Cause-related marketing of luxury brands: does the global versus local scope matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate how luxury brands’ cause-related marketing strategies − focused on global versus local causes − influence perceived luxuriousness and purchase intention. It examines the moderating roles of consumers’ global versus local identities and perceived psychological distance evoked by these cause-related initiatives. Design/methodology/approach Study 1 (N = 260) used an online experiment to assess the effect of proximity of cause on purchase intention toward luxury brands through sequential mediation of perceived psychological distance and perceived luxuriousness. Study 2 (N = 510) used a fictitious luxury brand to replicate the findings of Study 1 and further tested the moderating role of global–local identity. Findings When luxury brands issue a global-scoped versus local-scoped cause-related marketing campaign, consumers are more likely to perceive the brands as psychologically distant. This increased perceived psychological distance enhances the perceived luxuriousness of the brands which in turn increases purchase intention. In addition, consumers’ local (versus global) identity further strengthens the relationship between proximity of cause and purchase intention toward luxury brands. Originality/value This study makes three key contributions: it addresses the gap in luxury marketing literature by linking global and local cause-related marketing strategies to consumers’ identity orientations and perceived psychological distance, it provides insights into how cause-related marketing strategies can resolve the paradox between luxury’s exclusivity and social responsibility and it emphasizes the unique influence of perceived psychological distance on perceived luxuriousness and purchase intentions, offering luxury brand managers actionable insights into tailoring cause-related initiatives to distinct consumer segments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".