Corporate social marketing and brand equity – a case of dairy products in Vietnam

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proposed Research Model.

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Characteristics		Frequency	%	Cumulative (%)
Gender	Male	265	34.0	34.0
	Female	515	66.0	100.0
Geography	Ho Chi Minh City	477	61.2	61.2
	Hanoi	303	38.8	100.0
Age	18 – 29 years old	232	29.7	29.7
	30 – 39 years old	286	36.7	66.4
	40 – 49 years old	167	21.4	87.8
	>50 years old	95	12.2	100.0
Income	<7 mil. VND per month	260	33.3	33.3
	7 – 12 mil. VND per month	241	30.9	64.2
	12 – 20 mil. Per month	169	21.7	85.9
	> 20 mil. Per month	110	14.1	100.0
Academic level	High school or equivalent	430	55.1	55.1
	Undergraduates	258	33.1	88.2
	Graduates	92	11.8	100.0
Types of milk	Fresh milk	397	50.9	50.9
	Powdered milk	383	49.1	100.0
Brand Origin	Local (6 brands)	462	59.2	59.2
	Foreign (4 brands)	318	40.8	100.0
Total		780	100.0

Table 2. Results of Exploring Factor Analysis (EFA).

Observable items	Factor loading
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
AS2. I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of X.	0.837
AS1. Some characteristics of X come to my mind quickly	0.828
AS7. When I think of X, I immediately think that the product’s quality is always improving.	0.819
AS5. The company that makes X is very interested in contributing to the increase of social security and welfare.	0.804
AS3. I have no difficulty in imagining X in my mind.	0.800
AW2. I can recognize X among other (competing) brands.		0.857
AW3. I know X being a type (product) of natural origin.		0.826
AW1. I recognize the logo of X.		0.796
AW4. I am aware of X’s packaging.		0.758
AW6. I know the taste of X well.		0.746
AD1. X is heavily advertised.			0.888
AD6. The ads for X are very different from other competing brands.			0.875
AD4. The ads for X are ‘like no other’.			0.855
AD2. X is heavily advertised compared to other brands.			0.828
CSM5. The company producing X commits to use part of its profits to support non-profit organizations, Social Funds.				0.881
CSM7. The company producing X regularly sponsors or/and performs activities to improve social welfare.				0.877
CSM1. The company producing X always ensures the interests of buyers/consumers.				0.875
CSM3. The company producing X always shows its responsibility to protect the environment.				0.862
BT3. I believe the quality of X is always continuous and consistent.					0.797
BT2. The company that makes X always ensures the quality as promised.					0.774
BT5. I trust the company that makes X.					0.759
BT4. The company producing X ensures the quality (of X) as advertised.					0.753
BT1. I trust X fully.					0.689
DI4. I can buy X everywhere in HCMC (Hanoi).						0.867
DI3. X should be distributed in as many stores and supermarkets as possible.						0.838
DI2. Most stores and supermarkets sell X.						0.820
DI1. X is presented in more stores and supermarkets than other competing brands.						0.709
QL5. X is the best brand in its product group.							0.824
QL4. X possesses great features.							0.812
QL1. X is a very good quality product.							0.791
QL6. Compared to other brands (of product), X is of very high quality.							0.757
LO3. If X is not available, I will not buy other brands.								0.887
LO2. When buying milk products, X is my first choice.								0.807
LO1. I love X very much.								0.796
LO4. I consider myself to be loyal to X.								0.690
Eigenvalue	9,460	3,217	2,734	20,334	1,905	1,668	1,380	1,181
Total Variance Explained	9,967	9,498	8,932	80,875	8,640	7,713	7,623	6,977
Variance Extracted	9,967	19,465	28,397	37,272	45,912	53,624	61,247	68,224
KMO	0,905
Bartlett’s Test	Chi square		14199,913
	df		595
	Sig.		0,000

Table 3. Results of reliability, construct validity of research concepts.

Research variables	Code	Number of items	CA	CR	AVE
Brand Awareness	AW	5	0.863	0.864	0.560
Brand Associations	AS	5	0.880	0.880	0.595
Perceived Quality	QL	4	0.815	0.815	0.525
Brand Trust	BT	5	0.832	0.833	0.503
Brand Loyalty	LO	4	0.842	0.842	0.571
Advertising	AD	4	0.889	0.890	0.670
Distribution Intensity	DI	4	0.831	0.833	0.558
Corporate Social Marketing	CSM	4	0.897	0.897	0.685

CA: Cronbach’s Alpha, CR: Composite Reliability, AVE: Average variance extracted.

(Source: author’s data analysis).

Figure 2. Testing CFA results.

Notes: Cmin/df < 5 (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004), TLI > 0.90 (Hair et al., 2010), CFI > 0.90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), RMSEA < 0.07 (Hair et al., 2010).

Figure 3. The results of testing the research model.

Table 4. Results of testing research hypotheses.

Relationship			Unstandardized regression estimate	Standardized regression estimate	S.E	C.R	P-value	Conclusion
AW	←	CSM	0.232	0.278	0.034	6.896	***	H1a accepted
AS	←	CSM	0.184	0.227	0.032	5.685	***	H1b accepted
QL	←	CSM	0.087	0.232	0.016	5.552	***	H1c accepted
BT	←	CSM	0.060	0.156	0.015	4.001	***	H1d accepted
LO	←	CSM	0.081	0.101	0.030	2.662	0.008	H1e accepted
AW	←	AD	0.065	0.080	0.031	2.060	0.039	H2a accepted
AS	←	AD	0.081	0.102	0.031	2.619	0.009	H2b accepted
QL	←	AD	0.048	0.132	0.015	3.227	0.001	H2c accepted
BT	←	AD	0.026	0.070	0.014	1.867	0.062	H2d accepted
LO	←	AD	0.038	0.049	0.027	1.437	0.151	H2e rejected
AW	←	DI	0.163	0.199	0.033	4.904	***	H3a accepted
AS	←	DI	0.112	0.142	0.032	3.512	***	H3b accepted
QL	←	DI	0.034	0.094	0.015	2.233	0.026	H3c accepted
BT	←	DI	0.040	0.107	0.014	2.784	0.005	H3d accepted
LO	←	DI	0.077	0.098	0.028	2.700	0.007	H3e accepted
LO	←	AW	0.201	0.210	0.036	5.538	***	H4 accepted
LO	←	AS	0.329	0.333	0.038	8.634	***	H5 accepted
LO	←	BT	0.492	0.235	0.096	5.120	***	H6 accepted
LO	←	QL	0.558	0.260	0.097	5.731	***	H7 accepted
BT	←	QL	0.472	0.462	0.049	9.615	***	H8 accepted

Notes: S.E. – standard error; C.R. – critical ratio; (***) – p value < 0.001.

Table 5. Analysis results for difference between groups.

	χ^2	Df	p-value	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Sex
Invariant (Partial)	1.936,599	1.100	0,000	0,938	0,933	0,031
Variant	1.928,643	1.080	0,000	0,937	0,931	0,032
Difference	7,956	20	0,992	0,001	0,002	0,001
Income
Invariant (Partial)	2.940,425	1.660	0,000	0,908	0,901	0,31
Variant	2.910,644	1.620	0,000	0,907	0,898	0,32
Difference	29,781	40	0,881	0,001	0,003	0,01
Age
Invariant (Partial)	2.321,014	1.100	0,000	0,912	0,905	0,38
Variant	2.295,593	1.082	0,000	0,912	0,903	0,38
Difference	25,475	18	0,112	0,000	0,002	0,00
Region
Invariant (Partial)	1.873,405	1.100	0,000	0,942	0,938	0,03
Variant	1.860,454	1.080	0,000	0,942	0,936	0,03
Difference	12,951	20	0,879	0,000	0,002	0,00
Milk types
Invariant (Partial)	2.218,161	1.099	0,000	0,919	0,912	0,36
Variant	2.205,989	1.082	0,000	0,918	0,910	0,37
Difference	12,172	17	0,790	0,001	0,002	0,01
Brand Origin
Invariant (Partial)	1.865,557	1.100	0,000	0,943	0,938	0,03
Variant	1.853,532	1.080	0,000	0,942	0,936	0,03
Difference	12,025	20	0,915	0,001	0,002	0,00

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Psychology Press.

 Google Scholar

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.

 Google Scholar

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar