Not all corporate failures are judged equally: asymmetric effects of incident type (what) and brand capability (who) on consumer responses

Purpose This study examines how consumers evaluate corporate failures in the fashion industry by investigating whether negative responses differ according to incident type and brand capability. Drawing on attribution theory, it explores how incident type (what) and brand capability (who) shape consumer betrayal and examines the sequential mechanism through which betrayal influences perceived incident severity, perceived prior controllability, responsibility attribution, and ultimately brand trust. Design/methodology/approach To test hypotheses, this study employs a 2 (incident type: labor exploitation vs product defect) X 2 (brand capability: established luxury brand vs emerging brand) between-subjects experimental design. With the stimuli, online survey data were collected from 320 consumers in Korea by a professional research firm. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and PROCESS macro. Findings Consumer evaluations differed systematically according to both incident type and brand capability. Labor exploitation elicited stronger betrayal than product defects. While product defects generated greater betrayal for established luxury brands than for emerging brands, labor exploitation evoked uniformly high betrayal regardless of brand capability. Furthermore, consumer betrayal heightened perceived incident severity and prior controllability, which in turn strengthened responsibility attribution to the brand and ultimately reduced brand trust. Originality/value This study advances crisis management and attribution literature by demonstrating that consumer evaluations of corporate failures depend on both incident type and brand capability. It identifies consumer betrayal as a key psychological mechanism linking corporate misconduct to trust erosion and highlights the importance of context-sensitive crisis management strategies for the fashion industry.