Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose Drawing on the triple bottom line (TBL) framework and social identity theory (SIT), this study aims to examine how Generation Z consumers’ perceptions of the economic, environmental and social dimensions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) relate to brand loyalty and emotional brand attachment, and how these relationships extend to electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) and online brand-related activities across national contexts. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected from 815 Generation Z consumers in Chile, Germany, Austria and Greece. Structural equation modeling was used to examine relationships among the three CSR dimensions and brand loyalty, emotional brand attachment, eWOM and online brand-related activities. Multi-group analysis was conducted to assess cross-national differences. Findings Environmental and economic CSR are positively associated with brand loyalty and emotional brand attachment, whereas social CSR is negatively associated with brand loyalty and has no significant effect on emotional brand attachment. Brand loyalty positively influences eWOM, while emotional brand attachment positively influences online brand-related activities. Most structural relationships vary significantly across countries, although the relationship between emotional brand attachment and online brand-related activities remains consistent across countries. Originality/value The study advances CSR research by treating CSR as a multidimensional set of signals rather than a homogeneous construct and examining their differentiated implications for consumer–brand relationships. Integrating TBL with an identity-based perspective from SIT, it shows that different CSR dimensions may carry different relevance for Gen Z consumers, and that their effects vary across national contexts. The findings highlight the importance of considering both CSR dimension and market context when examining consumer responses to corporate responsibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hofer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: