpose only. Thank you once again for spending your time answering
these questions.
Survey
Section 1: Personal background
1. Gender: ________________
2. Age:___________________
3. Educational level:_________
4. Monthly income:__________
Section 2: Measuring the constructs
- Please name the supermarket you have purchased recently:

- Please answer the following questions about the supermarket you mentioned
above:
Statement Agreement extent

This brand is trying to sponsor educational 1 2 3 4 5
program
72
This brand is trying to carry out program to 1 2 3 4 5
reduce pollution
It is likely that I will continue purchasing 1 2 3 4 5
products from this brand in the future
This brand is trying to make financial 1 2 3 4 5
donations to social causes
This brand is trying to protect the 1 2 3 4 5
environment
I would say that the brand is approachable. 1 2 3 4 5
Customers’ satisfaction is highly important 1 2 3 4 5

for this brand
I say positive things about this brand to 1 2 3 4 5
others.
This brand is trying to carry out program to 1 2 3 4 5
reduce pollution
This brand is trying to recycle its waste 1 2 3 4 5
materials properly
This brand is trying to use only the necessary 1 2 3 4 5
natural resources
This brand respects consumer rights 1 2 3 4 5
beyond the legal requirements
It is important for me that this brand is a 1 2 3 4 5
trusted corporation (when I bethink of
factors like pricing, service quality etc.)
If I could, I would like to continue purchase 1 2 3 4 5
products of this brand
73
This brand is trying to help to improve 1 2 3 4 5
quality of life in the local community
This brand complies with legal regulations 1 2 3 4 5
completely and promptly
I intend to continue purchasing products 1 2 3 4 5
from this brands in the future
This brand is trying to sponsor pro- 1 2 3 4 5
environmental program
I feel attached to this brand. 1 2 3 4 5
I am thinking positive about this brand 1 2 3 4 5
Pornography, gambling and drug abuse are 1 2 3 4 5
prohibited in this brand
This brand is trying to allocate resources to 1 2 3 4 5
offer services compatible with the
environment
I mention favorable things of this brand to 1 2 3 4 5
friends, relatives and other people.
The name (brand) of this brand is important 1 2 3 4 5
for me
This brand provides full and accurate 1 2 3 4 5
information about its products/services to
customers
I recommend the services or products of this 1 2 3 4 5
brand to friends, relatives and other people.
This brand provides a healthy and safe 1 2 3 4 5
working environment for employees
74
This brand is trying to sponsor public health 1 2 3 4 5
program
I believe that this brand continues to get 1 2 3 4 5
better and better.
This brand is trying to sponsor cultural 1 2 3 4 5
program
This is the end of survey, thank you for your help!
75
APPENDIX 2. CRONBACH’S ALPHA
CSR towards Society-SCSR scale

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.878 5
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean Scale Corrected Cronbach's
if Item Variance if Item-Total Alpha if
Deleted Item Deleted Correlation Item Deleted
SCSR1 13.79 10.860 .720 .850
SCSR2 13.73 11.034 .731 .847
SCSR3 13.86 11.863 .617 .873
SCSR4 13.67 10.753 .746 .843
SCSR5 13.59 10.697 .734 .846
CSR towards Environment-ECSR scale
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.915 6
76
Deleted Item Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted
ECSR1 16.71 18.282 .776 .898
ECSR2 16.52 18.810 .689 .910
ECSR3 16.56 17.689 .809 .893
ECSR4 16.48 17.521 .799 .894
ECSR5 16.70 18.684 .690 .909
ECSR6 16.75 17.850 .802 .894
CSR towards Stakeholder-StCSR scale
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.912 6
Deleted Deleted
StCSR1 19.62 11.847 .775 .893
StCSR2 19.34 11.592 .810 .888
77
StCSR3 19.44 10.807 .803 .890
StCSR4 19.49 12.194 .750 .897
StCSR5 19.61 12.078 .730 .899
StCSR6 19.22 12.133 .670 .908
Brand Likeability – BL scale
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.923 4
Deleted Deleted
BL1 11.67 5.311 .821 .901
BL2 11.97 4.909 .812 .903
BL3 11.68 5.138 .807 .904
BL4 11.68 4.909 .850 .889
78
Relational Switching cost-RSC scale
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.855 3
Deleted Deleted
RSC1 7.15 2.622 .706 .817
RSC2 7.19 2.650 .794 .738
RSC3 7.48 2.668 .687 .835
Word of Mouth-WOM scale
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.900 3
79
Deleted Deleted
WOM1 7.31 2.763 .821 .841
WOM2 7.32 2.797 .809 .851
WOM3 7.32 2.720 .777 .880
Repurchase Intention-RI scale
Cronbach's N of
Alpha Items
.929 3
Deleted Deleted
RI1 7.72 2.865 .857 .893
RI2 7.70 2.998 .824 .920
RI3 7.65 2.846 .880 .875
80
APPENDIX 3. EFA
CSR scale-1st test

KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
.931
Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi- 2512.4
Bartlett's Test of Square 91
Sphericity df 136
Sig. .000
Total Variance Explained

Compon Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of
ent Squared Loadings Squared Loadings
Total % of Cumul Tota % of Cumul Tota % of Cumul
Variance ative l Varia ative l Varia ative
% nce % nce %
8.64 50.85 4.29 25.26 25.26
1 8.645 50.855 50.855 50.855
5 5 5 7 7
1.94 11.42 4.05 23.83 49.09
2 1.943 11.428 62.283 62.283
3 8 1 1 9
1.31 3.55 20.88 69.98
3 1.310 7.704 69.987 7.704 69.987
0 1 8 7
4 .730 4.293 74.279
5 .557 3.275 77.554
6 .544 3.200 80.755
81
7 .449 2.644 83.399
8 .406 2.391 85.790
9 .381 2.239 88.029
10 .376 2.210 90.239
11 .307 1.806 92.045
12 .298 1.754 93.798
13 .263 1.546 95.344
14 .217 1.274 96.618
15 .205 1.208 97.826
16 .198 1.165 98.991
100.00
17 .172 1.009
0
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3
ECSR3 .836
ECSR4 .829
ECSR6 .813
ECSR1 .801
ECSR2 .716
ECSR5 .692
StCSR4 .793
StCSR2 .790
StCSR3 .787
StCSR6 .763
82
StCSR1 .745
StCSR5 .640 .453
SCSR4 .761
SCSR2 .756
SCSR3 .737
SCSR1 .715
SCSR5 .709
CSR scale-2nd test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
.926
Adequacy.
2290.75
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of 8
Sphericity df 120
Sig. .000

Comp Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of
onent Squared Loadings Squared Loadings
Tota % of Cumula Total % of Cumula Total % of Cumula
l Varianc tive % Varianc tive % Varianc tive %
e e e
8.06
1 50.413 50.413 8.066 50.413 50.413 4.241 26.505 26.505
6
1.88
2 11.752 62.165 1.880 11.752 62.165 3.604 22.527 49.032
0
83
1.30
3 8.171 70.336 1.307 8.171 70.336 3.409 21.304 70.336
7
4 .693 4.328 74.665
5 .556 3.478 78.143
6 .526 3.288 81.431
7 .436 2.724 84.155
8 .406 2.535 86.690
9 .380 2.377 89.067
10 .344 2.152 91.219
11 .300 1.873 93.092
12 .271 1.691 94.783
13 .249 1.559 96.342
14 .207 1.292 97.634
15 .199 1.245 98.879
16 .179 1.121 100.000
Rotated Component Matrixa

Component
1 2 3
ECSR3 .838
ECSR4 .830
ECSR6 .817
ECSR1 .803
ECSR2 .715
ECSR5 .689
StCSR3 .798
StCSR4 .789
84
StCSR2 .787
StCSR6 .769
StCSR1 .734
SCSR4 .769
SCSR2 .760
SCSR3 .737
SCSR1 .719
SCSR5 .711
Brand Likeability and Relational Switching Cost
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
.880
Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi- 1041.06
Square 0
Bartlett's Test of
df 21
Sphericity
Sig. .000

Comp Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Rotation Sums of
onent Squared Loadings Squared Loadings
Tota % of Cumula Total % of Cumula Total % of Cumula
l Varianc tive % Varianc tive % Varianc tive %
e e e
4.57
1 65.314 65.314 4.572 65.314 65.314 3.179 45.409 45.409
2
1.02
2 14.606 79.920 1.022 14.606 79.920 2.416 34.511 79.920
2
3 .419 5.988 85.907
4 .308 4.404 90.312
5 .272 3.879 94.191
85
6 .228 3.264 97.454
7 .178 2.546 100.000
Rotated Component
Matrixa
Component
1 2
BL4 0.866
BL3 0.849
BL1 0.848
BL2 0.847
RSC3 0.84
RSC2 0.834
RSC1 0.819
Word of Mouth-WOM scale

.749
Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square 394.194
Bartlett's Test of
df 3
Sphericity
Sig. .000
86
Compone Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
nt Loadings
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance %
1 2.502 83.404 83.404 2.502 83.404 83.404
2 .285 9.483 92.888
3 .213 7.112 100.000
Component Matrixa
Component
1
WOM1 .923
WOM2 .917
WOM3 .899
Repurchase Intention scale

.755
Adequacy.
509.62
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of 1
Sphericity df 3
Sig. .000
87
Compone Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared
nt Loadings
Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance %
1 2.625 87.507 87.507 2.625 87.507 87.507
2 .230 7.658 95.166
3 .145 4.834 100.000
Component Matrixa
Component
1
RI3 .948
RI1 .938
RI2 .920
88
APPENDIX 4: REGRESSION ANALYSIS
CSR dimensions and Brand Likeability
Model Summaryb
Mode R R Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-
l Square Square the Estimate Watson
1 .822a .676 .672 .42461 1.839
a. Predictors: (Constant), STCSR, ECSR, SCSR
b. Dependent Variable: BL
ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regressio
78.305 3 26.102 144.774 .000b
n
1
Residual 37.501 208 .180
Total 115.805 211
a. Dependent Variable: BL
b. Predictors: (Constant), STCSR, ECSR, SCSR
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardiz t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients ed Statistics
Coefficien
ts
B Std. Error Beta Toleran VIF
ce
89
(Consta
.431 .171 2.523 .012
nt)
1 SCSR .192 .050 .212 3.872 .000 .520 1.924
ECSR .116 .044 .132 2.620 .009 .612 1.634
STCSR .623 .056 .584 11.052 .000 .557 1.796
a. Dependent Variable: BL
CSR dimensions and Relational Switching Cost
Model Summaryb
Mode R R Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-
l Square Square the Estimate Watson
1 .646a .417 .408 .60408 1.984
a. Predictors: (Constant), STCSR, ECSR, SCSR
b. Dependent Variable: RSC
ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Regressio
54.241 3 18.080 49.547 .000b
n
1
Residual 75.903 208 .365
Total 130.144 211
a. Dependent Variable: RSC
b. Predictors: (Constant), STCSR, ECSR, SCSR
90
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardiz t Sig. Collinearity
Coefficients ed Statistics
Coefficien
ts
B Std. Beta Toleran VIF
Error ce
(Consta
1.031 .243 4.241 .000
nt)
1 SCSR .338 .070 .352 4.794 .000 .520 1.924
ECSR .223 .063 .239 3.537 .000 .612 1.634
STCSR .180 .080 .159 2.246 .026 .557 1.796
Brand Likeability, Relational Switching Cost and Word of Mouth
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-

Square the Estimate Watson
1 .822a .676 .673 .46368 1.873
a. Predictors: (Constant), RSC, BL
b. Dependent Variable: WOM
91
ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
Regression 93.712 2 46.856 217.932 .000b
1 Residual 44.936 209 .215
Total 138.648 211
a. Dependent Variable: WOM
b. Predictors: (Constant), RSC, BL
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardi t Sig. Collinearity

Coefficients zed Statistics
Coefficien
ts
B Std. Beta Toleran VIF

Error ce
(Consta
-.037 .180 -.204 .838
nt)
1
BL .710 .055 .649 12.927 .000 .615 1.625
RSC .251 .052 .243 4.841 .000 .615 1.625
a. Dependent Variable: WOM
92
Brand Likeability, Relational Switching Cost and Repurchase Intention
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-

Square the Estimate Watson
1 .829a .688 .685 .46981 2.218
a. Predictors: (Constant), RSC, BL
b. Dependent Variable: RI
ANOVAa
Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
Regression 101.733 2 50.866 230.456 .000b
1 Residual 46.131 209 .221
Total 147.863 211
a. Dependent Variable: RI
b. Predictors: (Constant), RSC, BL
93
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Standardize t Sig. Collinearity

Coefficients d Statistics
Coefficient
s
B Std. Error Beta Toleranc VIF

e
(Constan
.034 .183 .187 .852
t)
1
BL .491 .056 .434 8.821 .000 .615 1.625
RSC .519 .053 .487 9.882 .000 .615 1.625
a. Dependent Variable: RI
94

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility On Customer Loyalty Behaviors: Evidence From Vietnam

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility On Customer Loyalty Behaviors: Evidence From Vietnam

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY

NGO THANH THANH HUYEN

IMPACT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL

NGO THANH THANH HUYEN

IMPACT OF CORPORATE SOCIAL

MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

On this occasion, I am very impatient for showing my appreciation to all staffs at

Ngo Thanh Thanh Huyen

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1

Table 3.1: Measurement items ................................................................................. 26

Figure 2.1: Proposed theoretical model ................................................................... 22

1.1. Background and necessary of the research

1.2. The research objectives

1.3. Research questions

The thesis is answering the questions as follows:

1. How significant do CSR dimensions (environment, society, stakeholders) affects

The research focuses on CSR dimensions (environment, society, stakeholders) and

This study will be split into five parts as follows:

2.1 Corporate social responsibility (CSR)

Turker (2009) defined CSR toward society as activities contributing to well-being of

In addition to cognitive aspect, emotional aspect was found to be positively affected by

2.2 Customer loyalty behaviors

Oliver (1997) defined loyalty as “ a deeply held commitment to rebuy or repatronize a

Word-of-mouth (WOM) was defined by Söderlund (1998) as the extent to which

2.3 CSR performance and brand likeability.

Likeability is described to be “a persuasion tactic and a scheme of self-presentation”

Besides, attractiveness model (McGuire, 1985) also provides insight in defining

H1: CSR towards environment positively impacts brand likeability.

H2: CSR towards society positively impacts brand likeability.

2.4 CSR performance and relational switching cost

H4: CSR towards environment positively impacts relational switching cost.

H5: CSR towards society positively impacts relational switching cost

H6: CSR towards stakeholders positively impacts relational switching cost.

2.5 Brand likeability on Word-of-mouth and Repurchase intention.

H7: Brand likeability positively impacts word of mouth.

H8: Brand likeability positively impacts repurchase intention.

2.6 Relational switching cost on Word-of-mouth and Repurchase intention.

H9: Relational switching cost positively impacts word-of-mouth.

Figure 2.1: Proposed theoretical model

3.1 Research design

The research was conducted as follows:

Identify research interest and motivation

Review the literature

Determine research methods:

Determine research sample

Correct and finalize questionnaire

Distribute questionnaire online

Analyze data by SPSS

Interpretation, conclusions, discussions

Figure 3.1: Research process proposed by the author

3.4 Questionnaire design

Additionally, questionnaires is designed in English and translated in Vietnamese before

Construct Items Label Sources

This brand is trying to allocate resources to

This brand is trying to recycle its waste

Table 3.2: Likert scale for Agreement extent

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

3.5 Data analysis

- Cronbach’s alpha varies from 0 to 1.

- “Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin” (KMO) which is used to consider whether factor analysis

Based on Pearson correlation coefficient which is abbreviated as R, the author could

- “R Square and Adjusted R Square”: which indicate magnitude of interpretation