Understanding the Mediating Effect of Brand Equity on Sustainability and Omnichannel Operation and Phygital Experience

Abstract

As the complexity of modern-day retailing currently complicates businesses, a very key study area that has emerged is how sustainability initiatives can be complemented with brand equity and omnichannel operations. The specific purpose of this study is to investigate how brand equity mediates the relationship between sustainability practices and omnichannel operations—the focus being effective retail tactics in the current market. Sustainability, which includes social responsibility, environmental management, and moral business conduct, has become a key component of corporate strategy. In order to achieve operational efficiency and long-term profitability, businesses attempt to align with consumer values and address urgent societal issues through eco-friendly production methods, community participation, and sustainable sourcing. The study employs a quantitative research approach and uses the survey method to collect data from retail end users. This structured questionnaire was distributed to 474 adult consumers in Turkey and Cyprus, ensuring that the sample is representative at a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. A simple mediation analysis was thus performed through ordinary least squares (OLS) path analysis to test the hypothesized mediating effect of brand equity. The result shows that brand equity partially mediates the relationship between sustainability and omnichannel performance, thus indicating that sustainability initiatives improve omnichannel effectiveness, both directly and indirectly, through strengthened brand perception. By demonstrating how multidimensional brand equity—which encompasses perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand associations—influences customer behavior, the study adds something special to the body of current work.

1. Introduction

In the modern company environment, sustainability and omnichannel operations have become essential factors for success. The two notions have grown more interconnected as firms endeavor to satisfy consumers’ changing demands and the wider societal imperative for enhanced sustainability.

Sustainability, formerly seen a secondary issue, has ascended to a central role in strategic corporate planning. It now encompasses not only environmental stewardship but also social responsibility and economic viability. Businesses acknowledge that sustainable practices can result in cost reductions, enhanced brand reputation, and heightened consumer loyalty.

Conversely, omnichannel operations signify the integration of both physical and digital channels to establish a cohesive, unified customer experience. This strategy enables organizations to engage customers at their current location and deliver a uniform brand experience across all interactions.

The link between these concepts and their influence on corporate performance is complex. This is when brand equity is relevant. Brand equity, characterized as the value derived from how customers view the brand, may act as a mediator in this interaction.

The foundation of brand equity is the interaction of perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand associations. Each element bolsters the others, resulting in strong brand value and positioning [1] (Yoo & Donthu, 2001). Companies that maintain a strategic approach to managing these elements will find sustainable competitive advantage and long-term brand equity.

Perceived quality is thus defined as consumer judgment of the overall excellence or superiority of a product [2] (Zeithaml, 1988). With a high perceived quality, brand equity rises because consumers prefer such a product even if it means paying a higher price [3] (Aaker, 1991). Additionally, perceived quality directly affects brand loyalty because consumers will buy the products they feel to be of better quality over and over again [4] (Keller, 1993).

Brand loyalty is defined as an investment made by a consumer to either repeatedly purchase the same brand or to always choose it over competing brands [5] (Oliver, 1999). Aaker (1991) [3] argues that brand loyalty gives power to brand equity since loyal customers ensure continued revenue for the firm with lower marketing costs. On the other hand, studies indicate that strong brand loyalty reduces price sensitivity and encourages word-of-mouth marketing [6] (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001).

Brand awareness is concerned with consumers’ way of perceiving and recalling a brand (Aaker, 1991) [3]. The high level of brand awareness acts as a propeller to brand equity, making the brand familiar, thus becoming the foremost choice in purchasing decisions (Keller, 1993) [4]. Brand awareness is said to function as the springboard of foreseeing positive brand associations and trust [7] (Yoo et al., 2000).

Brand association pertains to the mental linkage and the attributes that are thought to be connected to a brand, including functional benefits, emotional value, and symbolic meaning (Keller, 1993) [4]. Positive brand associations assist in differentiation and increase brand equity via elevated consumer preference and perceived value [8] (Aaker, 1996). According to [9] Faircloth et al. (2001), strong brand associations are the better way of supporting brand positioning.

Case studies and industry exemplars may be provided. Walmart has effectively incorporated sustainability into its omnichannel strategy via programs such as its “Sustainability Index”, which assesses the environmental impact of products. By utilizing its omnichannel capabilities, Walmart can enhance transparency and more effectively market sustainable items. H&M’s dedication to sustainability is seen in their omnichannel approach. The company provides clients the opportunity to return online purchases at physical locations, mitigating the environmental impact of returns. Furthermore, H&M emphasizes the incorporation of recycled materials in its goods across all retail platforms.

Pragmatically, understanding brand equity’s mediating impact on sustainability and omnichannel operations really matters. As many real-life cases have shown, brand equity steered by sustainability can give an impetus to the success of an omnichannel business. As an example, Patagonia is a company that has associated its reputation with sustainability through ethical sourcing, trade, and environmental activism practices [10] (Chouinard & Stanley, 2022). The obvious impression that consumers attached to Patagonia possesses high perceived quality and environmental responsibility, which creates a strengthening effect on brand equity while creating even closer bonds with customers (Hino, 2021) [11]. By introducing programs such as ’Worn Wear’, which advocates the resale and repair of previously owned products, the company adapts sustainability into its omnichannel operation, thereby improving customer engagement on both online and offline platforms (Baldassarre & Campo, 2016) [12]. The other case is Nike, which has sustainability projects like carbon neutrality and waste reduction programs earmarked in the “Move to Zero” campaign, which adds value to its products in consumers’ minds as innovative and responsible while shallowly touching the consumers [13] (Kiron et al., 2017). Nike integrates sustainability messaging and conversation by allowing its omnichannel platforms to go far and wide, using digital storytelling through its websites, mobile apps, and in-store experiences to educate consumers. This integration drives brand equity while at the same time creating consumer trust and engagement across sales channels (Gielens & Steenkamp, 2019) [14].

IKEA is an example of making sustainability a competitive advantage in omnichannel retailing. Through its commitment to the use of renewable materials, energy-efficient production, and circular economy principles, IKEA builds stronger customer–brand associations and thus develops trust in consumers [15,16] (Röös et al., 2021; Hultman et al., 2017). Sustainability messaging resonates across its online platforms, in-store experiences, and delivery services, where customers can track the environmental impact of their purchases (Lund & Lennartsson, 2019) [17]. This synergy improves the brand equity and omnichannel strategy which reinforces consumer loyalty and preference for IKEA’s offerings in both online and offline shopping modalities, like that of The Body Shop, which has long been believed to stand for ethical and sustainable trading, like selling cruelty-free products, having fair-trade sources, and using sustainable packaging (Jones et al., 2018) [18]. Consumers can recognize and trust the ethical claims of the company, building brand loyalty and associations (Delgado-Ballester & Luis Munuera-Alemán, 2005) [19]. In fact, it is through digital means that the brand educates them on sustainability, even while taking them through omnichannel experiences like associated services such as “Click & Collect” (Chatzidakis et al., 2021) [20].

Such scenarios show that any sustainability efforts that will improve brand equity—such as an increase in trust, loyalty, and perceived quality—achieve better omnichannel performance because they improve customer engagement, retention, and conversion across sales channels. Consumers with high sustainability-driven brand equity have a financial advantage in their sales through multiple channels, improved customer experience, and profits accrued over the long-term, thus making sustainability an important pillar not only of morality and environment but also of strategic benefits in modern retail (Fischer et al., 2020) [21].

Marco and Elena [22] evaluated the three distribution networks in an omnichannel context for environmental impact and operational expenses. A contextual analysis of the purchaser hardware sector was performed, revealing that the activities associated with the storage and distribution of both traditional and online channels should be integrated to minimize operational costs and enhance the environmental sustainability of the omnichannel approach. Marco et al. [23] examined the challenges faced by organizations transitioning to an omnichannel approach regarding e-satisfaction and distribution. The analysis focuses on three critical factors: distribution network, capacity and inventory management, and delivery planning and execution. They identified numerous challenges, such as the creation of distribution networks for retail companies, including the forecasting of various channels and the logistics management provided by stores for product delivery, which are not extensively examined.

Sustainability is integral to brand equity, acting as a mechanism to alleviate consumer skepticism and improve brand efficacy. Corporate social responsibility efforts, a crucial component of sustainability, can profoundly influence brand equity by enhancing brand perception, trust, and loyalty. Brand equity is a significant factor influencing consumer loyalty, exhibiting a positive association between the two.

Comprehending the mediating function of brand equity in the correlation between sustainability, omnichannel operations, and company performance is crucial. This study examines the impact of brand equity on enhancing the advantages of sustainability initiatives and omnichannel tactics. By analyzing the interaction among these characteristics, we want to offer insights into how businesses can utilize brand equity to enhance their strategic initiatives in sustainability and omnichannel operations, hence improving market performance and consumer loyalty.

This essay seeks to clarify how brand equity mediates the effects of sustainability and omnichannel operations through an extensive review of the pertinent literature and empirical evidence. This provides significant implications for academia and industry, emphasizing the need for a collaborative approach that incorporates these essential factors to promote sustainable growth and competitive advantage.

Sustainability and omnichannel operations have emerged as critical success enablers in today’s business world. In view of this importance, these two concepts are becoming intertwined with organizations fulfilling the expectations of an evolving consumer segment and socially driven pressure towards sustainable practices. However, an unexplored territory is sustainability interconnectivity and how it influences those companies that pursue omnichannel operations. Brand equity stands in as an unexplored mediating variable, where only a comparative few have ever dared to look into the linkage among it, sustainability practices, and omnichannel strategies; thus, the current research is a call for more studies on this association.

This study centers on perhaps the most important inquiry: how might brand equity work as a mediator for sustainable practices vis-à-vis omnichannel operations, and what strategic implications does this bring for retail firms?

This research is in stark contrast to previous works, which essentially focused on the direct impact of multidimensional sustainability related to performance scenarios, frequently ignoring the most crucial of all—the impact of the invisibles. Studies rarely mix sustainability, a few aspects of brand equity, and omnichannel strategies. There is not much work on how brand equity mediates sustainability and omnichannel operations. More so, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has very few such studies.

This study brings originality to the field by providing a framework on how sustainability, omnichannel operations, and brand equity can be converged operationally. This study illuminates the way brand equity, comprising quality, brand loyalty, brand awareness, brand association, and so on, generates positive outcomes of omnichannel performance through sustainability. The inclusion of conclusive suggestions for only sustainable retail choices is a novel aspect of this research.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis

2.1. Sustainability and Brand Equity

In recent years, discussions around sustainability have gained considerable momentum across multiple industries. Simultaneously, there has been increasing interest in comprehending how sustainability initiatives affect brand equity. The theoretical relationship between sustainability and brand equity should make reference to the triple bottom line theory and stakeholder theory.

Sustainability often has three dimensions—environmental, social, and economic—the so-called triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997) [24]. The environmental aspect of sustainability relates to subduing an ecological malady through responsible resource management, carbon footprint reductions, and pollution control [25] (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014). The social aspects include ethical labor practices, human rights, the well-being of consumers, and corporate social responsibilities [26] (White, Habib, & Hardisty, 2019). For economic sustainability, however, one usually understands it as referring to financial viability, long-term profitability, and economic resilience, mainly from the perspective of a business or policymaker (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002) [27]. All three dimensions interrelate, and their relevance is dependent upon the stakeholder context involved.

The triple bottom line framework—one of which is economic sustainability—is not only defined by the two other components of social and environmental sustainability (Elkington, 1997) [24]. Economic sustainability, rather, is usually related to the profitability of a business, cost efficiency, and long-term financial performance (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014) [25]. Those are aspects that consumers do not usually directly associate with their purchasing decisions. Retail end users mostly consider affordability, ethical sourcing, environmental impact, and corporate social responsibility initiatives (White, Habib, & Hardisty, 2019) [26].

Previously reviewed research indicated that when studying sustainability from the consumers’ perspective, attention is mostly directed to environmental and social facets. Consumers would be more likely to embrace and respond to sustainability efforts involving ethical labor, fair trade, carbon footprints, and green products and would be less interested in their company’s financial strategies [28,29] (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001; Peattie & Crane, 2005).

This is hence the scope of the study, which is only confined to understanding the perceptions of retail end users. By far, social and environmental sustainability parameters have been the most relevant. Economic sustainability, as important as it is to a corporation, does not directly link to the type of engagement that consumers consider regarding sustainability. Therefore, its omission conforms to the study objectives as well as the existing literature on consumer-focused sustainability research.

The literature review showed that John Elkington introduced the TBL framework in the mid-1990s as a way of recording the achievements of firms in relation to sustainability and to further analyze whether these firms were conducting operations within conditions that were good for continue existence. TBL draws from the rising movement of sustainability and sustainable development, garnering impetus from the Brundtland Report of 1987, by placing, for the first time, a very cosmopolitan conceptual framework concerning accounting before the stakeholders, which is meant to include economic, social, and environmental aspects for possible consideration together. Consequently, per TBL, what needs to be achieved essentially stands against a single goal yet aims to increase shareholder value. TBL is, on the contrary, revealing a vaster sphere than the classic model. The linked companies should not just be concerned with their owners and customers but should consider their operations and culture much farther: the stakeholders now include employees, local communities, and society in general, as well as the environment [30].

The triple bottom line theory posits that firms ought to prioritize economic profits alongside environmental and social consequences. Scholars argue that by improving corporate reputation and fostering positive interactions with stakeholders, integrating sustainability concepts into business operations can increase brand equity. According to stakeholder theory, businesses have a number of stakeholders to answer to, such as communities, investors, employees, and customers. By tackling sustainability issues and demonstrating a dedication to environmental and social responsibility, organizations can build stakeholder confidence and loyalty as well as brand equity.

Sustainability denotes the capacity to fulfill current requirements without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to satisfy their own demands. It includes environmental, social, and economic factors.

Adopting sustainability initiatives can augment a company’s brand equity. When a brand engages in sustainability measures, such as minimizing carbon emissions, utilizing environmentally friendly products, advocating for equitable labor practices, or endorsing social issues, it can cultivate a favorable perception among consumers.

Consumers are progressively prioritizing sustainability in their buying choices. Brands that exhibit a dedication to sustainability can cultivate stronger connections with consumers, resulting in enhanced brand loyalty, favorable brand perception, and, eventually, more brand equity.

Interface, General Electric, Gap, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, Patagonia, Starbucks, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, Caterpillar, and Nokia recognized the significance of sustainability and endeavored to internalize and incorporate it into their operations [31].

Brand value and sustainability have a complex and nuanced relationship. Gomez-Trujillo [32] and Gorska-Warsewicz [33] highlight how sustainability benefits brand value and corporate reputation, establishing sustainability as a precondition for corporate reputation and a means of enhancing stakeholder acceptability and sentiments. Fatemi observes that customer reactions to sustainable product branding methods can vary, yielding both positive and negative results. Winit further examines the sustainability brand model, highlighting the significance of customer attitudes and behaviors, brand strategy, and societal marketing in influencing brand value. The mentioned studies highlight the capacity of sustainability to augment brand value and the necessity for purposeful and genuine sustainability actions to effectively establish and preserve brand value.

Multiple studies have identified a favorable correlation between sustainability initiatives and brand image. Customers view ecologically and socially conscientious brands more positively, hence augmenting brand value and competitive advantage. Customers are progressively emphasizing sustainability in their decisions about purchases. Brands that resonate with customers’ beliefs and exhibit authentic dedication to sustainability typically experience enhanced brand value and elevated purchase intent. Sustainability initiatives enhance a company’s reputation and cultivate confidence between stakeholders. Brands acknowledged for their sustainable practices are regarded as more trustworthy, hence augmenting long-term financial success and brand equity.

Studies demonstrate that if consumers see and value the sustainable development actions undertaken by a company, their attitudes, purchase intentions, and willingness to recommend that brand will be positive [34] (Cacho-Elizondo & Loussaïef, 2010). CSR activities enhance the brand image and consumer loyalty of a firm, and the companies with CSR activities enjoy higher levels of trust and loyalty from their target audiences [35] (Srivastava, 2024). In the B2B sector, environmental sustainability practices promote a favorable brand image for the firm and superior market performance, especially when effectively combined with customer relationship management [36] (Vesal et al., 2020). The situation is quite similar in retail: CSR strongly affects corporate reputation and brand image, which in turn positively affect consumer satisfaction and positive word of mouth [37] (Flores-Hernández et al., 2020). These findings suggest that companies must embed sustainability initiatives in their strategies in order to create a better perception of their brand and relations with their customers.

Permana’s study (2024) [38] confirms the existence of a robust positive relationship between market position, sustainability-related criteria (e.g., CSR, sustainability marketing, ethical branding, and green consumption), and brand equity. The findings demonstrate the strategic importance of sustainability and ethical branding for Indonesian fashion companies hoping to obtain a competitive advantage and increase their visibility in the global fashion scene [38]. Perceived sustainability has a big impact on brand equity, which means that a sustainable brand must also educate its customers about sustainability (Joshi 2024) [39].

Javed et al.’s (2024) [40] study conclusions show a clear and favorable correlation between consumers’ intentions to buy and the perception of green brands. This underscores the necessity for marketers in the apparel and textile sectors to strategically promote altruistic values in their sustainability initiatives and the significance of ecological consciousness in influencing consumer behavior in China. This strategy raises green purchasing intentions by improving green brand equity and green satisfaction.

These studies collectively indicate that sustainability can significantly enhance brand equity through multiple means. Organizations that include sustainability into their fundamental business strategy see improved brand image, consumer perception, company reputation, and staff engagement. As sustainability becomes increasingly significant, organizations must acknowledge its crucial influence on brand equity and the promotion of enduring success in a competitive market. According to the aforementioned information, the initial hypothesis is as follows:

H1. 

Sustainability has a positive effect on brand equity.

2.2. Brand Equity and Omnichannel Performance

The advent of omnichannel retailing has revolutionized consumer interactions with companies across several touchpoints in the contemporary digital world. Simultaneously, brand equity is a vital determinant of corporate achievement, affecting customer loyalty and preferences, and purchasing behavior. To ascertain the impact of brand value on omnichannel accomplishment, we can reference both actual data and theoretical justification from pertinent research.

To analyze the active interaction between brand value and omnichannel performance, we integrate conceptual models associated with two primary ideas. The brand equity theory posits that brand equity signifies the varying impact of brand awareness on customer reactions to marketing efforts. It includes brand awareness, perceived quality, brand associations, and brand loyalty. Academics contend that brand equity fosters a sustained competitive advantage by affecting customer preferences and purchasing choices made over many channels.

Brand equity theory has evolved to encompass multiple perspectives and dimensions. Davcik et al. (2014) [41] propose a unified theory based on stakeholder value, marketing assets, and financial performance. Brand loyalty is identified as a key determinant of brand equity, with imperfect information driving varying risk behaviors across product categories [42] (Lane, 2015). Chaudhuri (1995) [43] reconciles the theories of double jeopardy and brand equity, demonstrating both direct and indirect relationships between attitudes/habits and brand equity outcomes, mediated by brand loyalty. Raggio and Leone (2006) [44] distinguish between brand equity as an intrapersonal construct moderating marketing activities and brand value as the sale or replacement value of a brand. This separation emphasizes the importance of leveraging equity to create value. These perspectives collectively highlight the multifaceted nature of brand equity, encompassing consumer perceptions, loyalty, and financial outcomes, while underscoring the need for strategic brand management to maximize value creation.

The second idea is the Omnichannel Retailing Framework. Omnichannel commerce consolidates several channels (e.g., online, mobile, and physical storefronts) into a cohesive purchasing experience, enabling consumers to engage with brands across different touchpoints. The omnichannel strategy prioritizes consistency, convenience, and personalization to improve consumer engagement and satisfaction.

The Omnichannel Retailing Framework includes theoretical viewpoints related to the integration and management of different channels for delivering a seamless experience to customers. The framework by itself is not a theory but has a few perspectives and theories supporting its operationalization.

Mishra et al. (2021) [45] note that a seamless experience for customers is possible due to the integration of all touchpoints for omnichannel retailing. Issues such as channel integration, the role of mobile and social technologies, and the changing role of physical stores in omnichannel retailing have been discussed by Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson (2014) [46]. These studies form the basis of frameworks for channel integration, customer experience, and technological adoption, which are relevant to implementing effective omnichannel approaches in the retail setting.

Omnichannel retailing is an emerging model of doing business that merges multiple channels to provide customer experiences that are seamless [47,48] (Sabiölla Hosseini et al., 2017; A. Tan & D. Gligor, 2019). Factors driving the adoption of this model are represented by technological changes and shifts in consumer behavior (Aiolfi Simone & E. Sabbadin, 2017) [49]. The implementation of omnichannel strategies presents challenges in the domains of inventory management, channel integration, and technological innovation (A. Tan & D. Gligor, 2019; Neha Sharma & Nirankush Dutta, 2023) [50]. Retailers must, therefore, establish specific information system capabilities and frameworks for decision-making with respect to inventory positioning in order to address these challenges (Sabiölla Hosseini et al., 2017; A. Tan & D. Gligor, 2019) [47,48]. Omnichannel retailing can only be successfully implemented if there is a transformation among technology amalgamation, customer centricity, and internal processes reorganization (Neha Sharma & Nirankush Dutta, 2023) [50]. Future research may look toward more interdisciplinary approaches that promote achieving a truly seamless customer experience across all channels (Neha Sharma & Nirankush Dutta, 2023) [50].

Brand equity affects consumer trust and loyalty, which are essential elements in omnichannel performance. Brands with substantial brand equity are regarded as more trustworthy and dependable by consumers. This trust fosters customer engagement with the business through many channels, resulting in heightened omnichannel interactions and purchases. Research indicates that devoted customers are more inclined to engage with various channels provided by a brand, hence improving omnichannel performance.

Brand equity improves brand recognition and recall, facilitating consumer identification and memory of the brand across several channels. When consumers consistently meet the brand across several touchpoints, they are more inclined to connect with it in an omnichannel framework. This enhanced brand awareness and memory result in improved omnichannel performance, as customers actively pursue the brand across several channels.

Significant brand equity is frequently linked to favorable brand associations such as quality, reliability, and prestige. These favorable associations encompass the omnichannel experience because consumers anticipate uniform quality and service standards across all platforms. Brands possessing elevated brand equity are more adept at fulfilling these expectations, leading to favorable omnichannel experiences and outcomes.

Brand equity confers a competitive edge in the omnichannel environment. Brands possessing elevated brand equity can distinguish themselves from rivals and attract clients through several methods. By implementing effective branding strategies and maintaining consistent messaging, these brands may secure market share and enhance omnichannel performance by providing distinctive value propositions that appeal to consumers.

Omnichannel tactics that emphasize improving customer experience and satisfaction foster the development of brand equity. Effortless integration, customized interactions, and omnichannel fulfillment alternatives augment perceived value and trust, cultivating favorable brand associations and loyalty.

Omnichannel skills enable brands to distinguish themselves and establish a competitive edge. Brands utilizing omnichannel technologies to provide distinctive and new experiences distinguish themselves in saturated markets, hence augmenting brand equity and market share.

Utilizing customer data from omnichannel interactions allows firms to customize marketing strategies and adapt product recommendations to individual interests. Personalization increases brand significance and fortifies emotional bonds with consumers, enhancing brand equity and encouraging repeat purchases.

The Harvard Business Review Analytic Services report [51] indicated that firms with robust omnichannel capabilities receive elevated customer retention rates and enhanced brand equity, underscoring the significance of seamless integration and personalized experiences.

A study by Verhoef et al. (2015) [52] discovered that brands possessing elevated brand equity attain significant success in omnichannel retailing, as indicated by metrics of consumer loyalty and satisfaction. Robust brands utilize their brand equity to develop cohesive and personalized omnichannel experiences, hence enhancing consumer engagement and retention.

Research by Reinartz et al. (2023) [53] found a favorable association between brand equity and omnichannel performance. High levels of brand equity correlated with increased customer loyalty and purchase frequency. Robust brands successfully utilized their brand equity to enhance omnichannel sales and customer engagement efficiently.

Muqaddas [54] (2016) and Itani [55] (2022) both emphasize the beneficial effects of marketing tactics on brand value, encompassing the performance of the channel and advertising. Brand equity significantly influences omnichannel performance. Furthermore, Itani [55] (2022) underscores the significance of the cohesive interplay of channels for brands in enhancing the engagement of consumers with brands, a vital component of omnichannel operation success. Consequently, it can be deduced that brand equity, shaped by marketing techniques, is essential for improving omnichannel operation success.

In essence, omnichannel strategies seek to provide a seamless and unified experience across various channels; that is, customers should be able to interact with brands in various ways. Phygital strategies focus on creating immersive and engaging experiences in physical environments by adopting digital technology, thus revolutionizing the traditional landscape of retail. In retail strategies today, to improve customer experiences with the interweaving of physical and digital elements, phygital and omnichannel approaches remain the main contenders. The concept of “phygital” represents a convergence of physical and digital experiences in retail, moving beyond traditional omnichannel approaches (Belghiti et al., 2017) [56]. The phygital concept in retail breaks down boundaries between online and offline, creating immersive marketplaces focused on the consumer and thus attracting younger generations (Rosado-Serrano & Navarro-García, 2023) [57]. Such intersections between physical and digital spaces provide unique benefits and modes of expression that are challenging traditional practices in education, retail, and art. The phygital as a concept is still being developed, promising to reshape user experiences and communication across the 21st century (Soloviov & Danilov, 2020) [58]. This hybridization aims to create seamless customer experiences by integrating digital technologies into physical spaces, such as connected stores with touch screens and smart mirrors (Belghiti et al., 2017) [56]. Cross-channel integration in phygital retailing has been shown to positively influence consumer retention by enhancing feelings of empowerment and satisfaction (Mishra et al., 2021) [29]. The phygital transformation impacts various aspects of retail, including objects and applications, context, customer journey, and shopping experience (Mele et al., 2023) [59].

Recent research highlights the growing importance of sustainability and omnichannel strategies in retail and brand management. Omnichannel retailing, integrating digital and physical channels, is crucial for addressing sustainability and profitability in e-commerce (Manjunath S. Vhatkar et al., 2024) [60]. Sustainability practices positively impact brand equity, as demonstrated in the Korean aviation industry (Sangryeong Lee et al., 2024) [61]. The seamless integration of multiple channels in omnichannel retailing significantly influences consumer behavior and contributes to sustainable business development (Bhavana Sharma et al., 2024) [62]. To measure sustainable brand equity performance, a novel decision support system using neutrosophic sets and multi-criteria decision-making methods has been developed, with an application in the Turkish cosmetics industry (Karahan Kara et al., 2024) [63]. These studies collectively emphasize the need for businesses to adopt sustainable practices and brand equity to enhance omnichannel strategies and meet evolving consumer demands in various sectors. A study (Xuan et al. 2023) [64] in the banking sector examines how various aspects of omnichannel retailing influence customer experiences and their loyalty to a brand. Enhancing integration quality leads to a more positive perception of fluency and improves the overall omnichannel experience as customers switch between various channels. The study underscores the importance of both hedonic and utilitarian experiences in fostering brand loyalty between clients and banks in an omnichannel retailing context. Furthermore, it was found that the impact of perceived fluency on customer experience is more pronounced when using physical channels compared to digital ones.

Klink’s (2025) [65] research findings emphasize the unique significance of the indirect and overall effects of the instruments for loyalty through offline and online retail brand equity (RBE).

Sustainability has been a key component of Zara’s omnichannel strategy concentrated on incorporating sustainability into its omnichannel strategy via its Join Life line, which includes products crafted from sustainable materials. The brand has also implemented a robust in-store and online recycling program, allowing customers to drop unwanted clothes in stores or request a home pick-up, seamlessly integrating sustainability into its omnichannel strategy [66] (Inditex, 2023).

These studies emphasize the complex connection between brand equity and omnichannel success in the contemporary retail environment. Brands that adeptly utilize omnichannel strategies to provide consistent, personalized, and smooth interactions throughout many touchpoints can significantly improve brand equity, customer happiness, and their competitive edge. As customers increasingly adopt omnichannel purchasing, organizations must prioritize the integration of channels and the utilization of data-driven insights to enhance brand equity and ensure sustained success. Experimental evidence from research and publications indicates that firms with elevated brand equity are more effectively able to thrive in the omnichannel environment, enhancing customer engagement, fulfillment, and sales throughout various channels.

H2. 

Brand equity positively affects omnichannel/phygital experience.

2.3. Sustainability and Omnichannel Performance

The incorporation of sustainability measures into omnichannel initiatives has gained prominence in recent years. Businesses recognize the value of sustainable operations and how they can be seamlessly incorporated into omnichannel strategies to enhance customer satisfaction and lessen their impact on the environment.

Studies demonstrate that omnichannel techniques can markedly diminish the retail industry’s carbon footprint. For instance, e-commerce can reduce the need for physical stores, thereby reducing energy consumption and emissions associated with store operations [67] (Wiese et al., 2020). However, the environmental benefits of e-commerce are offset by the logistics and delivery processes, which can be optimized for sustainability through efficient route planning and the use of electric delivery vehicles [68] (Mangiaracina et al., 2015). Supply chain optimization is frequently required when incorporating sustainability into omnichannel initiatives. Reducing waste, procuring resources responsibly, and guaranteeing moral labor standards are all components of sustainable supply chain management. Companies like Patagonia and IKEA have set benchmarks in this area by adopting circular economy principles and transparent supply chain practices [69] (Bai et al., 2022). Moreover, there is a growing trend towards offering consumers green delivery options, such as slower, consolidated shipping that reduces environmental impact [70] (Mangiaracina et al., 2023). Companies from a wide range of sectors, such as Interface, General Electric, Gap, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, Patagonia, Starbucks, Walmart, Johnson & Johnson, Caterpillar, and Nokia understood and embraced the importance of sustainability wholeheartedly [71] (Sheth et al., 2011).

Numerous case studies exemplify this; Walmart has effectively incorporated sustainability into its omnichannel strategy via initiatives such as its “Sustainability Index”, which assesses the environmental impact of products. Walmart can enhance transparency and market sustainable products more efficiently by utilizing its omnichannel capabilities. Walmart’s omnichannel strategy prioritizes sustainability. Their objectives encompass diminishing greenhouse gas emissions from their supply chain, enhancing energy efficiency in retail locations, and advocating for sustainable items via their e-commerce platform [72].

Nike launched the “Move to Zero” campaign that aims to cut waste and carbon emissions as an omnichannel strategy that successfully incorporates sustainability. Their strategy includes promoting products made from recycled materials and offering recycling programs in stores [73] (Nike, 2020).

The integration of omnichannel strategies with sustainability has been made possible in large part by technology. Innovations such as AI-driven inventory management, blockchain for supply chain transparency, and data analytics for optimizing resource use have all contributed to more sustainable omnichannel operations [74] (Kamble et al., 2023). Those technologies contribute to waste reduction, increase resource efficiency, and improve omnichannel operations’ overall sustainability.

The next transformation in the omnichannel strategy is inventory management, which is vital for improving operational effectiveness and customer satisfaction. Good inventory management is about ensuring the availability of the right kind of products at the right times while minimizing excess stocks and reducing costs. One of the big strategies accompanying this transformation is the optimization of inventory placement, which decides whether inventory is to be centralized at distribution centers or to be decentralized into fulfillment points closer to consumers (Gallino & Moreno, 2014) [75]. With these advanced real-time inventory-tracking, demand-forecasting, and automated replenishment systems, the retailers are able to maintain the accuracy of stocks in many sales channels (Hübner et al., 2016) [76]. Another major inventory control strategy in omnichannel retail has been cross-docking, where incoming shipments are sent directly with minimal storage time to outbound transportation, with little or no time lost in holding (Rodrigues et al., 2018) [77]. Cross-docking lowers storage costs and improves the speed of order fulfillment, making retailers quick to respond to the changes in demand of customers, particularly in rapidly moving product categories (Fernie & Sparks, 2019) [78]. In addition, RFID integration with AI-based analysis enhances visibility across the supply chain, thus providing efficient inventory allocation over e-commerce and brick-and-mortar sales (Bai et al., 2021) [79]. Optimization of inventory management with innovative transformations is now necessary to play along with the seamless operation that omnichannel retail is expected to provide to consumers for convenience and speed as it continues to mature.

Nonetheless, environmental and social issues necessitate substantial consideration on a broader scale. This customer desire compels companies to integrate sustainability into their omnichannel strategies, providing product accessibility across several channels while upholding sustainable practices. The growth of e-commerce has elevated delivery frequencies, resulting in increasing carbon emissions. Achieving a balance between effective delivery and environmental impact continues to pose challenges [68] (Mangiaracina et al., 2015). Implementing sustainable practices can be costly, and companies must navigate the trade-off between investment in sustainability and profitability [80] (Carter & Rogers, 2008). There is a growing trend towards sustainable packaging solutions, which can reduce waste and enhance brand reputation [81] (Steenis et al., 2017). The growth of e-commerce during this period has underscored the environmental implications of logistics and delivery. Research indicates that corporations are progressively prioritizing the optimization of last-mile deliveries to mitigate emissions. This includes the utilization of electric cars, sophisticated route optimization, and the implementation of sustainable packaging solutions [82].

Manjunath et al. (2024) [83] examined the relationship between omnichannel retail adoption and sustainable performance and revealed the synergy between the two by utilizing digital technologies in the retail industry. Shops may improve customer experiences, streamline operations, and spur growth by adopting omnichannel strategies and utilizing data at scale.

The literature indicates a favorable correlation between sustainability and the omnichannel strategy. Incorporating sustainable practices into an omnichannel strategy can result in improved resource efficiency, increased customer involvement, and optimized supply chains.

H3. 

Sustainability has a positive effect on omnichannel/phygital experience.

2.4. Mediation Effect of Brand Equity

Brand equity is essential in the interplay between sustainability and omnichannel initiatives. Sustainability activities can substantially enhance brand equity by improving perceived quality, trust, loyalty, and positive connections, hence reinforcing the effectiveness of omnichannel tactics. Nonetheless, obstacles such as implementation expenses and consumer skepticism must be meticulously addressed to completely actualize these advantages.

Initiatives for sustainability should be able to augment perceived quality and trust in a company, which are essential for brand equity. When consumers acknowledge a brand’s dedication to sustainability, their opinion of its quality enhances, hence augmenting trust and loyalty [84] (Sierra et al., 2017).

Sustainability initiatives can bolster brand loyalty, hence augmenting the efficacy of the multichannel strategy. Devoted clients are more inclined to interact with a business over several channels, enhancing a unified omnichannel experience [85] (Hartmann & Ibáñez, 2012).

Positive connections between sustainability and a brand can increase its brand equity. Brands that effectively convey their sustainability initiatives can establish strong and positive connections that resonate with consumers across several channels [86] (Keller, 2003).

An increasingly important dimension of omnichannel success is the context—where the drivers of the technology as well as the market are overshadowed by the expectations of the consumer. It is no longer difficult to identify the growing trend of sustainability among consumers, with studies showing that the greener the brand, the more loyalty there is from eco-conscious customers (Gielens & Steenkamp, 2019) [14]. Whenever sustainability adds to brand equity—in terms of perceived quality, trust, and emotional closeness—it generally results in a bonding with the consumer across omnichannel routes, enhancing retention and conversion rates (Hur et al., 2014) [87].

From ethical sourcing to reducing carbon footprints to practicing the circular economy, these sustainability initiatives project a sense of social responsibility and long-term stakeholding in the very well-being of society by corporates. Strong reputation equity, based on sustainability, builds trust, which, therefore, leads to consumers connecting with channels across both digital and physical realms (Kiron et al., 2017) [13]. Patagonia and The Body Shop have shown how to use these types of sustainability-driven brand equities in the omnichannel by promoting eco-communication on all their online sites, in-store experiences, and mobile applications (Delgado-Ballester & Munuera-Alemán, 2005) [19].

Innovations related to sustained supply chains include green logistics and responsible inventory. Waste reduction, better transportation, and the synchronization of inventory strategies concerning customer demand resulted from system innovations for the omnichannel operations used by companies (Hübner et al., 2016) [76]. The integration of sustainability into the company’s omnichannel models, such as IKEA’s sustainable sourcing and packaging solutions, leads to cost effectiveness without compromising on consumer faith in the brand (Lund & Lennartsson, 2019) [17].

Sustainability offers a great differentiating factor in technologically and price-wise competitive markets. A strong narrative on sustainability serves to evoke stronger customer engagement across omnichannel platforms through enhanced digital interaction, personalized marketing, and brand advocacy (Fischer et al., 2020) [21]. Consumer appetites for sustainability are on the rise. Businesses that integrate their sustainability agenda with an omnichannel strategy will differentiate themselves competitively over the long run.

Sustainability enhances the benefits of the omnichannel strategy through technological and market factors pushing its establishment. Yet it is brand equity that remains the engine fueling the success of omnichannel systems by sustainability. The initiatives in sustainability reinforce brand equity through greater trust, loyalty, and perceived quality. In turn, strong brand equity enhances the performance of an omnichannel system through deepening consumer engagement across multiple channels and increasing retention from customers due to the brand. Those companies that embed sustainability within their brand identity and are able to communicate the same quite effectively through the communicating chains will use brand equity as a strong impact lever to ensure their success in achieving the value of an omnichannel system. Thus, sustainability is ethical but becomes a competitive edge in modern retail.

By leveraging brand equity, companies can enhance the customer experience across all channels, increasing customer satisfaction and loyalty [88] (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Patagonia’s brand equity has greatly increased as a result of its dedication to sustainability. The company’s transparency and consistent sustainability efforts have fostered strong brand loyalty and positive associations, reflected in its omnichannel strategy, including online platforms and physical stores [89] (Chouinard, 2016). IKEA’s brand equity has increased as a result of its environmental activities, which include encouraging recycling and procuring sustainable materials. This enhanced brand equity supports its omnichannel strategy, providing a consistent and trusted experience across various touchpoints [90] (IKEA, 2018). Of course, there are challenges; there is a risk of consumer skepticism regarding the authenticity of a brand’s sustainability claims, which can undermine brand equity if not appropriately managed [91] (Beckmann, 2007). However, substantial brand equity derived from sustainability can provide a competitive advantage, differentiating a brand in a crowded marketplace [92] (Porter & Kramer, 2011). Brand equity is essential in the connection between sustainability and omnichannel initiatives. Sustainability activities can substantially enhance brand equity by improving perceived quality, trust, loyalty, and positive connections, hence bolstering the efficacy of omnichannel strategies.

H4. 

Sustainability and omnichannel/phygital experience are mediated by brand equity.

Figure 1 displays the conceptual framework for this study.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This research chose a cross-sectional design since it permits the assessment of relationships among variables during a data collection period and fulfills the set objectives of this study. In addition, considering the time factor and resources available, a cross-sectional approach is more convenient. Moreover, the study sought to capture a snapshot of the current status of the variables of interest and not the changes occurring in time. Longitudinal designs would have been appropriate for several temporal dynamics and causal inferences. However, they were not warranted by the specific research questions to be answered in this study. Longitudinal studies further compound the practical difficulties of retention of participants and, therefore, attrition of data. Thus, cross-sectional design became the most practical and effective approach for the current study.

Cross-Sectional Survey

The cross-sectional approach is ideal for evaluating relationships between variables at a certain moment in time. It facilitates the efficient collection of a substantial sample primarily via an online platform, while simultaneously assessing many aspects (demographics, purchasing behaviors, sustainability, brand equity, etc.).

This approach enhances generalizability and reproducibility, facilitating simultaneous assessment of purchasing behaviors, social commerce prevalence, and sustainability perspectives. When assessing causal hypotheses within the specified population, the cross-sectional survey is ideal. In quantitative research, the survey method is a dependable and popular tool that allows researchers to consistently validate ideas and models [93]. The current research conducted a cross-sectional online survey.

3.2. Research Population and Sample

The introductory statement of the survey indicated that participation was contingent upon being a social media user, either actively or passively. Given the pervasive nature of social media nowadays, no survey participant was found to be non-user.

The initial page of the questionnaire outlined the study’s purpose, informed consent, and scholarly publishing. Participation in the primary survey was limited to respondents who consented to the study’s execution and its academic publication. The questionnaire comprised three sections in total. The initial portion addressed the demographic information of the respondents. The second portion inquired about the respondents’ purchasing behaviors. The concluding section addresses inquiries regarding substantial contracts.

The target population comprised individuals in Turkey and Northern Cyprus who were acquainted with social media shopping and engaged in omnichannel retail interactions. The shopping behaviors of survey participants through omnichannel retail sales channels (social media, physical stores, online) were thoroughly examined using five questions, as detailed in Table 1. An a priori sample size calculator was utilized to determine the minimum required number of participants [94]. The population of Turkey aged over 18 is around 63 million, according to the TUIK 2021 news release. The combined population of Turkey and North Cyprus is approximately 63.5 million, with a 95% confidence level, a 5% margin of error, and a minimum required sample size of 385.

The questionnaire was circulated via email and digital channels like social media platforms, namely Facebook and Instagram, between May 2024 and June of 2024. Six hundred web links were disseminated, resulting in the collection of four hundred and eighty-four replies. The response rate was 81 percent. Following the elimination of 10 insincere responses, 474 legitimate responses were acquired.

This study’s sample size is 474, so satisfying the minimum criteria. Of the responses, there are 324 (68.4%) females and 150 (31.6%) males. The samples’ demographic characteristics are outlined in Table 1.

3.3. Measurement of Constructs

To ensure consistency and comparability with prior research, Likert-scale items were used to measure each construct (e.g., 1–5 (never to frequently) in the demographic part; 1–5 (strongly disagree to agree) in the central survey).

The study modified well-known construct measurement scales from the literature. The customer experience metrics were modified from Si Shi, Yi Wang (2019) [95]. The metrics of Tapan Kumar Panda and Anil Kumar (2019) for environmental sustainability and social sustainability were used [96]. Judith H. Washburn and Richard E. Plank (2002) [97] provided the metrics for overall brand equity and multidimensional brand equity. A scale developed by Sita Mishra and Gunjan Malhotra (2021) was used to measure cross-channel integration (CCI) [98].

4. Results

The descriptive statistics of the research variables, such as the means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, are displayed in Table 2. The suggested hypotheses were investigated using a regression analysis. According to Hypothesis 1, brand value would benefit from sustainability. According to Table 2, all scale reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all variables) were higher than the cutoff point of 0.7.

Researchers utilize an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) as a way to condense several dimensions, as well as specify relationships among them [99]. It was only those items loading 0.4 or above on single items that were included, as suggested by Hair et al. [100]. By using SPSS 25, Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value was found as 0.842, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at p < 0.05, which showed that the data could be useful in factor analysis, thereby effectively satisfying Kaiser sample value requirement. Confirmatory factor analysis was applied for construct validation.

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used in the validation of the constructs by using analysis of moment of structure (AMOS 24). In the testing model for CF, all factor loading was significant at p < 0.05. The χ² goodness-of-fit test, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were among the fit indicators used to evaluate the model fit. χ² = 694,231 df = 323 χ²/df = 2.150, CFI = 0.919, TLI = 0.912, and RMSEA = 0.059 were the testing model results; the results showed that the model met the necessary standard. Nine variables’ composite reliability (CR) ranged from 0.600 to 0.908, exceeding the 0.6 threshold. Similarly, each factor’s average variance (AVE) was extracted; the value ranged from 0.50 to 0.62, which was greater than 0.5, suggesting that the questionnaire was both convergent and discriminatively valid [95].

The PROCESS macro for SPSS, a popular tool for performing conditional process analysis, mediation, and moderation in the social sciences, serves as the foundation for this test. It enables researchers to investigate the processes by which variables influence results and the circumstances in which these effects take place [101]. Researchers of different skill levels can use the macro since it makes applying complicated statistical models easier [102]. In both basic mediation models and more intricate models with several mediators or moderators, it makes it possible to estimate both direct and indirect effects [39]. A formal test of linear moderated mediation in route analysis is offered by Hayes’ moderated mediation index. All things considered, PROCESS provides an intuitive interface for carrying out complex studies of causal links, making it easier to investigate the underlying mechanisms in social and psychological phenomena [103].

The PROCESS macro for SPSS was selected because it is a robust tool for conducting mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis with ease and accuracy. Given the objectives of the study, which are to analyze the direct and indirect effects of the independent and dependent variable and interaction effects, it would obviously prove to be a more efficient, simple, and user-friendly approach than that of traditional regression analysis. The purpose of the study is to find out the relationship between sustainability and omnichannel performance with the mediation of brand equity.

PROCESS will automate most steps in a single model, thus making the analysis easier than traditional regression methods. The method of Progressive Confidence Intervals for Indirect-Effect Bootstrapping has been proven to create confident intervals for indirect effects unlike traditional regression methods, whereby the latter makes results less reliable and more prone to Type I errors.

PROCESS replaces the manual creation of interaction terms for moderation analysis, which reduces exclusively computational errors. The macro has predefined models for mediation (Model 4); thus, it is easy to apply to the proper analytical approach corresponding to the hypotheses of the study. This is just one of the characteristics wherein the PROCEDURE presents a clean workflow for quick and reproducible statistical analyses for large datasets or when testing multiple models. With such advantages, PROCESS was the most appropriate tool for achieving the analytical goals of this study.

Brand significantly mediated the relationship between sustainability and omnichannel operations, according to a straightforward mediation analysis utilizing ordinary least squares path analysis, as seen in Table 3 and Figure 2.

For Testing Hypothesis 1, which states that sustainability and brand value are positively correlated, Table 2 demonstrates a substantial positive correlation between the two, with β = 0.501, t(470) =10.60, SE = 0.047, p < 0.005, and 90% CI (0.408, 0.594). The β coefficient of 0.501 for Hypothesis 1 suggests that a one-unit increase in sustainability is associated with a 0.501 increase in brand value, indicating a strong and meaningful relationship. Our findings support Hypothesis 1 by showing a significant positive direct impact of sustainability on brand value. Sustainability and brand value interact to explain 30% of brand value (R² = 0.308, F(3,471) = 104,8, p < 0.005). The R² value of 0.308 for Hypothesis 1 indicates that 30.8% of the variation in brand value is explained by sustainability and other included variables, which suggests a moderately strong explanatory power.

For Testing Hypothesis 2, which states that brand value and omnichannel performance are positively correlated, Table 2 demonstrates a significant positive association between brand value and omnichannel performance (β = 0.242, t(470) =6.76, SE = 0.034, p < 0.005) with a 90% confidence interval (0.164, 0.299). For Hypothesis 2, the β value of 0.242 shows a substantial positive effect of brand value on omnichannel adoption and suggests that a one-unit increase in brand value is associated with a 0.242 increase in omnichannel performance. Hypothesis 2 is supported by our findings, which showed a significant positive direct impact of brand value on omnichannel performance.

For Testing Hypothesis 3, Table 3 states that there is a substantial positive link between sustainability and omnichannel performance (β = 0.397, t(470) =10.15, SE = 0.039, p < 0.005, 90% CI (0.319, 0.473)). For Hypothesis 3, the β value of 0.397 shows a substantial positive effect of sustainability on omnichannel adoption and suggests that a one-unit increase in sustainability is associated with a 0.397 increase in omnichannel performance. Our findings corroborate Hypothesis 3 and show that sustainability has a major beneficial direct impact on omnichannel performance. Omnichannel performance is 42.1% explained by the interaction of sustainability and omnichannel performance (R² = 0.421, F(3,470) = 115.25, p < 0.005). The R² value of 0.421 for Hypothesis 3 implies that sustainability and additional predictors explain 42.1% of the variation in omnichannel performance, demonstrating a substantial influence. These values indicate that while sustainability plays a key role, other unaccounted factors may also contribute to brand value and omnichannel integration.

Testing Hypothesis 4 quantifies the indirect impact of sustainability on omnichannel performance through brand value. In this instance, the effect was substantially larger than zero at α = 0.05. The effect size was 0.121, with a 95% reliability interval that excluded zero (0.077 to 0.158 is the bootstrap confidence interval (CI)).

The mediation effect size of 0.121 suggests that brand value plays a meaningful role in the relationship between sustainability and omnichannel performance. This indicates that changes in brand value can significantly influence omnichannel performance. In practical terms, businesses focusing on improving brand value may see measurable improvements in omnichannel performance, reinforcing the importance of integrating sustainability strategies into business operations.

When the sustainability practices were incorporated into the model, the overall impact of sustainability was consistently greater than the mediating effect of brand value. To put it another way, the mediated model was shown to be partially mediated and was not superior to the main model.

In conclusion, the evidence supports the idea that sustainability raises the omnichannel performance and influences brand value (b = 0.116; 95% CI = 0.077 to 0.158). The mediation analysis was conducted using bootstrapped confidence intervals (95% CI = 0.077–0.158) with 5000 bootstrap samples, as recommended by Hayes (2020) [103]. Bootstrapping was used to improve the stability and robustness of the estimated indirect effect. The sample size of N = 472 exceeds the recommended threshold for mediation analysis, ensuring sufficient power to detect indirect effects. These methodological choices enhance the reliability of the reported confidence intervals and minimize Type I and Type II errors.

Since zero is not included in the 95% CI (LLCI 0.077, ULCI 0.158), we may conclude that brand value significantly mediates the impact of sustainability on omnichannel performance at α = 0.05. The effect of sustainability on omnichannel performance is partially explained by the mediation; furthermore, independent of the suggested mechanism, sustainability has an impact on omnichannel (b = 0.395, p = 0.000). Hence, we infer complementary partial mediation [104] (Zhao et al., 2010)

The mediation model, the total effect, and the regression of sustainability with the omnichannel performance, ignoring the mediator, was significant (b = 0.513, t(469) = 13.96, p < 0.001, 90% CI (0.440, 0.585)).

5. Discussion

This study examined the mediating function of brand equity in the connection between sustainability activities and omnichannel operations in the retail industry. The results indicate that brand value functions as a complementary partial mediator, enhancing the favorable impact of sustainability measures on omnichannel success. This section examines the ramifications of these discoveries, identifies possible limitations, and proposes directions for future research.

The results enhance the current literature by incorporating brand equity into the sustainability and omnichannel operation framework. Prior research has predominantly concentrated on the direct impacts of sustainability on operational performance, frequently neglecting the influence of intangible assets such as brand value. Our findings indicate that sustainability initiatives, when proficiently conveyed and matched with brand principles, augment brand equity, hence propelling the efficacy of multichannel strategies. This indicates that brand equity is not merely a result of marketing and branding endeavors but also a strategic asset that can enhance the effectiveness of operational and sustainability activities.

The most valuable asset of a firm is its brand equity, which is essential for omnichannel performance and sustainability. This research corroborates hypotheses via regression analysis and the PROCESS macro. It underscores the significance of sustainability in enhancing omnichannel retailing, thereby favorably affecting perceptions of brand value and facilitating the execution of creative projects.

Numerous studies have established a strong correlation between brand image and brand equity, emphasizing the necessity of matching brand identity with sustainability initiatives to elicit favorable consumer reactions. This research demonstrated that sustainability directly influences a firm’s brand value, as acknowledged in the studies of Paetz et al. (2021) [105]. In today’s market, it is essential for buyers, who are increasingly environmentally sensitive, to choose products from brands that reflect their sustainable beliefs, thereby reinforcing the connection between brand equity and effective omnichannel strategy. In addition, since brand management involves creating sustainability initiatives that increase brand awareness, the brand equity that is acquired acts as leverage for increasing consumer retention rates and organizational performance, which forms a cycle that feeds back into the establishment of sustainable practices and management, since the customers are a key driver of the success of businesses, especially businesses in an omnichannel environment [106] (Bashir, 2019).

More specifically, this study revealed that brand has a significant positive impact on the omnichannel performance of a company, which supports the conclusion drawn by Mohan 2021 et al. [107]. Furthermore, the present study enhances the literature on omnichannel operations by emphasizing the significance of brand equity as a critical success factor in the execution of the omnichannel strategy. The omnichannel approach features a strong integration focus that enhances customer engagement by capitalizing on consumers’ trust, loyalty, and perceived brand equity value. This study suggests that retailers should prioritize brand equity in their omnichannel strategies to amplify the effectiveness of sustainability efforts.

By showing how brand equity acts as a crucial mediating mechanism that connects sustainability activities to omnichannel performance, this study expands on the theoretical underpinnings of sustainability and omnichannel strategies. This study blends sustainability and omnichannel strategies, offering a more comprehensive view of their interdependence than previous research that looked at them independently. The findings, which point to brand equity as a key motivator, imply that sustainability initiatives not only support ethical branding but also raise customer confidence and perceived brand value, both of which support multichannel engagement. By presenting sustainability as a strategic facilitator that improves brand–consumer interactions across a variety of retail touchpoints, rather than only as a corporate responsibility measure, this broadens the scope of current ideas.

This research indicates that sustainability exerts a cumulative impact of 0.518, surpassing its indirect influence on brand value and omnichannel performance, which is 0.116. Furthermore, the direct effect of sustainability is 0.397, surpassing the indirect effect of innovative behavior.

6. Conclusions

This study enhances the understanding of the relationship among sustainability, brand equity, and omnichannel components. Research demonstrates that brand equity mediates a positive correlation between sustainability and omnichannel performance. Retailers are advised to invest in formulating a credible and effective sustainability plan to secure a competitive advantage in the contemporary and dynamic omnichannel landscape.

6.1. Theoretical Implications

This paper enhances existing knowledge by incorporating brand equity into sustainability and omnichannel strategies. Previous research has mostly focused on the effects of sustainability on operational outcomes, neglecting the aspect of brand equity. The results validate our predictions that sustainability initiatives enhance brand equity when effectively articulated and matched with the company’s values, hence supporting the success of multichannel strategies. This suggests that brand equity is a resource that could support operational and sustainability activities in addition to being the outcome of marketing and branding strategy.

Furthermore, by acknowledging brand equity as a critical component of this perspective, the study improves understanding of omnichannel operations. Customer loyalty, trust, and the perceived value that comes from a strong brand association are all reliant on the omnichannel approach, which emphasizes the integration of online and offline purchasing channels. Our study recommends that retailers allocate additional resources and efforts to develop and maintain brand equity to improve efficiency in sustainability initiatives within omnichannel shopping.

By showing how brand equity acts as a crucial mediating mechanism that connects sustainability activities to omnichannel performance, this study expands on the theoretical underpinnings of sustainability and omnichannel strategies. This study blends sustainability and omnichannel strategies, offering a more comprehensive view of their interdependence than previous research that looked at them independently. The findings, which point to brand equity as a key motivator, imply that sustainability initiatives not only support ethical branding but also raise customer confidence and perceived brand value, both of which support multichannel engagement. By presenting sustainability as a strategic facilitator that improves brand–consumer interactions across a variety of retail touchpoints, rather than only as a corporate responsibility measure, this broadens the scope of current ideas. The study also advances stakeholder theories, supporting the notion that sustainability conveys brand credibility and affects customer involvement and perceptions across omnichannel channels. These revelations enhance current frameworks and lay the groundwork for further study by providing a fresh theoretical perspective on how sustainability might be used as a competitive advantage in omnichannel shopping.

6.2. Practical Implications

The results highlight practitioners’ commitment to building brand equity as a strategic asset. Publicly perceived unsuitable initiatives for sustainability plans are those that fail to meet specified requirements, such as consumer perception or alignment with the retailer’s image. Enhancing brand equity via sustainability can markedly strengthen the cohesiveness of the omnichannel, as customers are more inclined to engage with channels linked to a brand they perceive as valuable.

In an omnichannel setting, retailers who want to improve sustainability initiatives while bolstering brand equity should concentrate on putting particular, doable methods into practice. In order to ensure that eco-friendly activities are constantly communicated through physical stores, websites, mobile applications, and social media, they must first create a cohesive sustainability message that can be shared across all platforms. Transparent product labeling, interactive digital content, and QR codes can all be used to inform customers and build confidence. Furthermore, it is essential to incorporate sustainable practices into omnichannel operations, such as using AI-driven inventory management to cut down on overproduction, implementing carbon-neutral shipping, and minimizing packaging waste. Additionally, retailers can utilize data analytics to tailor sustainability experiences by providing incentives such as loyalty awards or discounts for sustainable purchases and suggesting eco-friendly substitutes depending on customer behavior.

Additionally, implementing engagement-driven loyalty programs, such gamified “green shopping challenges” or prizes for recycling efforts, can motivate consumers to embrace sustainable practices while building brand loyalty. Retailers may effectively incorporate sustainability into their omnichannel strategies and drive long-term brand equity and environmental impact by putting these focused steps into practice.

This study emphasizes how important it is for sustainability, branding, and omni-sourcing decisions to be intersectional. Retailers need to make sure that their sustainability strategies complement their corporate identity and are socially and environmentally conscious. For multichannel projects, this alignment can improve consumer views and solidify brand relationships.

6.3. Limitations and Future Research

The results of this investigation are not without limits. The study was conducted inside the retail sector, perhaps limiting the generalizability of the findings to other businesses. Future research may potentially evaluate the proposed model in alternative sectors, such as hospitality or manufacturing, to validate the findings. Most likely, industries such as food and automotive, or the B2B sectors, which have different consumer engagement patterns, are likely to show different dynamics in the use of sustainability toward brand equity and omnichannel effectiveness. Future research would probably be carried out among such diverse industry setups to test the robustness of the findings.

Secondly, this study utilizes cross-sectional data, illustrating the relationships among variables throughout a certain timeframe. Longitudinal studies may reveal more insights into how the relationship between sustainability and brand image is influenced by omnichannel tactics over time. Future studies could also examine additional variables that may serve as mediators or moderators in the relationship between the variables, such as consumer trust or digital literacy.

The population is confined to Turkey and Cyprus; the results may not be applicable to other nations or cultures due to distinct socio-economic, political, or cultural aspects inherent to Turkey and Cyprus. The behaviors, attitudes, or answers of the study participants may be affected by local customs or societal norms, which may vary considerably in other contexts. Future research should investigate additional regions or people to corroborate and enhance our findings.

This study investigated the beneficial influence of sustainability on brand equity and omnichannel operations; however, future research may explore adverse consequences, such as greenwashing and consumer skepticism, that could diminish these benefits.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.K. and A.E.; data curation, B.K. and A.E.; formal analysis, B.K. and A.E.; investigation, B.K. and A.E.; methodology, B.K. and A.E.; project administration, B.K. and A.E.; resources, B.K. and A.E.; software, B.K. and A.E.; supervision, B.K. and A.E.; validation, B.K. and A.E.; visualization, B.K. and A.E.; writing—original draft, B.K.; writing—review and editing, B.K. and A.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This article followed all ethical standards for research. Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the University (NEU/SS/2024/1811). Through a written statement on the first page of the questionnaire, respondents were informed about the study’s objectives, and the study was confidential and conducted for scientific purposes only. The respondents were further informed that their participation was voluntary and that they could stop participating anytime. Therefore, only those who were willing to participate completed the questionnaire.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent for participation was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

This work is based on the first author’s doctorate dissertation. The planned submission date is May 2025. The dissertation supervisor is the co-author of this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1. The conceptual framework.

Figure 2. Single-mediation model. (A) Total effect where sustainability affects omnichannel operations. (B) A single-mediation model where sustainability affects omnichannel operations indirectly through brand value.

Table 1

Respondents’ demographic profile.

Demographic Element		Frequency (N = 474)	Valid Percent (%)
Gender	Male	150	0.316
	Female	324	0.684
Ethnicity	Turkey	330	0.696
	Northern Cyprus	138	0.291
	Other	8	0.013
Age	18–25	90	0.19
	26–35	78	0.165
	36–45	120	0.253
	46–55	144	0.304
	56–65	30	0.063
	65+	12	0.025
Hours on social media	1–3	324	0.684
	4–6	108	0.228
	7–9	30	0.063
	10+	12	0.025
Frequency of online shopping	Very Frequently	84	0.177
	Frequently	78	0.165
	Occasionally	126	0.266
	Rarely	114	0.240
	Never	72	0.152
Frequency of in-store shopping	Very Frequently	42	0.0886
	Frequently	120	0.253
	Occasionally	150	0.316
	Rarely	96	0.203
	Never	66	0.139
Frequency of social commerce	Very Frequently	174	0.367
	Frequently	102	0.215
	Occasionally	114	0.240
	Rarely	72	0.152
	Never	12	0.025
Frequency of ROBO	Very Frequently	60	0.127
(research online and buy offline)	Frequently	54	0.114
	Occasionally	114	0.240
	Rarely	150	0.316
	Never	96	0.202
Frequency of ROPO	Very Frequently	138	0.291
(research offline purchase online)	Frequently	114	0.240
	Occasionally	108	0.228
	Rarely	66	0.139
	Never	48	0.101

Table 2

Descriptive, correlation, and reliability statistics.

Variables	Mean	Std. Deviation	(Y)	(X)	(M)	(C)	Cronbach’s Alpha
Omnichannel (Y)	3.5594	0.6172	-	0.576	0.527	0.321	0.7421
Sustainability (X)	4.0204	0.6372	0.576	-	0.488	0.250	0.8733
Brand Value (M)	3.5934	0.6276	0.527	0.488	-	0.378	0.7465

Table 3

Causal effects of variables.

	Brand Value (M)						Omnichannel (Y)
Antecedent	Coefficients	SE	p-Value	LLCI	ULCI	Coefficients	SE	p-Value	LCLI	UCLI
Sustainability (X)	0.501	0.0473	0.000	0.4082	0.5939	0.397	0.039	0.000	0.3198	0.4733
Brand Value (M)	-	-	-			0.242	0.034	0.000	0.1643	0.2987
Model Summary	R2 = 0.3081				Model Summary			R2 = 0.421
Sustainability → Brand Value	F(2,471) = 104.85 p < 0.001				Sustainability → Omnichannel			F(3,470) = 114.25 p < 0.001
Direct, Indirect and Total Effect Direct Effect of X on Y	Coefficients 0.397		SE 0.391	LLCI 0.320	ULCI 0.473
Indirect Effect of X on Y via M	0.116		0.205	0.077	0.158
Total Effect of X on Y	0.513		0.367	0.440	0.585

References

1. Yoo, B.; Donthu, N. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. J. Bus. Res.; 2001; 52, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00098-3]

2. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark.; 1988; 52, pp. 2-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302]

3. Aaker, D.A. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name; Free Press: Brooklyn, NY, USA, 1991.

4. Keller, K.L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. J. Mark.; 1993; 57, pp. 1-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101]

5. Oliver, R.L. Whence consumer loyalty?. J. Mark.; 1999; 63, pp. 33-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00222429990634s105]

6. Chaudhuri, A.; Holbrook, M.B. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance. J. Mark.; 2001; 65, pp. 81-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255]

7. Yoo, B.; Donthu, N.; Lee, S. An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2000; 28, pp. 195-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282002]

8. Aaker, D.A. Building Strong Brands; Free Press: Brooklyn, NY, USA, 1996.

9. Faircloth, J.B.; Capella, L.M.; Alford, B.L. The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity. J. Mark. Theory Pract.; 2001; 9, pp. 61-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2001.11501897]

10. Chouinard, Y.; Stanley, V. The Responsible Company: What We’ve Learned from Patagonia’s First 50 Years; Patagonia Books: Ventura, CA, USA, 2022.

11. Hino, H. The influence of brand equity on consumer trust: Evidence from eco-friendly brands. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 8452.

12. Baldassarre, B.; Campo, S. Sustainability in fashion retail: Exploring consumer responses to sustainable practices. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2016; 28, pp. 315-323.

13. Kiron, D.; Kruschwitz, N.; Reeves, M.; Goh, E. Sustainability’s Next Frontier: Walking the Talk on the Sustainability Issues that Matter Most; MIT Sloan Management Review; MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; Volume 58, pp. 1-15.

14. Gielens, K.; Steenkamp, J.-B.E. Branding in the digital age: Trends and implications for omnichannel retailing. J. Retail.; 2019; 95, pp. 8-23.

15. Röös, E.; Sundberg, C.; Tidåker, P. The environmental impact of furniture production and circular business models. J. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2021; 26, pp. 410-424.

16. Hultman, J.; Johnsen, R.E.; Stannard, C. Sustainability and IKEA: Business as usual?. Sustain. Dev.; 2017; 25, pp. 456-467.

17. Lund, A.; Lennartsson, A. IKEA’s circular economy initiatives: Exploring consumer perspectives. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 234, pp. 1112-1121.

18. Jones, P.; Hillier, D.; Comfort, D. The Body Shop and the sustainability agenda: Past, present, and future. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag.; 2018; 46, pp. 91-104.

19. Delgado-Ballester, E.; Luis Munuera-Alemán, J. Does brand trust matter to brand equity?. J. Prod. Brand Manag.; 2005; 14, pp. 187-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601058]

20. Chatzidakis, A.; Kastanakis, M.N.; Stathopoulou, A. The ethical consumer: Reexamining theory and practice. J. Bus. Ethics; 2021; 171, pp. 785-798.

21. Fischer, M.; Völckner, F.; Sattler, H. The role of sustainability in brand equity: A meta-analytic review. Int. J. Res. Mark.; 2020; 37, pp. 1-20.

22. Marco, M.; Elena, T. A critical comparison of alternative distribution configurations in Omni-channel re-tailing in terms of cost and greenhouse gas emissions. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10020307]

23. Marco, M.; Sara, P.; Monica, R.; Elena, T. E-fulfilment and distribution in omni-channel retailing: A sys-tematic literature review. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.; 2018; 48, pp. 391-414.

24. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st-Century Business; Capstone: Alsip, IL, USA, 1997.

25. Bansal, P.; Des Jardine, M.R. Business sustainability: It is about time. Strateg. Organ.; 2014; 12, pp. 70-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127013520265]

26. White, K.; Habib, R.; Hardisty, D.J. How to shift consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. J. Mark.; 2019; 83, pp. 22-49. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649]

27. Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2002; 11, pp. 130-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.323]

28. Carrigan, M.; Attalla, A. The myth of the ethical consumer—Do ethics matter in purchase behaviour?. J. Consum. Mark.; 2001; 18, pp. 560-577. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760110410263]

29. Peattie, K.; Crane, A. Green marketing: Legend, myth, farce or prophesy?. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J.; 2005; 8, pp. 357-370. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522750510619733]

30. Madsen, D.Ø.; Stenheim, T. Triple Bottom Line; Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks: Cheltenham Glos, UK, 2022; pp. 621-624. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781800377486.triple.bottom.line]

31. Ishaq, M.I.; Di Maria, E. Sustainability countenance in brand equity: A critical review and future research directions. J. Brand Manag.; 2020; 27, pp. 15-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41262-019-00167-5]

32. Gomez-Trujillo, A.M.; Velez-Ocampo, J.; Gonzalez-Perez, M.A. A literature review on the causality between sustainability and corporate reputation: What goes first?. Manag. Environ. Qual.; 2020; 31, pp. 406-430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-09-2019-0207]

33. Gorska-Warsewicz, H.; Dębski, M.; Fabuš, M.; Kováč, M. Green brand equity—Empirical experience from a systematic literature review. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 11130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132011130]

34. Cacho-Elizondo, S.; Loussaïef, L. The influence of sustainable development on retail store image. Int. Bus. Res.; 2010; 3, 100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v3n3p100]

35. Srivastava, N.V.K. Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives on brand reputation: A study on how CSR activities enhance brand reputation and consumer loyalty in the context of sustainable marketing practices. Int. J. Sci. Res. Arch.; 2024; 13, pp. 1910-1930. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.13.1.1869]

36. Vesal, M.; Siahtiri, V.; O’Cass, A. Strengthening B2B brands by signalling environmental sustainability and managing customer relationships. Ind. Mark. Manag.; 2020; 92, pp. 321-331. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.02.024]

37. Flores-Hernández, A.; Olavarría-Jaraba, A.; Valera-Blanes, G.; Vázquez-Carrasco, R. Sustainability and Branding in Retail: A model of chain of effects. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 5800. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12145800]

38. Permana, D.; Ekowati, D. The influence of sustainability marketing, corporate social responsibility, ethical branding, and green consumerism on brand equity and market position in the fashion industry. Int. J. Bus. Law Educ.; 2024; 5, pp. 1551-1566. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.56442/ijble.v5i2.592]

39. Joshi, D. Influence of Academic Inputs on Perceived Sustainability and Brand Equity. NIFT J. Fash.; 2024; 180.

40. Javed, T.; Mahmoud, A.B.; Yang, J.; Zhao, X. Green branding in fast fashion: Examining the impact of social sustainability claims on Chinese consumer behaviour and brand perception. Corp. Commun. Int. J.; 2024; 29, pp. 915-934. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-12-2023-0169]

41. Davcik, N.S.; Da Silva, R.; Hair, J.F. Towards a unified Theory of brand equity: Conceptualizations, typologies and avenues for future research. SSRN Electron. J.; 2013; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2363739]

42. Lane, R.; Andersen, A. Brand Loyalty and Brand equity: Implications for business strategy and brand management. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 142-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17311-5_25]

43. Chaudhuri, A. Brand Equity or Double Jeopardy?. J. Prod. Brand Manag.; 1995; 4, pp. 26-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610429510083730]

44. Raggio, R.D.; Leone, R.P. The Theoretical separation of brand equity and brand Value: Managerial Implications for Strategic Planning. SSRN Electron. J.; 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.894109]

45. Mishra, S.; Malhotra, G.; Arora, V.; Mukhopadhyay, S. Omnichannel retailing: Does it empower consumers and influence patronage?. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.; 2011; 50, pp. 229-250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-04-2021-0199]

46. Piotrowicz, W.; Cuthbertson, R. Introduction to the special issue Information Technology in Retail: Toward Omnichannel Retailing. Int. J. Electron. Commer.; 2014; 18, pp. 5-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415180400]

47. Hosseini, S.; Röglinger, M.; Schmied, F. Omni-Channel Retail Capabilities: An Information Systems Perspective. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interaction Sciences; Seoul, Republic of Korea, 10–13 December 2017.

48. Tan, A.W.K.; Gligor, D. A Decision-Making framework for inventory positioning in an omnichannel business environment. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Supply Chain Manag.; 2018; 12, pp. 81-94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4018/IJISSCM.2019010105]

49. Simone, A.; Sabbadin, E. The New Paradigm of the Omnichannel Retailing: Key Drivers, New Challenges and Potential Outcomes Resulting from the Adoption of an Omnichannel Approach. Int. J. Bus. Manag.; 2017; 13, 85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v13n1p85]

50. Sharma, N.; Dutta, N. Omnichannel retailing: Exploring future research avenues in retail marketing and distribution management. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.; 2023; 51, pp. 894-919. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-05-2022-0166]

51. Transforming Customer Experience Inside and Out—Sponsored Content from Thought Works. Harvard Business Review. Available online: https://hbr.org/sponsored/2023/01/transforming-customer-experience-inside-and-out (accessed on 27 February 2023).

52. Verhoef, P.C.; Kannan, P.K.; Inman, J.J. From Multi-Channel Retailing to OmniChannel Retailing. Introduction to the Special Issue on Multi-Channel Retailing. J. Retail.; 2015; 91, pp. 174-181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.02.005]

53. Scholdra, T.P.; Wichmann, J.R.; Reinartz, W.J. Reimagining personalization in the physical store. J. Retail.; 2023; 99, pp. 563-579. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2023.11.001]

54. Muqaddas, M.F.; Ahmad, I. Determinants of Brand Equity: An Empirical Study of It Industry: Empirical Study. SEA–Pract. Appl. Sci.; 2018; 4, pp. 555-560.

55. Itani, O.S.; Loureiro SM, C.; Ramadan, Z. Engaging with omnichannel brands: The role of consumer empowerment. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.; 2022; 51, pp. 238-261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-02-2022-0044]

56. Belghiti, S.; Ochs, A.; Lemoine, J.; Badot, O. The Phygital Shopping Experience: An attempt at conceptualization and empirical investigation. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 61-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68750-6_18]

57. Rosado-Serrano, A.; Navarro-García, A. Alternative modes of entry and unexpected events in franchising. J. Glob. Bus. Insights; 2022; 7, pp. 94-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5038/2640-6489.7.2.1190]

58. Soloviov, N.E.; Danilov, N.A. The beginning of phygital world. S. Asian J. Eng. Technol.; 2020; 10, pp. 1-4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26524/sajet.2020.2.7]

59. Mele, C.; Spena, T.R.; Marzullo, M.; Di Bernardo, I. The phygital transformation: A systematic review and a research agenda. Ital. J. Mark.; 2023; 2023, pp. 323-349. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43039-023-00070-7]

60. Vhatkar, M.S.; Raut, R.D.; Gokhale, R.S.; Cheikhrouhou, N.; Akarte, M.M. A glimpse of the future sustainable digital omnichannel retailing emerges—A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2024; 442, 141111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141111]

61. Lee, S.; Lee, S.-K.; Park, J.-W. The Effect of Service Quality and Sustainability Practices on Brand Equity: The Case of Korean Air Passengers. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 4606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16114606]

62. Sharma, B.; Aggarwal, S.; Kadam, M.; Sharma, P. Building Sustainable Business through Omnichannel Retailing. Lloyd Bus. Rev.; 2024; 3, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.56595/lbr.v3i2.29]

63. Kara, K.; Yalçın, G.C.; Akagün Ergin, E.; Simić, V.; Pamučar, D. A Neutrosophic WENSLO-ARLON Model for Measuring Sustainable Brand Equity Performance. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci.; 2024; 94, 101918. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101918]

64. Xuan, Q.T.; Truong HT, H.; Quang, T.V. The impacts of omnichannel retailing properties on customer experience and brand loyalty: A study in the banking sector. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2023; 10, 2244765. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2244765]

65. Klink, A.; Swoboda, B. Roles of traditional, Online-Specific, and Cross-Channel marketing instruments in multi- and omnichannel fashion retail brand equity. J. Consum. Behav.; 2025; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cb.2453]

66. Kostin, K.B.; Gaptelganieva, G.R.; Gusakova, M.V.; Obvintseva, V.V. Fast and ultra-fast fashion: A comparative analysis of Inditex (Zara) and ASOS business strategies. J. Econ. Entrep. Law; 2023; 13, pp. 1595-1616.

67. Wiese, A.; Zielke, S.; Toporowski, W. Sustainability in retailing: A summative content analysis. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.; 2020; 48, pp. 365-381. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590551211211792]

68. Mangiaracina, R.; Marchet, G.; Perotti, S.; Tumino, A. A review of the environmental implications of B2C e-commerce: A logistics perspective. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.; 2015; 45, pp. 565-591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2014-0133]

69. Bai, C.; Sarkis, J.; Dou, Y. Corporate sustainability in omni-channel retail environments: Impacts, challenges, and research directions. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2022; 241, 108289.

70. Seghezzi, A.; Mangiaracina, R.; Tumino, A. E-grocery logistics: Exploring the gap between research and practice. Int. J. Logist. Manag.; 2023; 34, pp. 1675-1699. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-02-2021-0096]

71. Sheth, J.N.; Sethia, N.K.; Srinivas, S. Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to sustainability. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2011; 39, pp. 21-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0216-3]

72. Walmart. 2019 Walmart Sustainability Report; Walmart: Bentonville, AR, USA, 2019.

73. Nike. Move to Zero: Nike’s Journey Toward Zero Carbon and Zero Waste; Nike: Beaverton, OR, USA, 2020.

74. Chaudhuri, R.; Chatterjee, S.; Gupta, S.; Kamble, S. Green supply chain technology and organization performance: Moderating role of environmental dynamism and product-service innovation capability. Technovation; 2023; 128, 102857. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102857]

75. Gallino, S.; Moreno, A. Integration of online and offline channels in retail: The impact of sharing reliable inventory availability information. Manag. Sci.; 2014; 60, pp. 1434-1451. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1951]

76. Hübner, A.; Holzapfel, A.; Kuhn, H. Distribution systems in omnichannel retailing. Bus. Res.; 2016; 9, pp. 255-296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40685-016-0034-7]

77. Rodrigues, L.L.; de Souza, F.B.; Campos, R.D. Cross-docking logistics in retail: A case study of efficiency improvements. Int. J. Logist. Manag.; 2018; 29, pp. 877-895.

78. Fernie, J.; Sparks, L. Logistics and Retail Management: Emerging Issues and New Challenges in the Retail Supply Chain; Kogan Page: New York, NY, USA, 2019.

79. Bai, X.; Satir, A.; Xie, F. The role of artificial intelligence in smart retailing and supply chain management. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2021; 62, 102646.

80. Carter, C.R.; Rogers, D.S. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: Moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.; 2008; 38, pp. 360-387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030810882816]

81. Steenis, N.D.; van Herpen, E.; van der Lans, I.A.; Ligthart, T.N.; van Trijp, H.C. Consumer response to packaging design: The role of sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 162, pp. 286-298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.036]

82. Lehmann, J.; Winkenbach, M.; Janjevic, M. Operational and Tactical Levers to Reduce Carbon Emissions in Temperature-Sensitive Freight Transportation for Pharmaceuticals; MIT: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023.

83. Manjunath, S.; Vhatkar Rakesh, D. Raut, Ravindra Gokhale, Mukesh Kumar, Milind Akarte, Sudishna Ghoshal, Leveraging digital technology in retailing business: Unboxing synergy between omnichannel retail adoption and sustainable retail performance. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2024; 81, 104047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104047]

84. Sierra, V.; Iglesias, O.; Markovic, S.; Singh, J.J. Does ethical image build equity in corporate services brands? The influence of customer perceived ethicality on affect, perceived quality, and equity. J. Bus. Ethics; 2017; 144, pp. 661-676. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2855-2]

85. Hartmann, P.; Ibáñez, V.A. Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. J. Bus. Res.; 2012; 65, pp. 1254-1263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.11.001]

86. Keller, K.L. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity; Pearson: London, UK, 2003.

87. Hur, W.-M.; Kim, H.; Park, K. Assessing the effects of perceived value and satisfaction on customer loyalty: A green perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2014; 21, pp. 316-326. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1280]

88. Lemon, K.N.; Verhoef, P.C. Understanding Customer Experience Throughout the Customer Journey. J. Mark.; 2016; 80, pp. 69-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420]

89. Chouinard, Y. Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman; Penguin: North Sydney, Australia, 2016.

90. IKEA. Sustainability Report FY18; IKEA: Delft, The Netherlands, 2018.

91. Beckmann, S.C. Consumers and corporate social responsibility: Matching the unmatchable?. Australas. Mark. J.; 2007; 15, pp. 27-36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3582(07)70026-5]

92. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Creating Shared Value. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 2011; 89, pp. 62-77.

93. Straub, D.; Boudreau, M.-C.; Gefen, D. Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst.; 2004; 13, 24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01324]

94. Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas.; 1970; 30, pp. 607-610. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308]

95. Shi, S.; Wang, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhang, Q. Conceptualization of omnichannel customer experience and its impact on shopping intention: A mixed-method approach. Int. J. Inf. Manag.; 2020; 50, pp. 325-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.09.001]

96. Panda, T.K.; Kumar, A.; Jakhar, S.; Luthra, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kazancoglu, I.; Nayak, S.S. Social and environmental sustainability model on consumers’ altruism, green purchase intention, green brand loyalty and evangelism. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 243, 118575. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118575]

97. Washburn, J.H.; Plank, R.E. Measuring Brand Equity: An Evaluation of a Consumer-Based Brand Equity Scale. Plank. Theory Pract.; 2015; 10, pp. 46-62. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2002.11501909]

98. Mishra, S.; Malhotra, G.; Chatterjee, R.J. Consumer retention through phygital experience in omnichannel retailing: Role of consumer empowerment and satisfaction. Strateg. Mark.; 2002; 31, pp. 749-766. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2021.1985594]

99. Hayes, A.F. PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012.

100. Hair, J.F.; Black, B.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R. Multivariate data analysis. Multivariate Data Analysis; Cengage: Independence, KY, USA, 2011.

101. Sharma, N. Introduction to Simple Mediation Analysis in SPSS. Glob. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst.; 2015; 7, pp. 62-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18311/gjeis/2015/3038] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35295546]

102. Muñoz, J.J.F.; Gónzalez, J.M.G. L’anàlisi de mediació a través de la macro/interfície Process per a SPSS. REIRE Rev. Innovació Recer. Educ.; 2017; 10, pp. 77-88.

103. Rockwood, N.J.; Hayes, A.F. Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Clinical Psychology; Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2020.

104. Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis. J. Consum. Res.; 2010; 37, pp. 197-206. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/651257]

105. Paetz, F. Recommendations for Sustainable Brand Personalities: An Empirical Study. Sustainability.; 2021; 13, 4747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13094747]

106. Bashir, M.A. Impact of Brand Equity on Consumer Brand Preference and Brand Purchase Intention. IBT J. Bus. Stud.; 2019; 15, pp. 138-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.46745/ilma.jbs.2019.15.01.11]

107. Mohan, B.C.; Sequeira, A.H. The impact of customer-based brand equity on the operational performance of FMCG companies in India. IIMB Manag. Rev.; 2016; 28, pp. 13-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2015.11.002]