Airline CSR and Quality Attributes as Driving Forces of Passengers’ Brand Love: Comparing Full-Service Carriers with Low-Cost Carriers

Abstract

Consumers’ increased awareness of social and environmental issues encourages airlines to implement corporate social responsibility (CSR); however, the effectiveness of CSR according to airline type remains unclear. This study examines the roles of CSR and service quality in enhancing passengers’ brand love in the airline industry and explores the moderating role of airline type on the CSR–brand love and service quality–brand love relationships. To test the theoretical model, we conducted a web-based survey with 426 participants who were knowledgeable about the CSR activities of the airline companies that they had recently used. Based on the survey responses, the structural equation modeling results revealed the salient roles of both CSR and service quality in creating passengers’ brand love, which, in turn, significantly contributed to positive word of mouth. Moreover, airline type significantly moderated the effect of airlines’ CSR on brand love. Based on these findings, we provide academic implications and practical strategies by airline type.

1. Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has a positive influence on passengers’ purchasing behavior and decision-making, thus providing airlines with a competitive advantage [1,2,3]. Airlines’ CSR is particularly important because the airline industry has a considerable environmental impact and is under pressure to decrease environmental harm and implement green management [1,2]. The increasing number of eco-conscious passengers has accelerated airlines’ CSR strategies. Some airline passengers have a greater awareness than others regarding social and environmental issues caused by airline companies; accordingly, these customers are increasingly choosing to purchase the services of companies that are socially and environmentally responsible [4,5]. Passengers’ increased eco-consciousness has necessitated airlines’ CSR endeavors to elicit passengers’ positive attitudes and loyalty, which are fundamental for airline companies’ long-term viability [6]. Therefore, we explore the effectiveness of airlines’ CSR in fostering passengers’ positive attitudes. This examination is of paramount importance owing to passengers’ increasing interest in social and environmental issues.

The extant empirical studies have demonstrated that service quality is a key driver of passengers’ airline selection [7,8,9,10]. Providing high-quality services improves passengers’ brand attitude and enhances companies’ brand image [1], thereby fostering passengers’ brand loyalty and repurchase intention [11]. Therefore, we also explore the effect of service quality on passengers’ brand attitude and compare its effect to that of CSR.

Moreover, as emotion plays a role in customers’ decision-making processes, recent consumer behavior studies have shown an interest in affective factors, such as brand love [12]. Brand love, which is a significant marketing concept used in tourism research, is an essential prerequisite for forming a continuous relationship with a brand [13]. This concept concerns a satisfied consumer’s passionate, emotional attachment to a brand [14], which leads to repurchase intention and resistance to negative brand information [15,16]. The extant behavioral and tourism studies have mainly investigated the importance of service quality from the behavioral and cognitive perspectives, such as passengers’ evaluations of service quality and service expectations [17,18,19]. Therefore, as the emotional aspects of brand loyalty have become important for understanding consumer behavior, we investigate the antecedents of passengers’ brand love in the airline industry context.

Meanwhile, passengers choose airlines (e.g., full-service carriers [FSCs] or low-cost carriers [LCCs]) based on different motivations, thereby generating different expectations and evaluations of airline services and activities. Hence, although both FSCs and LCCs have implemented CSR to both secure loyal customers and ensure their survival and success in a highly competitive market [11,20,21], the marketing effectiveness of FSCs and LCCs is sometimes unequal. For example, LCC passengers’ airline selection is undoubtedly swayed by affordable prices, whereas FSC passengers typically focus their airline selection on non-economic issues, such as safety issues, cabin interior, and flight schedule [22].

Despite the growing number of eco-consumers as well as airlines who are actively implementing CSR, scant research has simultaneously explored the effectiveness of CSR and service quality on airline selection. Moreover, as studies have increasingly argued in favor of the vital role of affective factors, such as brand love, in customers’ decision-making processes, the antecedents of brand love should be investigated. To deepen the understanding of CSR and brand love, we attempt to develop a theoretical framework of passengers’ brand love that encompasses CSR and service quality, with the moderating role of airline type. The specific study aims are to identify the role of CSR and service quality in enhancing passengers’ brand love in the airline industry context, uncover the relative importance of CSR and service quality in explaining passengers’ brand love, and explore the moderating role of airline type (i.e., FSCs vs. LCCs) on the CSR–brand love and service quality–brand love relationships.

The study results can assist the airline industry in establishing effective marketing strategies to maximize passengers’ brand love. Moreover, as FSC and LCC passengers have different needs and expectations, identifying the moderating role of airline type can expand both the knowledge of airline CSR as well as the air-traveler psychology research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Brand Love

Academic and industrial researchers are interested in brand love owing to its leading role in predicting consumer loyalty, such as consumers’ repurchase behavior and willingness to invest time, energy, and money into a brand [14,23,24]. Brand love relates to passionate love, emotional attachment, self-brand connectedness [25], and linkage to a particular brand [26,27], and is formed based on the level of engagement with a brand [28]. Consumers who love a brand will positively evaluate it, display positive emotions toward it, and declare their love for it [14].

Carroll and Ahuvia [14] argue that brand love refers to passionate love that is based solely on whether consumers feel satisfied. In short, brand love should be understood as the outcomes attributable to the circumstances in which consumers’ essential needs, wants, desires, and aspirations are satisfied by a brand [24]. Thus, brand love refers to the complex and delicate relationship between a customer and brand and is influenced by a brand’s service quality and performance and a customer’s perceived value.

Importantly, brand love involves consumer–brand integration [15,16,25]. Consumers tend to choose products and brands not only for their utilitarian values but also for their symbolic benefits [29]; congruency between brand image and a consumer’s image of a brand boosts a consumer’s desired identity [30] and helps them to achieve self-actualization [16]. This idea is based on Belk [31], who argues that possessions constitute an extended self. In short, consumers feel an emotional attachment toward and passionate love for brands that support the fulfillment of their values and existential meaning through their purchases.

2.2. Airlines’ CSR

Airlines’ CSR strategies contribute to a better society beyond the explicit pecuniary interests of the firms, yet such actions may not serve the best interests of the firms in terms of profit maximization [32]. From the sustainability perspective, airlines’ CSR activities enable communities to achieve economic, social, and environmental development [33,34]. In the airline industry context, environmental responsibilities include the reduction of CO₂ emissions, air pollution, waste, energy consumption, water usage, water pollution, and noise pollution; social responsibilities include supporting community wellbeing, employee engagement, empowerment, and social equity; and economic responsibilities include facilitating local economic prosperity through the provision of jobs [35,36].

Several empirical studies have suggested that airlines’ CSR activities can influence positive customer responses, such as behavioral and attitudinal loyalty [34,35,36,37,38,39,40], purchase and pay intentions [41], and positive word of mouth (WOM) [42]. As passengers are becoming increasingly eco-conscious and more aware of the environmental harm caused by the airline industry [43], airlines’ CSR is a critical driver of not only behavioral and cognitive outcomes for the airline industry but also positive emotions toward brands. Accordingly, we posit the following:

H1. 

Airlines’ CSR activities have a positive impact on passengers’ brand love.

2.3. Quality Attributes

Airline service quality is a critical antecedent of customer satisfaction, which subsequently leads to customers’ positive behavioral intention [44,45] as well as firms’ profitability [17,18]. Service quality is determined by service encounters with the physical environment, personnel, and other visible service elements [46,47]. Based on the notion of service encounters proposed by Shostack [47], Forgas et al. [48] classify airline service quality attributes as aircraft installations, personnel professionalism, and customer service. Aircraft installations include airline tangibles, such as seat comfort, aircraft safety, and the space between seats. Tsaur et al. [49] similarly define tangibility (e.g., seat comfort), safety and responsiveness, and personnel courtesy as essential airline service attributes.

Extensive studies have reported the positive impacts of service quality on customers’ satisfaction and positive evaluation [40,50]. For example, Farooq et al. [51] reveal that, for Malaysia Airlines, customer satisfaction is strongly affected by airline tangibles, personnel services, airline image, and empathy. Similarly, Khudhair et al. [52] report that service quality impacts passengers’ satisfaction and is moderated by passengers who are concerned about the level of service quality. Hapsari et al. [53] reveal that service quality directly impacts Indonesian airline passengers’ customer loyalty and satisfaction, and indirectly influences customer loyalty toward brand image, while customer engagement mediates the relationship. These findings suggest that airline service quality positively impacts passengers’ satisfaction and positive evaluations; therefore, we posit that airline service quality will enhance brand love:

H2. 

Airline service quality attributes, such as aircraft installation, personnel professionalism, and service quality, enhances passengers’ brand love.

2.4. WOM

According to Arndt [54], WOM is defined as the “oral, person-to-person communication between a receiver and a communicator whom the receiver perceives as noncommercial, regarding a brand, a product or a service.” WOM is a post-consumption behavior of satisfied customers who are willing to invest time, energy, and other resources in a brand beyond the resources expended during purchases from or consumption of that brand [55]. Potential airline passengers tend to heavily rely on the recommendations of peers, past customers, and fellow travelers when selecting an airline [56]; thus, the effects of WOM are much greater than those of commercial advertising [57,58,59].

In hospitality research, several empirical studies have reported an impact of product attachment on WOM. For example, Hwang and Lyu [60] investigated first-class passengers’ brand attachment and its positive influence on WOM. Hudson et al. [61] explore brand relationships in the festival context and reveal that emotional attachment to a festival brand leads to desired outcomes, such as positive WOM. Accordingly, we posit that brand love, defined as a passenger’s passionate emotional attachment to a brand, can influence WOM. Moreover, when passengers feel brand love, they are more likely to encourage their friends and relatives to use that brand. Therefore:

H3. 

Brand love positively affects passengers’ WOM.

2.5. FSC vs. LCC

Commercial airlines are mainly divided into FSCs and LCCs. FSCs offer multiple cabins and additional services at higher prices and have various types of aircraft and routes. LCCs, which were developed in the mid-2000s [1], provide affordable products and services at a lower cost [62]. LCCs undertake diverse efforts to reduce costs, such as by excluding less-essential services (e.g., in-flight meals) and reducing the number of crew members [63].

Owing to the distinctive services and products offered by FSCs and LCCs, their passengers have different expectations, satisfaction levels, and values regarding their airline experience. For example, Gillen and Morrison [64] reveal that LCC passengers tend to perceive air travel as a commodity, whereas FSC passengers tend to regard it as an experience. Moreover, Forgas, Moliner, Sánchez and Palau [48] explore the differences in the key determinants of passenger satisfaction and reveal that ticket price and personnel professionalism are key drivers of LCC and FCC passengers’ satisfaction, respectively.

Both FSCs and LCCs participate in CSR; however, the effects on the airlines’ operational performances and marketing outcomes differ [65]. For example, LCC passengers regard CSR activities as counterproductive because such activities incur additional costs and increase airfares [65]. Conversely, FSC passengers identify brand image and reputation as the most important factors when choosing an airline [66], which enables FSCs to establish competitive advantages through CSR. The empirical research has suggested that the relationship between CSR and brand love can be influenced by the airline type. Accordingly, we posit the following:

H4. 

The effect of airlines’ CSR on passengers’ brand love significantly differs between FSCs and LCCs.

FSC and LCC passengers have different expectations regarding airline services. Previous studies have suggested that FSC passengers are more sensitive to the quality of in-flight services than LCC passengers, whereas LCC passengers are more sensitive to price than FSC passengers [1]. The FSC and LCC passengers’ different expectations regarding airline quality attributes distinguish the strength of the relationship between service quality attributes and brand love. Accordingly, we posit the following:

H5. 

The effect of service quality attributes on passengers’ brand love significantly differs between FSCs and LCCs.

3. Methods and Data

3.1. Proposed Model

Figure 1 presents the proposed theoretical framework in the airline industry context. The framework includes airlines’ CSR, quality attributes, brand love, WOM, and airline type. The model also includes the five research hypotheses.

3.2. Measurement Items

We used multiple-item measurement scales, which were developed and validated by prior studies, to measure the following constructs. First, airlines’ CSR consisted of three sub-dimensions—environmental, social, and economic sustainability—that were measured using 14 items adapted from Park [67] and Chen, Chang and Lin [38]. Second, the quality attributes were measured using three sub-dimensions—airline installations, personnel professionalism, and airline services—that were measured using 13 items adapted from Forgas et al. [48]. Third, brand love was measured using five items from Song et al. [68], while WOM was measured using three items from Hwang and Han [69], Hwang et al. [70], Hwang et al. [71], and Kim and Kim [72]. The questionnaire survey was translated from English into Korean. Academic professionals identified and discussed whether there were discrepancies in the translation. To verify whether the items were understandable, valid, and reliable, we conducted a pilot test. We invited a research group that consisted of 29 postgraduate students and 3 research fellows majoring in tourism or airline management. The initial questionnaire was reviewed by the research group and refined based on the feedback. Moreover, we conducted reliability and validity tests using the responses. All items were measured using a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

3.3. Data Collection

We used an online survey, Dataspring, to collect the data via a survey company in South Korea. To select eligible participants, the survey company sent emails to invite panels and only individuals who had traveled on an airline within the last 12 months were asked to complete the survey through filtering questions. Regarding the airline type, the survey asked participants to indicate whether the airline of their most recent flight was categorized as an FSC or LCC, as well as the brand name of the airline. We provided examples of CSR initiatives that airline companies had adopted and asked the participants whether they were aware of airline CSR activities. Participants who answered “yes” were chosen as qualified respondents for the study because they could evaluate airlines’ CSR marketing efforts. These individuals were requested to respond to the survey questions based on their air-travel experience with a brand. The survey company was responsible for recruiting the survey participants and designing the web-based questionnaire. It was compulsory for all participants to respond to every question to ensure there were no missing data. After all the data were collected, we checked the quality of the responses. The Mahalanobis distance check did not detect outliers; however, 9 of the 435 responses were excluded due to extreme answers. Consequently, 426 participants were included in the sample.

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characteristics

Table 1. Participants’ demographic characteristics (n = 426).

Variable	Category	n	%
Gender	Male	208	48.8
	Female	218	51.2
Level of education	High school diploma	86	20.2
	Associate’s degree	45	10.5
	Bachelor’s degree	252	59.2
	Postgraduate	43	10.1
Age (average = 40.64)	20–29 years old	102	24.0
	30–39 years old	104	24.4
	40–49 years old	110	25.8
	50 and over	110	25.8
Annual income level (USD)	Under $19,999	49	11.5
	$20,000–39,999	120	28.2
	$40,000–59,999	178	41.8
	$60,000–79,999	51	12.0
	$80,000 and over	28	6.6
Air travel frequency per year (domestic flight)	Less than once	87	20.4
	1–2 times	103	24.2
	3–4 times	131	30.8
	5–6 times	30	7.0
	7–8 times	46	10.8
	More than 9 times	29	6.8
Air travel frequency per year (international flight)	Less than once	81	19.0
	1–2 times	235	55.2
	3–4 times	70	16.4
	5–6 times	26	6.1
	7–8 times	5	1.2
	More than 9 times	9	2.1
Airline type	Full-service carrier	214	50.2
	Low-cost carrier	212	49.8

describes the participants’ demographic characteristics. In total, 48.8% of the participants were male and 51.2% were female. Approximately 70% of the sample had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. Regarding the frequency of domestic air travel within the last year, 30.8% (n = 131) had flown twice and 24.2% (n = 103) had flown once. The average age of the sample was 40.64 years, and the age groups were generally evenly distributed, from 20 to 29 years (24.0%), 30 to 39 years (24.4%), 40 to 49 years (25.8%), and 50 years and over (25.8%). The largest annual income level was USD 40,000–59,999. Regarding the frequency of international travel within the last year, 55.2% (n = 235) had flown 1–2 times, 19% (n = 81) had flown less than once, and 16.4% (n = 70) had flown 3–4 times. A total of 214 participants (50.2%) reported flying with an FSC (e.g., Korean Airlines, Asiana Airlines, All Nippon Airways, and China Eastern Airlines), whereas 49.8% (n = 212) reported flying with an LCC (e.g., Jeju Air, Jin Air, T-way, and Air Busan).

4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We used SPSS 20 and AMOS 20 for the data analysis. We first conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the measurement model. The CFA results indicated that the overall fit of the measurement model was statistically acceptable (χ² = 758.418, df = 393, χ²/df = 1.942, p < 0.05, normed fit index [NFI] = 0.906, incremental fit index [IFI] = 0.952, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = 0.947, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.952, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.047) [73].

Table 2. Measurement items, standardized loadings, and Cronbach’s alpha values.

Factors and Items			SL
CSR ($\alpha$ = 0.880)	Environmental responsibility	1. This airline participates in environmental campaigns.	0.764
		2. This airline reduces waste and uses environmentally friendly products.	0.771
		3. This airline uses energy and resources efficiently.	0.775
		4. This airline lowers the pollution caused by its business activities.	0.774
		5. This airline conducts its business activities in accordance with environmental regulations and policies.	0.738
		6. This airline uses renewable energy and reduces its on-ground energy consumption.	0.767
	Social responsibility	7. This airline raises funds for social causes.	0.795
		8. This airline supports sporting and cultural events.	0.782
		9. This airline encourages its employees to participate in volunteer activities in local communities.	0.785
		10. This airline has established an independent foundation for charity activities.	0.811
	Economic responsibility	11. This airline contributes to society and the economy by investing and generating profits.	0.795
		12. This airline creates new jobs.	0.730
		13. This airline contributes to national economic development by creating more value.	0.787
Quality attributes ($\alpha$ = 0.782)	Airline installations	1. The aircraft seems modern and safe.	0.535
		2. The seats are comfortable.	0.871
		3. The space between seats is good.	0.772
	Personnel professionalism	4. The personnel know their jobs well.	0.778
		5. The personnel’s knowledge is up to date.	0.712
		6. The personnel are always ready to help.	0.736
		7. The personnel are kind.	0.719
	Airline services	8. This airline’s planes arrive and leave punctually.	0.662
		9. This airline’s timetables are good for me.	0.673
		10. The baggage service is punctual.	0.651
Brand love ($\alpha$ = 0.881)		1. I love this airline brand.	0.789
		2. This airline brand is a joy to me.	0.848
		3. This airline brand is really awesome.	0.823
		4. This airline brand makes me feel good.	0.866
WOM ($\alpha$ = 0.910)		1. I will say positive things about this airline.	0.803
		2. I will recommend this airline to others.	0.904
		3. I will encourage others to travel with this airline.	0.901

Notes. All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001; SL = standardized loading; CSR = corporate social responsibility; WOM = word of mouth; and $\alpha$ = Cronbach’s alpha.

presents the variables and factor loadings of the items and their assigned variables. We excluded five items whose factor loadings were lower than the 0.5 cut-off value because they were not well loaded on their respective constructs. These included one item for airlines’ CSR: “This airline encourages the employees to participate in volunteer services”; three items for quality attributes: “The personnel look smart”, “I value their advice”, and “They attend to complaints efficiently”; and one item for brand love: “This airline makes me feel alive”. The remaining measurement items showed high loadings for their constructs, ranging from 0.535 to 0.904.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and associated measures.

Variable		No. of Items	AVE	CR	1	2	3	4
1	CSR	13	0.601	0.968	0.775
2	Quality attributes	10	0.513	0.944	0.678	0.716
3	Brand love	4	0.692	0.913	0.748	0.753	0.832
4	WOM	3	0.758	0.918	0.670	0.710	0.841	0.871

Notes. AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability; CSR = corporate social responsibility; WOM = word of mouth; and square root of AVE is indicated along the diagonal.

shows that the average variance extracted (AVE) values for all constructs exceeded the 0.5 threshold. Therefore, convergent validity was confirmed according to Fornell and Larcker [74]. Table 2 shows that Cronbach’s α score for each factor exceeded 0.7, indicating acceptable reliability [75].

We assessed the discriminant validity using both the Fornell–Larcker criterion and Bagozzi and Yi’s [75] recommendation. Although the square root of AVE should exceed that of the correlations of constructs based on Fornell and Larcker [74], Table 3 shows that the correlation coefficients of two pairs (quality attributes–brand love and brand love–WOM) exceeded those of the square roots of the AVE. Following Bagozzi and Yi [76], we conducted a chi-square difference test between the combined and free models. The results indicated a significant difference between the variables (quality attributes–brand love: Δχ² = 73.854 > χ²_0.05(1) = 3.841, df = 1, p < 0.05; brand love–WOM: Δχ² = 168.367 > χ²_0.05(1) = 3.841, df = 1, p < 0.05). Therefore, discriminant validity was established.

4.3. Structural Model Assessment

We conducted structural equation modeling (SEM) to evaluate the proposed theoretical framework and test the hypotheses. The SEM results confirm that the model has good fit (χ² = 767.136, df = 395, χ²/df = 1.942, p < 0.05, NFI = 0.905, IFI = 0.952, TLI = 0.946, CFI = 0.951, RMSEA = 0.047).

Table 4. Standardized parameter estimates for the structural model.

Hypothesized Linkage	Standardized Coefficient	t-Value
H1: CSR → Brand love	0.433 **	6.519
H2: Quality attributes → Brand love	0.479 **	6.457
H3: Brand love → WOM	0.853 **	15.560

Notes. ** p < 0.01; CSR = corporate social responsibility; WOM = word of mouth.

provides the SEM results with standardized coefficients. Regarding the causal relationships between the constructs, three hypotheses are statistically accepted at p < 0.05. Specifically, the impact of the airlines’ CSR on brand love (β = 0.433, p < 0.05), the impact of quality attributes on brand love (β = 0.479, p < 0.05), and the impact of brand love on positive WOM (β = 0.853, p < 0.05) are significant.

We verified the moderating role of airline type through a multigroup analysis. We conducted a chi-square difference test between the two groups, FSCs (n = 214) and LCCs (n = 212).

Table 5. Moderating role of airline type.

Path		FSC (n = 214)		LCC (n = 212)		Baseline Model	Restricted Model
		β	t	β	t
H4	CSR → Brand love	0.518 **	5.763	0.310 **	2.904	χ2 (790) = 1304.609	χ2 (791) = 1309.314
H5	Quality attributes → Brand love	0.396 **	4.274	0.593 **	4.472	χ2 (790) = 1304.609	χ2 (791) = 1304.644
Chi-square difference test
H4: Δχ2 (1) = 4.715, p < 0.05 (Significant; H4 is supported)
H5: Δχ2 (1) = 0.035, p > 0.05 (Insignificant; H5 is not supported)

Notes. ** p < 0.01; CSR = corporate social responsibility; FSC = full-service carrier; and LCC = low-cost carrier.

shows the results. The effect of CSR on brand love significantly differs by airline type, t (Δχ² = 4.715 > χ²_0.05(1) = 3.841, df = 1, p < 0.05). For the FSC group, the path coefficient between CSR and brand love is 0.518 (t = 5.763, p < 0.05), whereas that of the LCC group is 0.310 (t = 2.904, p < 0.05). Hence, H4 is supported. However, the moderating role of airline type is not significant for the relationship between quality attributes and brand love (Δχ² = 0.035 < χ²_0.05(1) = 3.841, df = 1, p > 0.05); thus, H5 is not supported.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

We developed a theoretical framework of passengers’ brand love formation, which included the impact of airlines’ CSR and service quality, and the moderating role of airline type. The specific aims were to identify the role of CSR and service quality in enhancing passengers’ brand love in the airline industry, uncover the relative importance of CSR and service quality in explaining brand love, and explore the moderating role of airline type (i.e., FSCs vs. LCCs) on the CSR–brand love and service quality–brand love relationships.

The results suggested that both CSR and service quality equally shaped passengers’ brand love. Although recent studies have suggested that CSR has a strong impact on passenger loyalty, e.g., [2], we found that CSR and service quality were equally important in creating passengers’ brand love by airline. CSR is undoubtedly an effective marketing tool to attract passengers’ positive attitudes. Nevertheless, passengers perceive the quality attributes—airline installations, personnel professionalism, and airline services—as the basic but important services that can enhance their positive affection. Since the airline industry is highly associated with the risk of fatal incidents; passengers’ foremost concern will be the safety aspects of the airlines’ service quality [50,77,78].

Notably, we demonstrated that the effect of CSR on brand love was significantly stronger for the FSC passengers than for LCC passengers. FSCs increase financial performance through CSR [65,79], whereas LCCs’ engagement in CSR is considered as an unnecessary investment which raises ticket prices [65] because competitive price is important in the LCC business model [1,2]. Despite limited research investing LCC passengers’ perception of CSR [12], certain scholars have asserted that air travelers perceive LCCs to be less environmentally friendly than FSCs [43]. In the same vein, Park et al.’s [80] study demonstrated that FSCs’ economic, social, and environmental responsibilities significantly enhanced Korean passengers’ satisfaction; however, Lee et al.’s [12] study targeting American LCC travelers suggested that LCCs pay more attention to improving service quality rather than investing CSR practices for business sales growth. Furthermore, FSC passengers are more likely to pay premium for CSR initiatives compared to LCC passengers [43,65]. Consistent with the existing research, this current study finding suggests that FSC companies’ CSR activities in improving passengers’ brand love are more effective than those of LCC companies. Therefore, FSCs should more aggressively employ CRS practices and marketing campaigns to both enhance their reputation and brand image. Meanwhile, according to the Higham et al.’s [81] study, even though passengers have high awareness of climate change concerns over air travel, time efficiency and cost competitiveness take precedence over the environmental concerns in determining their behaviors. Thus, it is essential to verify whether levels of awareness about environmental issues and CSR between FSC and LCC passengers differ and how the awareness influences their decision-making.

The FSC and LCC passengers showed no differences in the effect of service quality on stimulating their brand love. It was not surprising that for FSC and LCC passengers, the role of service quality was crucial for enhancing emotional attachment to an airline brand, as the extant airline research has identified the importance of service quality in this regard [9,51,53]. However, we specifically demonstrated that the effect of service quality on brand love was stronger for LCC passengers than for FSC passengers. According to the extant studies, FSC passengers are more sensitive to in-flight quality services, whereas LCC passengers are more sensitive to price [1]; however, we found that LCC passengers’ brand love was more likely to be induced by service quality compared to FSC passengers. Therefore, LCC passengers may sincerely appreciate receiving high-quality service since they have paid a low cost, while FSC passengers may think that they should be provided with high-quality service because they have paid a high price.

Finally, passengers’ brand love was a significant determinant of enhancing positive WOM. This finding expands on the extant research that has highlighted the vital role of emotional aspects in customers’ decision-making processes [61,82,83,84]. While brand love has gained interests in the tourism literature because of its positive outcomes [85,86], we also found that brand love contributed to passengers’ positive behavior in the airline industry context.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

This study makes the following theoretical contributions to the CSR literature in the airline industry context. First, in the context of the increasing number of eco-conscious passengers [2], we compared the influences of CSR and quality attributes on passengers’ brand love. By recognizing and comparing the importance of CSR and quality attributes, we contribute to the airline industry research by developing a conceptual model of passengers’ response and behavior formation.

Second, we identify the differences in the role of CSR according to airline type in passengers’ development of brand love. While the extant studies have suggested that different motivations influence passengers’ choice of FSCs and LCCs [46,62], our study results reveal that that different motivations and expectations influence passengers’ evaluation of airlines. Moreover, despite the increasing interest in value consumption, we show that CSR may not be a valuable corporate strategy for LCCs, as it is believed that companies will need to increase prices to cover the associated costs [65]. In sum, since CSR marketing strategies are more effective for FSCs than LCCs, theories focusing on FSCs’ CSR initiatives should be developed in future airline industry research.

5.2. Managerial Implications

Globally, the airline sector is becoming more competitive, with a rapid proliferation in the number of LCCs. South Korea’s aviation market is no different, with six LCCs acquiring the market share from FSCs. Recently, environmental, social and governance (ESG) has been used to evaluate firms’ sustainability and has revealed that ESG influences firms’ success [87]. In South Korea, the Korea Corporate Governance Service (KCGS) has provided ESG scores for various institutions since 2011 [88], including the six Korean airlines. However, it is challenging to become established as a sustainable firm before building up ESG investment [87]. As such, this has resulted in low ESG evaluation scores for Korean LCC airlines, which, in turn, has negatively influenced LCC airlines’ image and reputation. Despite these circumstances, both LCCs and FSCs have continuously implemented environmental CSR strategies to offset their negative reputation for causing environmental harm. Therefore, our results provide evidence of what Korean airline owners and managers should focus on to restore their airlines’ image and reputation.

Our empirical findings reveal that the impact of CSR on brand love differs according to airline type. Therefore, FSCs should focus on operating airlines in a more environmentally, socially, and economically responsible way and should advertise such endeavors to foster passengers’ brand love for the airlines. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Etihad Airways developed face shields using the latest 3D printing technology and distributed them to local medical staff. Moreover, over 3000 Etihad Airways’ employees volunteered to support local and government entities by distributing masks and gloves, as well as by cleaning the streets of Abu Dhabi as part of a government sanitation program. Our findings suggest that FSCs not only need to implement CSR activities but should also promote and communicate their CSR activities with passengers to elicit brand love.

5.3. Limitations and the Future Research

Despite the practical and academic implications of this study, some limitations exist. First, because our sample was composed of Korean passengers, we did not include cultural characteristics when exploring the impact of CSR and service quality attributes on brand love. According to Donthu and Yoo [89], consumers’ cultural orientation affects their expectations of service quality. Kim and Bae [90] also argue that cultural differences impact the perception of CSR campaigns. Therefore, various cultures should be considered when exploring the influences of CSR and quality attributes on brand love in the future.

Second, we did not examine the long-term marketing effect of CSR on brand love. While service quality has an instant impact on customers’ satisfaction, CSR strategies constitute relatively long-term marketing strategies [91] that aim to maintain long-term relationships with consumers. Future studies could include consumers who have acknowledged and used a specific airline that has implemented CSR for several years, so as to investigate the influences of long-term CSR strategies on eliciting brand love.

Third, although our study contributed to the existing airline CSR literature by empirically identifying distinctive effect of CSR on passengers’ emotion depending on airline’s business model, in future research, it is essential to verify whether levels of awareness about environmental issues and CSR between FSC and LCC passengers differ and how the awareness influences their decision-making.