1. Introduction
In the dynamic and evolving landscape of contemporary business, the concept of the circular economy (CE) has emerged as a transformative paradigm, addressing pressing environmental challenges while fostering economic growth [1,2]. Unlike the traditional linear economic model, the circular economy aims to decouple economic progress from resource consumption and waste generation by advocating for the principles of reduce, reuse, and recycle [1,2]. This paradigm necessitates a fundamental redesign of organizational business models, products, and services, creating value through enhanced resource efficiency, waste minimization, and closed-loop systems [3,4]. By shifting the focus from a “take-make-dispose” model to a regenerative system, the circular economy not only addresses environmental sustainability but also fosters long-term economic resilience.
While the adoption of circular economy principles continues to expand, understanding their broader implications beyond environmental sustainability remains critical. One particularly underexplored area of research concerns the impact of circular economy practices on brand-related outcomes, notably brand value. Brand value, encompassing elements such as brand equity, reputation, and perception, serves as a key indicator of a brand’s financial worth, market position, and competitive advantage [5,6,7]. Brand value reflects not only the tangible benefits offered by a company but also its intangible assets, such as trust, loyalty, and customer perception. While prior research has highlighted the relationship between sustainability initiatives and brand value [8], the specific influence of circular economy practices remains insufficiently explored.
Service quality is the extent to which a service meets or exceeds customer expectations, typically measured through dimensions such as reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and tangibles [9,10]. Service quality is a critical determinant of customer perceptions and experiences and is essential for organizations seeking to enhance brand value. Defined as the organization’s ability to deliver services that meet or exceed customer expectations, service quality forms a foundation for successful customer engagement [11,12]. In the context of the circular economy, service quality goes beyond conventional measures to incorporate the principles of sustainability and resource efficiency. For example, organizations aligning their service delivery with circular economy principles often focus on delivering environmentally responsible and efficient services, reflecting both the Nordic model [13] and the SERVQUAL framework [12]. The circular economy service quality thus encompasses the organization’s commitment to providing value while adhering to the principles of environmental and social responsibility [14,15].
A key mechanism through which service quality influences brand value is customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction, defined as the extent to which customers perceive their expectations to be met or exceeded, is fundamental to building strong customer relationships [16]. It is a key indicator of a company’s performance and is closely linked to customer loyalty and repeat business [17]. Research consistently highlights that satisfied customers exhibit higher levels of brand loyalty, engage in positive word-of-mouth communication, and contribute to enhanced brand image [18,19]. In the circular economy context, customer satisfaction is influenced not only by product and service quality but also by the perception of contributing to environmental preservation [20,21]. Satisfied customers often feel a sense of pride and fulfillment when their purchases align with their values, reinforcing their commitment to the brand [22].
Brand image refers to the perceptions and associations that consumers hold regarding a brand, encompassing their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs shaped by interactions and experiences with the brand [23]. The brand image, another vital component of brand value, refers to the perceptions, associations, and reputational attributes a brand holds in the minds of consumers [5,7]. A positive brand image fosters credibility, attractiveness, and differentiation in competitive markets, ultimately enhancing brand loyalty and customer retention [24,25]. For organizations embracing circular economy principles, a strong brand image often resonates with environmentally conscious consumers who prioritize sustainability. Such perceptions not only strengthen brand credibility but also drive customers’ willingness to pay premium prices [26,27]. Sustaining a positive brand image, however, is a long-term process that requires consistent effort and alignment with customer values.
Customer loyalty refers to a consumer’s consistent preference and commitment to repurchase a specific brand’s products or services over time, despite the availability of alternatives. This loyalty is often driven by positive experiences, satisfaction, and trust in the brand. Customer loyalty encompasses both attitudinal and behavioral dimensions, reflecting a customer’s favorable disposition towards a brand and their repeat purchasing behavior [28]. Customer loyalty, defined as the consistent preference and patronage customers exhibit toward a brand, plays a central role in driving brand value [29,30]. Loyal customers not only generate consistent revenue streams but also exhibit reduced sensitivity to price changes and resistance to competitive offerings [31,32]. For organizations operating within a circular economy framework, loyalty is often influenced by customers’ alignment with the brand’s environmental values and practices [33,34]. This alignment reinforces customer commitment and positions the organization as a leader in sustainable practices.
Brand value encompasses both tangible and intangible assets that reflect the overall strength and worth of a brand in the marketplace [35]. Brand value represents the culmination of these interrelated factors. As the financial worth of a brand, brand value is shaped by attributes such as awareness, association, loyalty, and perceived quality [7,36]. Nowadays brand value is of significant importance, which is related to creating an emotional connection with the customer [37]. For companies adopting circular economy principles, brand value is further enhanced by operational cost reductions, improved environmental performance, and strengthened consumer trust [38]. Moreover, the alignment between circular economy practices and consumer values creates a competitive edge, differentiating these organizations from traditional market players.
This study investigates the relationship between circular economy service quality and brand value, focusing on the mediating roles of customer satisfaction, brand image, and customer loyalty. By integrating these constructs into a comprehensive framework, the research seeks to address the gap in understanding how circular economy initiatives influence brand performance. The findings aim to contribute both theoretically and practically by providing actionable insights for organizations leveraging circular economy practices to enhance their competitive advantage and market presence.
2. Hypothesis Development
The hypotheses in this study were developed to examine the intricate relationships between circular economy service quality, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, brand image, and brand value. Circular economy service quality was posited as a central driver that influences customer satisfaction, loyalty, and brand image, ultimately contributing to enhanced brand value. The hypotheses also explored the mediating roles of customer satisfaction, loyalty, and brand image, along with their serial mediation effects. Additionally, the potential moderating effect of gender on the relationship between circular economy service quality and brand value was incorporated to account for individual differences in consumer responses to circular economy practices. The following hypotheses outline these relationships and mediating or moderating dynamics comprehensively.
2.1. Circular Economy Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction
Circular business models emphasizing closed loops, slowed loops, intensified loops, narrowed loops, and dematerialized loops can significantly improve service quality by reducing waste, enhancing resource efficiency, and improving the overall customer experience. Such models align with circular economy principles, which aim to balance environmental sustainability and customer satisfaction [39]. Empirical evidence demonstrates a positive relationship between service quality and customer satisfaction [40,41,42]. However, the social dimensions of circular economy adoption remain underexplored, necessitating further research into how these transitions impact customer perceptions and satisfaction [43].
Circular Economy Service Quality positively influences Customer Satisfaction levels.
2.2. Circular Economy Service Quality and Customer Loyalty
The circular economy has garnered increasing attention as a sustainable approach to business operations. Service quality, a core aspect of the circular economy, has been shown to directly influence customer loyalty [15]. Studies across various industries, such as restaurants, travel agencies, and airlines, underscore that superior service quality drives loyalty by enhancing customer experiences and satisfaction [44]. For example, high-quality services under circular economy principles have been linked to increased profitability, cost savings, and market share for organizations [39].
Circular Economy Service Quality positively and significantly influences Customer Loyalty.
2.3. Circular Economy Service Quality and Brand Image
Organizations implementing circular economy principles often enjoy an enhanced brand image due to their focus on sustainability and customer-centric practices. These companies design products for longevity, reuse, and recyclability while engaging stakeholders across the value chain, reflecting their commitment to environmental and social responsibility [45,46]. By transparently communicating the benefits of their circular practices, they can position themselves as leaders in sustainable innovation and reinforce their brand image.
Circular Economy Service Quality contributes positively to the formation of Brand Image.
2.4. Circular Economy Service Quality and Brand Value
Circular economy principles, when integrated into organizational practices, foster brand differentiation and enhance brand value. By emphasizing resource efficiency, environmental responsibility, and customer-centric solutions, companies strengthen trust and loyalty, which are key contributors to brand value [47]. Effective communication of the quality and environmental benefits of circular products reinforces this value proposition and bolsters brand reputation.
Circular Economy Service Quality positively and significantly influences Brand Value.
2.5. Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty
Customer satisfaction and loyalty are interdependent constructs that play pivotal roles in marketing and customer relationship management. Satisfied customers are more likely to remain loyal, repurchase products, and advocate for a brand, which, in turn, drives profitability and market share [48,49]. Studies confirm that customer satisfaction serves as a strong predictor of loyalty [50], making it an essential focus for businesses pursuing sustainable growth.
Customer Satisfaction is positively linked to Customer Loyalty.
2.6. Customer Loyalty and Brand Image
Loyal customers significantly contribute to building a positive brand image by reinforcing the perceptions of trust and reliability. This relationship is particularly relevant in the circular economy, where customers prioritize brands that align with their values of sustainability and responsible consumption [51,52]. Research shows that loyal customers influence brand reputation through advocacy and repeat purchases, thereby strengthening the brand’s image [53].
Customer Loyalty is positively associated with Brand Image.
2.7. Customer Satisfaction and Brand Image
Customer satisfaction serves as a foundation for a strong brand image. Positive customer experiences foster favorable perceptions of the brand, influencing its reputation and emotional appeal [54,55]. Satisfied customers often advocate for the brand, amplifying its visibility and strengthening its image, especially in sustainability-focused contexts [51,56].
Customer Satisfaction is positively correlated with Brand Image.
2.8. Customer Loyalty and Brand Value
Customer loyalty is a critical driver of brand value, as loyal customers consistently support the brand through repeat purchases and advocacy. Studies highlight that customer loyalty programs significantly enhance brand revenue and profitability [57,58]. In the circular economy, loyalty gains further importance as environmentally conscious consumers prefer sustainable brands, reinforcing brand value through trust and sustained engagement.
Customer Loyalty is positively linked to Brand Value.
2.9. Brand Image and Brand Value
A strong brand image is integral to building brand value. Positive consumer perceptions foster recognition, differentiation, and trust, which translate into higher market share, customer loyalty, and price premiums [26,59]. By cultivating a compelling brand image, companies can enhance their brand value and maintain a competitive edge [60].
Brand Image has a significantly positive effect on Brand Value.
2.10. Customer Satisfaction and Brand Value
Customer satisfaction directly contributes to brand value by shaping consumers’ perceptions of the brand’s worth. Research demonstrates that satisfied customers perceive brands as more valuable, particularly when sustainability is a core aspect of the brand’s identity [61,62].
Customer Satisfaction is positively and significantly correlated with Brand Value.
2.11. Mediating Roles and Moderating Effects
Customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and brand image are critical mediators that shape the relationship between circular economy service quality and brand value. For instance, high-quality circular economy services, such as closed-loop recycling programs and repair services, can elevate customer satisfaction by meeting both functional and emotional needs. This satisfaction, in turn, fosters a positive brand image and strengthens customer loyalty, thereby enhancing brand value. Loyal customers recognize and appreciate the brand’s commitment to sustainability, further contributing to its market reputation and financial worth. Given the interconnected nature of these constructs, it is essential to investigate their individual and combined mediating roles. Furthermore, the role of individual characteristics, such as gender, may also influence these relationships. Research has shown that female consumers tend to exhibit higher sensitivity toward ethical and sustainable practices, potentially moderating their perceptions of circular economy service quality and its impact on brand value [63,64].
The following hypotheses are therefore formulated to address these relationships comprehensively:
Customer Satisfaction mediates the relationship between Circular Economy Service Quality and Brand Value.
Customer Loyalty mediates the relationship between Circular Economy Service Quality and Brand Value.
Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty serially mediate the relationship between Circular Economy Service Quality and Brand Value.
Brand Image mediates the relationship between Circular Economy Service Quality and Brand Value.
Customer Satisfaction and Brand Image serially mediate the relationship between Circular Economy Service Quality and Brand Value.
Customer Loyalty and Brand Image serially mediate the relationship between Circular Economy Service Quality and Brand Value.
Customer Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, and Brand Image serially mediate the relationship between Circular Economy Service Quality and Brand Value.
The relationship between Circular Economy Service Quality and Brand Value is moderated by gender.
These hypotheses comprehensively address the direct, mediating, serial mediating, and moderating effects of these constructs, offering a robust framework for understanding the interplay between circular economy practices and brand value. The inclusion of gender as a moderator highlights the nuanced ways in which individual differences may influence consumer perceptions and responses to circular economy initiatives.
3. Circular Economy Service Quality Framework and Data Measurement
3.1. Data Collection and Sampling
This study aimed to investigate the role of Circular Economy Service Quality (CESQ) in creating brand value, while also examining how customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and brand image contributed to achieving this goal. To fulfill the study’s objectives, a quantitative approach was employed to test the developed hypotheses. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire administered to customers. The questionnaire design adhered to ethical standards, minimizing potential concerns [65].
Participants were selected based on their experience with products or services from companies that integrate circular economy principles. The key selection criteria included individuals who had recently purchased or used products from companies known for circular economy practices, such as recycling, remanufacturing, or offering sustainable product alternatives. To ensure relevance, respondents were asked screening questions at the beginning of the survey to confirm their familiarity with circular economy-based products or services. Individuals with no prior engagement in such purchases were excluded from the study.
A multi-channel approach was used to reach potential participants. Specifically, 204 responses were collected at a shopping center, where customers purchasing products from the company aligned with circular economy practices were invited to participate by scanning a QR code, which redirected them to the online questionnaire. The remaining responses were obtained through online messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Line, as well as through email, where the questionnaire link and QR code were shared with potential respondents. Participation in the survey was voluntary, and respondents were assured of anonymity and confidentiality. They were instructed to reflect on the company products or services they had used while responding to the questionnaire items. After excluding incomplete responses, a total of 232 valid responses were included in the final analysis. The full questionnaire used in this study is provided in Appendix A for reference.
3.2. Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework of this study explored the relationships among Circular Economy Service Quality (CESQ), Customer Satisfaction (CS), Customer Loyalty (CL), Brand Image (BI), and Brand Value (BV). The model incorporated ten direct hypotheses (H1 to H10) to examine the effects of CESQ on CS, CL, BI, and BV, as well as the interrelationships among CS, CL, BI, and BV. Furthermore, the framework included hypotheses to test the mediating roles of CS, CL, and BI in the relationship between CESQ and BV (H11 to H13). The moderating role of gender in the relationship between CESQ and BV was also analyzed (H14). This comprehensive framework sought to provide a deeper understanding of how CESQ impacted customer perceptions and brand outcomes, addressing both direct and indirect effects. Figure 1 displays the conceptual framework of this research.
3.3. Data Measurement
To measure the variables in this study, several parts of the questionnaire were adapted from established scales and modified to align with the research objectives. For instance, items measuring Customer Satisfaction and Brand Image were adopted and refined from scales developed by Bernarto and Purwanto [66] and Rosanti and Salam [67]. Customer Loyalty items were adapted from Twum et al. [68], and Brand Value was assessed using a five-item scale, partially derived from Diallo et al. [69]. The items measuring Circular Economy Service Quality were developed by the authors, drawing on prior research on service quality constructs, particularly those of Rosanti and Salam [67]. Each questionnaire item utilized a five-point Likert scale, where 1 indicated “Strongly Disagree” and 5 indicated “Strongly Agree”. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 25, which facilitated the calculation and examination of the data.
4. Data Analysis and Key Findings
4.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample
A frequency analysis was conducted to examine the gender distribution within the sample. As detailed in Table 1, male participants constituted the majority, accounting for 53.4% (n = 124) of the sample, while female participants represented 46.6% (n = 108).
Descriptive statistical analysis was utilized to summarize the age distribution of the respondents. Table 2 illustrates that the largest proportion of participants fell within the 30–45 years age group, comprising 53.0% of the sample (n = 123). This was followed by participants aged 15–30 years, accounting for 25.9% (n = 60), and those aged 45 years and older, who constituted 14.7% (n = 34). A smaller subset of respondents belonged to the 0–15 years age group, making up 5.6% (n = 13), while 0.9% (n = 2) of the participants chose not to disclose their age.
The descriptive statistics for the duration of using products or services from circular economy-based companies revealed that most respondents had been using such products or services for less than 5 years (n = 97, 41.8%). This was followed by respondents with a usage duration of more than 5 years (n = 55, 23.7%), less than 3 years (n = 46, 19.8%), and less than 1 year (n = 18, 7.8%). Additionally, a small portion of respondents (n = 16, 6.9%) were uncertain about the duration. Table 3 displays the frequency distribution for duration.
4.2. Measurement Results for Relevant Research Variables
-
Circular Economy Service Quality
Descriptive statistics for Circular Economy Service Quality indicated an overall mean score of 3.779 (SD = 0.665), reflecting a generally positive perception of service quality among customers. Among the items, SQ5 recorded the highest mean value, suggesting that customers strongly agreed that the company’s products appeared to be sustainable. Table 4 shows the descriptive analysis for the Circular Economy Service Quality variable.
-
B.. Customer Satisfaction
Descriptive statistics for Customer Satisfaction indicated an overall mean score of 3.814 (SD = 0.683), reflecting a positive perception of service quality among customers. Among the items, CS5 achieved the highest mean value, suggesting that customers felt reassured in their decision to be associated with this company. Table 5 displays the descriptive analysis for the Customer Satisfaction variable.
-
C.. Brand Image
Descriptive statistics for Brand Image indicated an overall mean score of 3.879 (SD = 0.661), reflecting a positive perception of service quality among customers. BI1 recorded the highest mean value, suggesting that customers perceived the company as well-known both nationally and globally. Table 6 displays the descriptive analysis for the Brand Image variable.
-
D.. Customer Loyalty
Descriptive statistics for Customer Loyalty indicated an overall mean score of 3.934 (SD = 0.72), reflecting a positive perception of service quality among customers. CL1 achieved the highest mean value, suggesting that customers were more likely to use the company’s circular products in the future. Table 7 shows the descriptive analysis for the Customer Loyalty variable.
-
E.. Brand Value
Descriptive statistics for Brand Value indicated an overall mean score of 3.816 (SD = 0.677), reflecting a positive perception of service quality among customers. BV5 recorded the highest mean value, suggesting that customers felt strongly attracted to this company. Table 8 displays the descriptive analysis for the Brand Value variable.
4.3. Factor Analysis and Reliability Tests
For dimensionality reduction, data exploration, and construct validation, this study employed factor analysis, correlation analysis, and Cronbach’s α analysis. Exploratory factor analysis was initially conducted using principal component analysis for each research construct to determine its dimensionality. Following this, Cronbach’s α and the correlation matrix were analyzed to assess internal consistency and construct reliability. Several measurement criteria were applied to ensure robust results. For factor analysis, the eigenvalue was required to exceed 1, and the minimum factor loading was set at 0.6. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy needed to surpass 0.5 for suitability. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was performed to evaluate the statistical significance of the correlation matrix components. For reliability analysis, item–total correlation values had to exceed 0.3, and Cronbach’s α was required to be greater than 0.7 to confirm construct reliability [70].
-
Circular Economy Service Quality
The Circular Economy Service Quality construct was measured using five items, with the results of the factor analysis and reliability test presented in Table 9. Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded a significant result, x2 (n = 232) = 412.004 (p < 0.001), indicating that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.931, exceeding the threshold of 0.5 and confirming the appropriateness of the data for factor analysis. Additionally, the total variance explained by the items was 60.613%. Construct validity was assessed using Cronbach’s α, which revealed that the Circular Economy Service Quality scale with five items was reliable (α= 0.837).
-
B.. Customer Satisfaction
The Customer Satisfaction construct was measured using five items, and the results of the factor analysis and reliability test are presented in Table 10. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, x2 (n = 232) = 473.173 (p < 0.001), confirming the data’s suitability for factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.835, exceeding the minimum threshold of 0.5 and validating the data’s appropriateness for factor analysis. The total variance explained by the items was 63.459%. Construct validity was assessed using Cronbach’s α, which demonstrated that the Customer Satisfaction scale with five items was reliable (α= 0.855).
-
C.. Brand Image
The Brand Image construct was measured using three items, and the results of the factor analysis and reliability test are presented in Table 11. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, x2 (n = 232) = 149.415 (p < 0.001), indicating the data’s suitability for factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.685, exceeding the threshold of 0.5, confirming the appropriateness of the data for factor analysis. The total variance explained by the items was 65.634%. Construct validity was evaluated using Cronbach’s α, and the results demonstrated that the Brand Image scale was reliable (α = 0.738).
-
D.. Customer Loyalty
The Customer Loyalty construct was measured using three items, and the results of the factor analysis and reliability test are presented in Table 12. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, x2 (n = 232) = 190.087 (p < 0.001), confirming the data’s suitability for factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.701, exceeding the threshold of 0.5, thereby validating the data’s appropriateness for factor analysis. The total variance explained by the items was 69.403%. Construct validity was evaluated using Cronbach’s α, and the results indicated that the Customer Loyalty scale was reliable (α = 0.779).
-
E.. Brand Value
The Brand Value construct was measured using five items, with the results of the factor analysis and reliability test shown in Table 13. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant, x2 (n = 232) = 437.901 (p < 0.001), confirming the data’s suitability for factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.852, exceeding the acceptable threshold of 0.5, thus validating the data for factor analysis. The items collectively explained 62.060% of the total variance. Construct validity was assessed using Cronbach’s α, and the results indicated that the Brand Value scale was reliable (α= 0.846).
-
F.. Structural Model Assessment
The results of the structural model assessment (Table 14) indicated that all ten hypotheses (H1 to H10) were supported, as each association was statistically significant, with p-values of 0.000. The β coefficients ranged from 0.674 (H6: CL → BI) to 0.821 (H5: CS → CL), indicating strong relationships between the constructs. The R-square values, representing the variance explained by the independent variables, ranged from 0.480 (H4: CESQ → BV) to 0.635 (H10: CS → BV). These results suggest that customer satisfaction accounted for 63.5% of the variation in Brand Value, while Circular Economy Service Quality explained 48%. Additionally, the model demonstrated stability through significant F-statistics and T-statistics. Overall, these findings underscored the importance of circular economy service quality, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and brand image in influencing brand value and highlighted their interactions within the context of this study.
4.4. Mediation Analysis
This study examined the mediating roles of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and brand image in the relationship between circular economy service quality (CESQ) and brand value (BV) using the Hayes Process Macro Model 6 in SPSS. The findings revealed significant indirect effects of CESQ on BV through the following aspects:
-
Customer satisfaction (β = 0.279, p < 0.005), supporting H11.
-
Customer loyalty (β = 0.094, p < 0.005), supporting H12.
-
Customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (β = 0.136, p < 0.005), supporting H13.
-
Brand image (β = 0.038, p < 0.005), supporting H14.
-
Customer satisfaction and brand image (β = 0.048, p < 0.005), supporting H15.
-
Customer loyalty and brand image (β = 0.012, p < 0.005), supporting H16.
-
Customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and brand image (β = 0.018, p < 0.005), supporting H17.
However, the direct effect of CESQ on BV in the presence of mediators was not significant (β = 0.077, t = 1.312) as the t-value was less than 1.96. The analysis results are presented in Table 15. The mediation analysis demonstrated that Circular Economy Service Quality (CESQ) significantly enhanced Brand Value (BV), primarily through indirect effects mediated by Customer Satisfaction (CS), Customer Loyalty (CL), and Brand Image (BI). All proposed mediation models were fully mediated, indicating that the impact of CESQ on BV was entirely channeled through these mediating factors. These findings emphasize the importance of customer-centric factors in assessing the effectiveness of circular economy initiatives. By improving customer satisfaction, fostering loyalty, and enhancing brand perception, organizations can leverage circular economy strategies to strengthen their brand reputation and drive long-term success.
4.5. Moderation Analysis
The moderation test, conducted using the Hayes Process Macro Model 1 in SPSS, revealed that Circular Economy Service Quality (CESQ) had a strong and positive impact on the dependent variable, likely Brand Value (BV), as shown by a significant β coefficient of 0.705 (p < 0.005) with a confidence interval that excluded zero. However, gender alone did not significantly affect the dependent variable, with a β coefficient of −0.036 (p = 0.579) and a confidence interval that included zero. Furthermore, the interaction term between CESQ and gender was also not significant (β coefficient = 0.713, p = 0.465). The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 16.
The findings indicate that CESQ had a significant positive impact on BV, independent of gender. While gender alone did not significantly influence Brand Value, it also did not moderate the relationship between CESQ and BV. This suggests that the positive effect of CESQ on Brand Value was consistent across genders. These results highlight the importance of implementing robust circular economy practices to enhance brand value, irrespective of the demographic characteristics of the target audience.
5. Discussion
The findings of this study provided substantial evidence supporting the proposed hypotheses, highlighting the critical role of Circular Economy Service Quality (CESQ) in enhancing customer satisfaction, loyalty, brand image, and ultimately, brand value. The structural model assessment revealed that CESQ significantly and positively influenced customer satisfaction (H1), customer loyalty (H2), brand image (H3), and brand value (H4), with all associations being statistically significant. These results aligned with the existing literature emphasizing the importance of service quality in driving customer-related outcomes and brand perceptions [71,72].
5.1. Key Relationships and Mediation Effects
Customer satisfaction emerged as a pivotal mediator in this study. The significant direct relationship between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty (H5) underscored the notion that satisfied customers are more likely to remain loyal to the brand (Oliver, 1999). Furthermore, the positive association between customer loyalty and brand image (H6), along with the direct link between customer satisfaction and brand image (H7), emphasized the interconnectedness of these constructs in building a strong brand reputation [36]. The strong β coefficients observed in these relationships indicated robust connections, reinforcing the idea that satisfied and loyal customers contribute significantly to the formation and enhancement of the brand image.
The direct effects observed between customer loyalty and brand value (H8) and brand image and brand value (H9) further validated the significance of these constructs in driving brand equity. The R-square values suggested that customer satisfaction alone accounted for 63.5% of the variance in brand value, highlighting its dominant role. Additionally, CESQ accounted for 48% of the variance in brand value, indicating that nearly half of the brand’s value can be attributed to the quality of the circular economy services provided.
5.2. Mediation Analysis Result
Mediation analysis results confirmed the mediating roles of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and brand image in the relationship between CESQ and brand value. The significant indirect effects through customer satisfaction (H11), customer loyalty (H12), and brand image (H13) suggested that CESQ enhances brand value not only directly but also indirectly by improving these mediators. This finding aligned with the conceptual framework proposed in previous studies, which suggested that service quality impacts brand equity through intermediate variables such as customer satisfaction and loyalty [12].
5.3. Moderation Analysis Result
Interestingly, our analysis showed that gender did not significantly change the relationship between Circular Economy Service Quality (CESQ) and brand value (H18). This means that both male and female customers responded to circular economy initiatives in a similar way, and the positive effect of CESQ on brand value remained strong regardless of gender. Some previous studies suggested that women tend to be more concerned about ethical and sustainable practices [63,64]. However, our results did not find a significant difference between men and women in how CESQ influenced brand value, supporting a study [73] which also found that gender did not strongly change the way consumers reacted to sustainability-related efforts. One possible reason for this is the increasing awareness of sustainability across all consumers, regardless of gender. In recent years, both men and women have shown greater interest in environmental responsibility, making gender differences in this area less noticeable. As more companies focus on sustainability, circular economy practices may appeal to a broad audience rather than being more influential for one gender over another. This suggests that businesses can design their sustainability efforts with confidence, knowing that they will be valued equally by all customers.
5.4. Circular Economy and Sustainability
The findings of this study underscored the pivotal role of circular economy service quality (CESQ) in fostering sustainability by enhancing resource efficiency, minimizing waste, and promoting responsible consumption. As businesses shift from traditional linear models to circular systems, the quality of circular economy services becomes a crucial factor in shaping consumer perceptions and engagement. The results revealed that high-quality circular economy services not only strengthened brand value but also encouraged sustainable consumption behaviors by increasing customer satisfaction, loyalty, and brand image. When customers perceive circular economy services as reliable, efficient, and aligned with sustainability values, they are more likely to remain loyal to brands that incorporate environmentally friendly practices. This long-term consumer engagement is essential for achieving sustainability goals, as it reduces the environmental footprint of consumption while ensuring economic viability for businesses.
Furthermore, the mediating roles of customer satisfaction, brand image, and loyalty highlight the interconnected nature of circular economy service quality and sustainability. Businesses that integrate circular economy principles into their service delivery can enhance consumer trust and commitment to sustainability, thereby fostering a competitive advantage. This study’s results suggest that companies should focus on improving service quality by offering durable, reusable, and resource-efficient products while ensuring transparency in their sustainability initiatives. Additionally, policymakers and industry leaders can leverage these insights to design incentives and regulatory frameworks that encourage sustainable business practices. By strengthening the link between circular economy service quality and sustainability, organizations can contribute to both environmental preservation and long-term brand success, reinforcing the notion that sustainability and economic growth can coexist in the modern marketplace.
5.5. Implications, Limitations, and Future Research
In conclusion, this study provided compelling evidence that CESQ plays a crucial role in enhancing brand value through its positive effects on customer satisfaction, loyalty, and brand image. The results underscored the importance for brands to invest in high-quality circular economy services as a strategic approach to building strong customer relationships and enhancing brand equity.
Despite the valuable insights provided by this study, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the research was cross-sectional, which limited the ability to establish causality among the studied variables. Longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the direction of these relationships over time. Second, this study relied on self-reported data, which may have been subject to response biases such as social desirability bias. Future research could incorporate objective measures of CESQ and brand value to validate these findings. Third, the study’s sample size may not have been representative of all industries or geographic regions, limiting the generalizability of the results. Replicating this study in different contexts could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships among CESQ, customer satisfaction, loyalty, brand image, and brand value. Fourth, the study’s sample, consisting of 232 participants from a specific city in India, may have not been fully representative of the broader population. While the sample provided useful insights into the consumer perceptions of CESQ in the local context, it may not reflect the diversity of demographic factors (income and education) or regional characteristics across India or other countries. This limitation affected the generalizability of the results to different geographic regions or global markets. Additionally, the tool used in this study was not explicitly tested for cultural validation across different regions, which may impact the way respondents from diverse cultural backgrounds interpret the survey questions. To address this, future research could replicate this study in different regions and industries, ensuring cultural appropriateness and a more representative sample to improve the robustness and external validity of the findings.
Additionally, this study did not account for potential external variables, such as the role of government regulations, industry-specific challenges, or economic factors that could influence the adoption and perceived quality of circular economy services. These factors may differ significantly across sectors and regions. Future research could explore alternative explanations, including sector-specific differences and the influence of external variables, such as government support or market competition, on the relationship between CESQ and brand value.
Building on the findings and limitations of this study, several avenues for future research are suggested here. First, future studies could explore additional moderating variables, such as cultural differences, age, and income levels, to understand how different customer segments perceive and respond to CESQ. This could provide more tailored insights for companies targeting diverse customer bases. Second, examining the long-term effects of CESQ on brand value through longitudinal studies could offer a deeper understanding of how sustainable practices contribute to brand equity over time. Third, researchers could investigate the impact of specific circular economy practices, such as product take-back schemes or recycling programs, on customer satisfaction and brand loyalty. This would help identify the most effective practices for enhancing brand value. Lastly, expanding the research to different industries and regions could provide a more comprehensive perspective on the generalizability of the findings and the unique challenges and opportunities faced by various sectors in implementing circular economy initiatives.
6. Conclusions
This study comprehensively investigated the impact of Circular Economy Service Quality (CESQ) on brand value, incorporating key constructs such as customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and brand image. The findings strongly supported the proposed hypotheses, demonstrating that CESQ significantly enhances customer satisfaction, loyalty, brand image, and ultimately, brand value. The mediating roles of customer satisfaction, loyalty, and brand image underscored the indirect pathways through which CESQ contributes to brand value, highlighting the importance of adopting a holistic approach to sustainability and customer relationship management.
Additionally, the moderation analysis revealed that the positive effect of CESQ on brand value was consistent across genders, indicating a universal consumer appreciation for circular economy practices. This consistency aligned with the growing trend of consumer preference for sustainable brands, emphasizing the strategic importance of integrating circular economy principles into business operations.
These findings also underscored the critical role of circular economy service quality in driving sustainability. By enhancing resource efficiency, reducing waste, and promoting responsible consumption, high-quality circular economy services contribute significantly to environmental and economic sustainability. The positive impact of CESQ on customer satisfaction, brand loyalty, and brand image further strengthens the adoption of sustainable business practices, as satisfied and loyal customers are more likely to support brands committed to environmental responsibility. Businesses that integrate circular economy principles into their service offerings not only enhance brand value but also align themselves with global sustainability goals. This study highlighted the importance of creating a business model where sustainability and profitability coexist, encouraging both organizations and policymakers to prioritize circular economy initiatives as a long-term strategy for sustainable growth.
In conclusion, this study provided compelling evidence that investing in high-quality circular economy services is an effective strategy for enhancing brand equity. By fostering customer satisfaction, loyalty, and a positive brand image, companies can significantly improve their brand value. These findings offer practical guidance for businesses and policymakers seeking to leverage sustainability as a competitive advantage in today’s market. Future research should explore additional moderating variables and examine diverse industry contexts to further validate and expand upon these insights.
Conceptualization, Y.-M.H., K.-C.H. and A.K.S.; methodology, A.K.S.; software, A.K.S.; validation, Y.-M.H. and A.K.S.; formal analysis, Y.-M.H.; investigation, Y.-M.H. and K.-C.H.; resources, Y.-M.H.; data curation, Y.-M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K.S.; writing—review and editing, Y.-M.H. and K.-C.H.; visualization, Y.-M.H.; supervision, Y.-M.H. and K.-C.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethical approval was waived for this study in accordance with ‘Exempt Review Categories for Human Research’, Announcement No. 1010265075, from the Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Taiwan.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
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.
Frequency distribution for gender.
| Gender | N | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| 1 = (Male) | 124 | 53.4 |
| 2 = (Female) | 108 | 46.6 |
Note. N: Sample Size.
Frequency distribution for age.
| Age | Frequency | Percent | Cumulative Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–15 Years old | 13 | 5.6 | 5.6 |
| 15–30 years old | 60 | 25.9 | 31.5 |
| 30–45 years old | 123 | 53.0 | 84.5 |
| 45+ | 34 | 14.7 | 99.1 |
| Prefer not to say | 2 | 0.9 | 100.0 |
| Total | 232 | 100.0 |
Frequency distribution for duration.
| Duration | Frequency | Percent | Cumulative Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Less than 1 Year | 18 | 7.8 | 7.8 |
| Less than 3 Year | 46 | 19.8 | 27.6 |
| Less than 5 Year | 97 | 41.8 | 69.4 |
| More than 5 Year | 55 | 23.7 | 93.1 |
| Not sure | 16 | 6.9 | 100.0 |
| Total | 232 | 100.0 |
Descriptive analysis for the Circular Economy Service Quality variable.
| Items | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CESQ1: The packaging of the circular products of the company is attractive | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.81 | 0.821 |
| CESQ2: The circular products of the company have extended durability | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.64 | 0.846 |
| CESQ3: The circular products have a distinctive characteristic | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.71 | 0.883 |
| CESQ4: The circular products have advantages over other products | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.84 | 0.862 |
| CESQ5: The products of the company seem sustainable | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.90 | 0.860 |
Descriptive analysis for the Customer Satisfaction variable.
| Items | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CS1: The quality of goods is up to my expectation | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.87 | 0.888 |
| CS2: I feel comfortable in this company | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.77 | 0.845 |
| CS3: I love this company | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.74 | 0.796 |
| CS4: The product of this company is according to my desire and requirement | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.80 | 0.815 |
| CS5: I feel reassured to be the customer of this company | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.89 | 0.942 |
Descriptive analysis for the Brand Image variable.
| Items | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BI1: This company is a well-known company in your country or globally | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.96 | 0.829 |
| BI2: The brand image of this company is different from other company | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.81 | 0.790 |
| BI3: The brand image of this company reflects a quality and classy impression to consumer | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.87 | 0.827 |
Descriptive analysis for the Customer Loyalty variable.
| Items | N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CL1: I will use more of the company circular products in future | 232 | 1 | 5 | 4.01 | 0.843 |
| CL2: I will recommend the company circular products to other users or to my friends and family | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.88 | 0.854 |
| CL3: I will provide feedback to the company like suggestion for improvement, report issues or share my positive experiences | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.91 | 0.898 |
Descriptive analysis for the Brand Value variable.
| N | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BV1: In my mind, the higher price of this company product equal higher quality | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.72 | 0.835 |
| BV2: Being higher in price makes this company product more desirable | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.74 | 0.830 |
| BV3: Owning this company product is a symbol of prestige, achievement, social status | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.84 | 0.845 |
| BV4: I would like to buy this company products before others | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.82 | 0.906 |
| BV5: I am very attracted to this company | 232 | 1 | 5 | 3.96 | 0.879 |
Results of factor analysis and reliability test for Circular Economy Service Quality.
| Service Quality Items | Factor Loading | Eigen Value | Explained Variance | Item–Total Correlation | Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SQ4 | 0.816 | 3.031 | 60.613 | 0.688 | 0.837 |
| SQ3 | 0.804 | 0.668 | |||
| SQ1 | 0.781 | 0.641 | |||
| SQ5 | 0.753 | 0.608 | |||
| SQ2 | 0.736 | 0.589 |
Results of factor analysis and reliability test for Customer Satisfaction.
| Customer Satisfaction Items | Factor Loading | Eigen Value | Explained Variance | Item–Total Correlation | Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CS5 | 0.813 | 3.173 | 63.459 | 0.693 | 0.855 |
| CS1 | 0.812 | 0.691 | |||
| CS2 | 0.802 | 0.678 | |||
| CS3 | 0.784 | 0.653 | |||
| CS4 | 0.771 | 0.637 |
Results of factor analysis and reliability test for Brand Image.
| Brand Image Items | Factor Loading | Eigen Value | Explained Variance | Item–Total Correlation | Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BI3 | 0.828 | 1.969 | 65.634 | 0.588 | 0.738 |
| BI1 | 0.803 | 0.553 | |||
| BI2 | 0.799 | 0.547 |
Results of factor analysis and reliability test for Customer Loyalty.
| Customer Loyalty Items | Factor Loading | Eigen Value | Explained Variance | Item–Total Correlation | Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CL1 | 0.845 | 2.082 | 69.403 | 0.634 | 0.779 |
| CL2 | 0.837 | 0.621 | |||
| CL3 | 0.816 | 0.592 |
Results of factor analysis and reliability test for Brand Value.
| Brand Value Items | Factor Loading | Eigen Value | Explained Variance | Item–Total Correlation | Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BV4 | 0.826 | 3.103 | 62.060 | 0.509 | 0.846 |
| BV2 | 0.806 | 0.464 | |||
| BV3 | 0.802 | 0.470 | |||
| BV5 | 0.751 | 0.387 | |||
| BV1 | 0.751 | 0.383 |
Hypothesis testing results for structural model assessment.
| Hypothesis | Regression Weights | β Coeff. | R2 | F | T-Statistics | p-Value | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | CESQ → CS | 0.769 | 0.560 | 292.819 | 17.112 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H2 | CESQ → CL | 0.770 | 0.506 | 235.235 | 15.337 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H3 | CESQ → BI | 0.710 | 0.511 | 240.413 | 15.505 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H4 | CESQ → BV | 0.705 | 0.480 | 212.515 | 14.578 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H5 | CS → CL | 0.821 | 0.608 | 356.218 | 18.874 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H6 | CL → BI | 0.674 | 0.540 | 270.306 | 16.441 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H7 | CS → BI | 0.746 | 0.597 | 340.050 | 18.440 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H8 | CL → BV | 0.731 | 0.605 | 351.903 | 18.759 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H9 | BI → BV | 0.751 | 0.538 | 267.998 | 16.371 | 0.000 | Supported |
| H10 | CS → BV | 0.789 | 0.635 | 400.997 | 20.025 | 0.000 | Supported |
Results for mediational analysis.
| Total Effect | Direct Effect | Relationship | Indirect Effect | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β Coeff. | t-Value | β Coeff. | t-Value | β Coeff. | Confidence Interval | Conclusion | ||
| Lower Level | Upper Level | |||||||
| 0.705 * | 14.577 | 0.077 | 1.312 | H11: CESQ → CS → BV | 0.279 * | 0.158 | 0.402 | Fully Mediation |
| H12: CESQ → CL → BV | 0.094 * | 0.042 | 0.335 | Fully Mediation | ||||
| H13: CESQ → CS → CL → BV | 0.136 * | 0.724 | 0.208 | Fully Mediation | ||||
| H14: CESQ → BI → BV | 0.038 * | 0.005 | 0.086 | Fully Mediation | ||||
| H15: CESQ → CS → BI → BV | 0.048 * | 0.009 | 0.093 | Fully Mediation | ||||
| H16: CESQ → CL → BI → BV | 0.012 * | 0.002 | 0.028 | Fully Mediation | ||||
| H17: CESQ → CS → CL → BI → BV | 0.018 * | 0.002 | 0.042 | Fully Mediation | ||||
* p < 0.005.
Results for moderation analysis: Circular Economy Service Quality and Brand Value by gender.
| Independent Variable | β Coeff. | t-Value | p-Value | Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower Level | Upper Level | ||||
| CESQ | 0.705 | 14.455 | 0.000 | 0.609 | 0.802 |
| Gender | −0.036 | −0.554 | 0.579 | −0.164 | 0.092 |
| CESQ × Gender | 0.713 | 0.732 | 0.465 | −0.121 | 0.263 |
Appendix A
Questionnaire Survey
| Gender | Male |
| Female | |
| Prefer not to say | |
| How long you know about this company or using products of this company | Less than 1 year |
| Less than 3 year | |
| Less than 5 year | |
| Less than 5 year | |
| Not Sure |
Please indicate your agreement with the following question using the following scale: 1 for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 for neutral, 4 for agree, and 5 for strongly agree.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| |||||
| |||||
|
References
1. Geissdoerfer, M.; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.P.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy–A New Sustainability Paradigm?. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 143, pp. 757-768. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048]
2. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis of 114 Definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2017; 127, pp. 221-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005]
3. Bocken, N.M.P.; de Pauw, I.; Bakker, C.; van der Grinten, B. Product Design and Business Model Strategies for a Circular Economy. J. Ind. Prod. Eng.; 2016; 33, pp. 308-320. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21681015.2016.1172124]
4. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A Review on Circular Economy: The Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 114, pp. 11-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007]
5. Aaker, D.A. Building Strong Brands; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
6. Kapferer, J.-N. The New Strategic Brand Management: Advanced Insights and Strategic Thinking; Kogan Page Publishers: London, UK, 2012.
7. 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]
8. Sen, S.; Bhattacharya, C.; Korschun, D. The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Strengthening Multiple Stakeholder Relationships: A Field Experiment. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2006; 34, pp. 158-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284978]
9. Darzi, M.A.; Islam, S.B.; Khursheed, S.O.; Bhat, S.A. Service Quality in the Healthcare Sector: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. LBS J. Manag. Res.; 2023; 21, pp. 13-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LBSJMR-06-2022-0025]
10. Gazi, M.A.I.; Islam, M.A.; Masud, A.A.; Senathirajah, A.R.B.S.; Biswas, S.; Shuvro, R.A. The Moderating Impacts of COVID-19 Fear on Hotel Service Quality and Tourist Satisfaction: Evidence from a Developing Country. Cogent Soc. Sci.; 2024; 10, 2331079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2331079]
11. Grönroos, C. An Applied Service Marketing Theory. Eur. J. Mark.; 1982; 16, pp. 30-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004859]
12. Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L. SERVQUAL: A Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality. J. Retail.; 1988; 64, pp. 12-40.
13. Grönroos, C. A Service Quality Model and Its Marketing Implications. Eur. J. Mark.; 1984; 18, pp. 36-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004784]
14. Lubis, A.S.; Andayani, N.R. Pengaruh Kualitas Pelayanan (Service Quality) Terhadap Kepuasan Pelanggan Pt. Sucofindo Batam. J. Appl. Bus. Adm.; 2017; 1, pp. 232-243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30871/jaba.v1i2.619]
15. Wijaya, A.F.B.; Surachman, S.; Mugiono, M. The Effect of Service Quality, Perceived Value and Mediating Effect of Brand Image on Brand Trust. J. Manaj. Dan Kewirausahaan; 2020; 22, pp. 45-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9744/jmk.22.1.45-56]
16. Oliver, R.L. Emotional Expression in the Satisfaction Response. Satisf. Behav. Perspect. Consum.; 1997; 291325, pp. 291-325.
17. Mittal, V.; Han, K.; Frennea, C.; Blut, M.; Shaik, M.; Bosukonda, N.; Sridhar, S. Customer Satisfaction, Loyalty Behaviors, and Firm Financial Performance: What 40 Years of Research Tells Us. Mark. Lett.; 2023; 34, pp. 171-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11002-023-09671-w]
18. Anderson, E.W.; Fornell, C.; Lehmann, D.R. Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden. J. Mark.; 1994; 58, pp. 53-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800304]
19. Fornell, C.; Johnson, M.D.; Anderson, E.W.; Cha, J.; Bryant, B.E. The American Customer Satisfaction Index: Nature, Purpose, and Findings. J. Mark.; 1996; 60, pp. 7-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000403]
20. Irfan, M.; Shamsudin, M.F.; Hadi, N.U. How Important Is Customer Satisfaction? Quantitative Evidence from Mobile Telecommunication Market. Int. J. Bus. Manag.; 2016; 11, pp. 57-69.
21. Salem, M.A.; Shawtari, F.A.; Shamsudin, M.F.; Hussain, H.I. The Relation between Stakeholders’ Integration and Environmental Competitiveness. Soc. Responsib. J.; 2016; 12, pp. 755-769. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-12-2015-0189]
22. Azizan, N.S.; Yusr, M.M. The Influence of Customer Satisfaction, Brand Trust, and Brand Image towards Customer Loyalty. Int. J. Entrep. Manag. Pract.; 2019; 2, pp. 93-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35631/ijemp.270010]
23. Wei, S. The Importance of Brand Image. Media Commun. Res.; 2024; 5, pp. 93-98.
24. Bernarto, I.; Berlianto, M.P.; Meilani, Y.F.C.P.; Masman, R.R.; Suryawan, I.N. The Influence of Brand Awareness, Brand Image, and Brand Trust on Brand Loyalty. J. Manaj.; 2020; 24, pp. 412-426.
25. Lee, J.L.; James, J.D.; Kim, Y.K. A Reconceptualization of Brand Image. Int. J. Bus. Adm.; 2014; 5, 1. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijba.v5n4p1]
26. Išoraitė, M. The Competitive Advantages Theoretical Aspects. Ecoforum; 2018; 30, pp. 1-6.
27. Ries, A. Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind; Salemba Empat: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2002.
28. Parris, D.L.; Guzman, F. Evolving Brand Boundaries and Expectations: Looking Back on Brand Equity, Brand Loyalty, and Brand Image Research to Move Forward. J. Prod. Brand Manag.; 2023; 32, pp. 191-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2021-3528]
29. Reichheld, F.F.; Sasser, W.E. Zero Defections: Quality Comes to Services. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 1990; 68, pp. 105-111.
30. Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L.; Parasuraman, A. The Behavioral Consequences of Service Quality. J. Mark.; 1996; 60, pp. 31-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000203]
31. Cheng, C.C.; Chiu, S.-I.; Hu, H.-Y.; Chang, Y.-Y. A Study on Exploring the Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in the Fast Food Industry: With Relationship Inertia as a Mediator. Afr. J. Bus. Manag.; 2011; 5, 5118.
32. Mellens, M.; Dekimpe, M.; Steenkamp, J. A Review of Brand-Loyalty Measures in Marketing. Tijdschr. Voor Econ. Manag.; 1996; 41, pp. 507-533.
33. Menaga, A.; Vasantha, S.; Lokesh, S. Analysing the Bibliometric of Circular Economy and Customer Behavior: A Study from 2018 to 2023. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Reinventing Business Practices, Start-ups and Sustainability (ICRBSS 2023); Chennai, India, 2–3 November 2023; Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 410-425.
34. Moisescu, O.-I. From Perceptual Corporate Sustainability to Customer Loyalty: A Multi-Sectorial Investigation in a Developing Country. Econ. Res.-Ekon. Istraživanja; 2018; 31, pp. 55-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2017.1421998]
35. Hsiung, T.-F.; Cheng, Y.-H.; Han, Z.-X. Sustainable Partnership: Operational Condition Analysis for Brand Value Co-Creation. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 6516. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13126516]
36. Aaker, D.A. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 35-37.
37. Pashchenko, Y.; Rahman, M.F.; Hossain, M.S.; Uddin, M.K.; Islam, T. Emotional and the Normative Aspects of Customers’ Reviews. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2022; 68, 103011. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103011]
38. Abedi, R.; Azma, F. Relationship between the Brand Identity with Brand Loyalty Due to the Mediating Role of Perceived Value. Dutch J. Finance Manag.; 2019; 3, 59.
39. Van Boerdonk, P.J.M.; Krikke, H.R.; Lambrechts, W. New Business Models in Circular Economy: A Multiple Case Study into Touch Points Creating Customer Values in Health Care. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 282, 125375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125375]
40. Chao, R.-F.; Wu, T.-C.; Yen, W.-T. The Influence of Service Quality, Brand Image, and Customer Satisfaction on Customer Loyalty for Private Karaoke Roomsin Taiwan. J. Glob. Bus. Manag.; 2015; 11, pp. 59-67.
41. DAM, S.M.; DAM, T.C. Relationships between Service Quality, Brand Image, Customer Satisfaction, and Customer Loyalty. J. Asian Finance Econ. Bus.; 2021; 8, pp. 585-593. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2021.VOL8.NO3.0585]
42. Sivadas, E.; Baker-Prewitt, J.L. An Examination of the Relationship between Service Quality, Customer Satisfaction, and Store Loyalty. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.; 2000; 28, pp. 73-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550010315223]
43. Padilla-Rivera, A.; Russo-Garrido, S.; Merveille, N. Addressing the Social Aspects of a Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 7912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12197912]
44. Virappan, T.M.; Chan, T.J. Predictors of Corporate Reputation through Service Quality: A Study of Air Asia Customers Perspectives. J. Bus. Soc. Rev. Emerg. Econ.; 2020; 6, pp. 789-798. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26710/jbsee.v6i2.947]
45. Adam, S.; Bucker, C.; Desguin, S.; Vaage, N.; Saebi, T. Taking Part in the Circular Economy: Four Ways to Designing Circular Business Models. 2017; Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2908107 (accessed on 3 February 2025).
46. Xu, J.; Wang, H. Build Competitive Advantage through the Integration of Sustainable Supply Chains. Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics; Beijing, China, 12–15 October 2008; Volume 2, pp. 2177-2180.
47. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Chiaroni, D.; Del Vecchio, P.; Urbinati, A. Designing Business Models in Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2020; 29, pp. 1734-1749. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2466]
48. Pinem, S.; Husnan, L.H.; Handayani, B.R. The impact of service quality on customer loyalty with moderating effect of customer satisfaction in ditlantas polda ntb. Russ. J. Agric. Socio-Econ. Sci.; 2019; 9, pp. 17-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2019-09.02]
49. Tjahjaningsih, E.; Widyasari, S.; Maskur, A.; Kusuma, L. The Effect of Customer Experience and Service Quality on Satisfaction in Increasing Loyalty. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Banking, Accounting, Management and Economics (ICOBAME 2020); Online, 17 December 2020; Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 395-399.
50. Kumar, V.; Pozza, I.D.; Ganesh, J. Revisiting the Satisfaction–Loyalty Relationship: Empirical Generalizations and Directions for Future Research. J. Retail.; 2013; 89, pp. 246-262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2013.02.001]
51. Kim, S.; Baek, W.; Byon, K.K.; Ju, S. Creating Shared Value to Enhance Customer Loyalty: A Case of a Sporting Goods Company in Korean Athletic Shoe Market. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 7031. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13137031]
52. Tanveer, M.; Ahmad, A.-R.; Mahmood, H.; Haq, I.U. Role of Ethical Marketing in Driving Consumer Brand Relationships and Brand Loyalty: A Sustainable Marketing Approach. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 6839. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13126839]
53. Cretu, A.E.; Brodie, R.J. Chapter 7 Brand Image, Corporate Reputation, and Customer Value. Business-to-Business Brand Management: Theory, Research and Executive Case Study Exercises; Glynn, M.S.; Woodside, A.G. Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Leeds, UK, 2009; Volume 15, pp. 263-387. ISBN 978-1-84855-671-3
54. Maheshwari, K.; Kumar, D.V. To Create a Positive Brand Image Through Corporate Social Responsibility. MKTG Consum. Inf. Process; 2013; pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2466844]
55. Neupane, R. The Effects of Brand Image on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Intention in Retail Super Market Chain UK. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Manag.; 2015; 2, pp. 9-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3126/ijssm.v2i1.11814]
56. Liu, J.; Xue, Y.; Duan, J. An Empirical Study on Impacts of Brand Cognition on Brand Loyalty. Proceedings of the 2011 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Management Science and Electronic Commerce (AIMSEC); Dengfeng, China, 8–10 August 2011; pp. 959-962.
57. Chinomona, R. Brand Communication, Brand Image and Brand Trust as Antecedents of Brand Loyalty in Gauteng Province of South Africa. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Stud.; 2016; 7, pp. 124-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AJEMS-03-2013-0031]
58. Zhang, J.Q.; Dixit, A.; Friedmann, R. Customer Loyalty and Lifetime Value: An Empirical Investigation of Consumer Packaged Goods. J. Mark. Theory Pract.; 2010; 18, pp. 127-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679180202]
59. Gong, Y.; Xiao, J.; Tang, X.; Li, J. How Sustainable Marketing Influences the Customer Engagement and Sustainable Purchase Intention? The Moderating Role of Corporate Social Responsibility. Front. Psychol.; 2023; 14, 1128686. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1128686]
60. Agung, L.; Rahmat, S.T.Y.; Angga, N.D. The Relationship of Brand Communication, Brand Image, and Brand Trust to Brand Loyalty of Samsung Cellular Phone Product. Russ. J. Agric. Socio-Econ. Sci.; 2019; 88, pp. 138-143.
61. Paetz, F. Recommendations for Sustainable Brand Personalities: An Empirical Study. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 4747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13094747]
62. Suresh, S.; Mohanan, P.; Gopal, N. Brand Success Redefined: An Analysis of the Interrelationships Among Various Brand Dimensions. Proceedings of the Society of Interdisciplinary Business Research (SIBR) 2011 Conference on Interdisciplinary Business Research; Bangkok, Thailand, 16–18 June 2011.
63. Marín-García, A.; Gil-Saura, I.; Ruiz-Molina, M.E.; Berenguer-Contrí, G. Sustainability, Store Equity, and Satisfaction: The Moderating Effect of Gender in Retailing. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 1010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13021010]
64. Yang, X.; Kittikowit, S.; Noparumpa, T.; Jiang, J.; Chen, S.-C. Moderated Mediation Mechanism to Determine the Effect of Gender Heterogeneity on Green Purchasing Intention: From the Perspective of Residents’ Values. Front. Psychol.; 2022; 12, 803710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.803710]
65. Regmi, P.R.; Waithaka, E.; Paudyal, A.; Simkhada, P.; van Teijlingen, E. Guide to the Design and Application of Online Questionnaire Surveys. Nepal J. Epidemiol.; 2016; 6, pp. 640-644. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3126/nje.v6i4.17258]
66. Bernarto, I.; Purwanto, A. The Effect of Perceived Risk, Brand Image and Perceived Price Fairness on Customer Satisfaction. J. Manaj.; 2022; 26, pp. 35-50.
67. Rosanti, N.; Salam, K.N. The Effects of Brand Image and Product Quality on Purchase Decisions. Quant. Econ. Manag. Stud.; 2021; 2, pp. 365-375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35877/454RI.qems360]
68. Twum, K.K.; Yalley, A.A.; Agyapong, G.K.-Q.; Ofori, D. The Influence of Public University Library Service Quality and Library Brand Image on User Loyalty. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark.; 2021; 18, pp. 207-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12208-020-00269-w]
69. Diallo, M.F.; Ben Dahmane Mouelhi, N.; Gadekar, M.; Schill, M. CSR Actions, Brand Value, and Willingness to Pay a Premium Price for Luxury Brands: Does Long-Term Orientation Matter?. J. Bus. Ethics; 2021; 169, pp. 241-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04486-5]
70. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous Applications, Better Results and Higher Acceptance. Long Range Plann.; 2013; 46, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001]
71. Grönroos, C. Service Management and Marketing: Customer Management in Service Competition; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007.
72. Zeithaml, V.A. Service Quality, Profitability, and the Economic Worth of Customers: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.; 2000; 28, pp. 67-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281007]
73. Haws, K.L.; Winterich, K.P.; Naylor, R.W. Seeing the World through GREEN-Tinted Glasses: Green Consumption Values and Responses to Environmentally Friendly Products. J. Consum. Psychol.; 2014; 24, pp. 336-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.11.002]
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Yao-Ming, Hong 2 ; Kuo-Chung, Huang 1 1 Department of Business Administration, Nanhua University, Chiayi 622301, Taiwan;
2 Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien 974301, Taiwan