The present study examines the impact of Environmental, Social and corporate Governance (ESG) video communications produced by pharmaceutical companies on the brains of different generations through research utilizing the neuroimaging technique of electroencephalogram (EEG). Existing literature highlights gaps in the research on the efficacy of sustainability communications, like corporate ESG communications. The present study employed the EEG device “Emotiv Insight 2.0 EEG Headset—Mobile Brainwear” to examine two of the youngest generational groups, Millennials and Generation Z, with a sample size of 32 participants, to conclude whether generational differences modulate neural reactions to sustainability messaging. EEG data showed that none of the 3 examined ESG videos (from PFIZER, SANOFI, and TEVA) scored higher than 50% as an average in any brain metric (Engagement, Excitement, and Interest), indicating a potential limited brain appeal across both generations. Also, the findings indicate possible generational differences in the perception of sustainability-related content and identified specific video elements that elicited more favorable brain responses, such as human faces, body parts, and dynamic effect transitions. Comparative analysis between implicit data and explicit self-assessments via questionnaire agreed with most of the preexisting literature that there are differences between the implicit and explicit reactions. Key recommendations include further research in more cross-generational studies to personalize the marketing content and emphasize the importance of integrating implicit and explicit results in marketing studies. In conclusion, the present study highlights the importance of neuroimaging tools like EEG to retrieve biometric data and unveil implicit unconscious reactions that otherwise could not be obtained, which, combined with the self-reporting method, can lead to meaningful and effective results for academia and managers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tsipouridou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: