BRAND ENGAGEMENT ACCORDING TO GENDER IN SOCIALLY
RESPONSIBLE BRANDS*
Abstract:
The aim of the research work is to analyze whether there are gender differences in the
perception of socially responsible brands, and how this difference affects the engagement of
consumers to the brand. Men and women, in general, tend to perceive brands differently. The
brands whose companies practice social responsibility tends to create a stronger engagement
with the consumer. The brand engagement to socially responsible brands can be affected by
whether the gender of the consumer. Is used a quantitative methodology. Data collection was
done through a survey, using validated scales in the literature for the estimation of a
multinominal logistic model to substantiate the assumptions made. The relevance of the work
is justified by the use of more effective communication by the socially responsible companies
who wish to segment the market by gender.
Keywords:
Brand Engagement, Social Responsibility, Consumer, Multinominal Logistic Model
*The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (PestOE/EUE/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Engenharia e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).
BRAND ENGAGEMENT ACCORDING TO GENDER IN SOCIALLY
RESPONSIBLE BRANDS
By joining images of celebrities, models and scenarios, managers can add different meanings
to the brand, helping to create an identity. This identity in turn may be influenced by gender.
There are several brands that are associated with female images, for example, the clothing
brand Carolina Herrera and other associated brands with images that are distinctly masculine,
such as Hugo Boss. Thus, one might think that brands have a gender identity (Jung and Lee,
2006).
Till and Priluck (2001) argue that one of the aspects of culture that can be transferred to
brands is gender. There are several studies that suggest that gender may be important for the
consumer in the process of brand choice and that the degree of masculinity or femininity of a
brand can influence their purchasing behavior (Alreck, Settle, and Belch, 1982; Bellizi and
Milner, 1991; Maldonado et. al., 2003; Grohmann, 2009). On the other hand, many academic
studies maintain that the attitude towards a brand can be conditioned (Shimp et. al., 1991,
Kim et. al., 1996, 1998), and these constraints may be the gender. A number of authors
(McCraken, 1986; Priluck and Tell, 2001, Blair and Shimp, 1992) suggest that consumers are
interested in products that allow them to express their place in society. Thus, brands can help
to categorize individuals according to age, gender and social class.
Gender is one of the variables most used in the segmentation of markets (Patterson and Hogg,
2004). However, the concept is quite difficult to be operationalized in the research of
consumer behavior (Palan, 2001) and its interpretation can not be the most correct when
applied to the consumption variables. The gender identity can be seen as the degree to which
an individual identifies with masculine or feminine traits (Palan, 2001, Maldonado et. al.,
2003). In this work, by gender means the perspective that an individual has over their own sex,
incorporating a set of psychological characteristics and emotional and that influences their
perception of brands.
The attachment to the brand is defined as individual differences that represent the tendency
of a consumer to include important brands as part of themselves (Sprott, Czellar and
Spangenberg, 2009). The interest in examining the attachment with the consumer brands lies
in the fact this connection is strong, lead to the creation of a favorable attitude to the brand
and soon the interesting behavior from the point of view of the managers. However there are
few studies that examine the development of brand connection through the gender
difference. It is known that men tend to prefer brand men's and women tend to experience
more feminine brands leading to the conclusion that individuals prefer brands associated with
their gender (Alreck et. al., 1982; Debevec and Iyer, 1986; Bellizzi and Milner,1991).
H1: Men and women have different connection to social responsible brands.
*The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (PestOE/EUE/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Engenharia e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).
Has been studied over time the difference of ethical behavior by men and women (Dobson and
White, 1995; Whitley et. al., 1999, and Vermeir Kenhove, 2008). Women have been perceived
as more sensitive and less competitive than men, so with greater ethical and social
responsibility (Simga-Mugan et. al., 2005; Beu et. al., 2003, Roxas and Stoneback, 2004) . This
is due to the fact that males and females having different values and features which tend to
create moral different orientations, and therefore, differently influence their preferences for
socially responsible brands (Vitell, 2003; Roxas and Stoneback, 2004).
Despite current market conditions seem restricted, nowadays many companies develop their
communication practices of social responsibility as a way to distinguish themselves from the
competition. According to the main results of the literature on corporate social responsibility
(CSR), consumers are interested in the social behavior of companies and are influenced in their
purchases by these behaviors. Often, there are authors who argue that the profile of a
company on corporate social responsibility is important in the selection and purchase of
certain brands (Castaldo et. al., 2009).
There are several approaches that have emerged over the years about the concept of social
responsibility and has therefore, been defined in various ways, depending on the school
management (Castaldo et al., 2009). However, most of the definitions of the concept is
inherent stakeholders.
The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility in academic research has to do on the one
hand, with the involvement of business in a network of social relations in the identification of
more detailed management tools, on the other hand, in an effort to market policies and
stakeholders in translating the idea of socially responsible behavior (Perrini et. al., 2006).
From the rational point of view, if stakeholders perceive the company with a responsible social
behavior, consider the company as preferred to transact. On the supply side, socially
responsible companies can attract and retain consumers can make themselves or charge for a
premium price for their products (Barnett, 2007). There are several studies where it supports
the idea that consumers are willing to pay a price premium for products that are derived from
companies with a profile of social responsibility, however, can not relate the perceptions of
consumers with their purchasing behavior (Page and Fearn , 2005). Also Boulstridge and
Carrigan (2000) argue that there is a difference between consumer attitudes and behavior,
that is, despite consumers' willingness to pay a premium price for a product from a company
with social responsibility, corporate social responsibility is not is a criterion that consumers
have in mind when they go shopping.
Numerous authors consider that the most desirable outcome of the activities that can be
developed in terms of marketing strategy of any company, is a loyal consumer (Chaudhuri,
1999, Mittal and Lassar, 1998; Friege and Strauss, 1999; Oliver, 1999; Punniyamoorthy and Raj,
2007, Johnson et. al., 2006; Chandrashkaran et. al., 2007; Palmatier et. al., 2007). The most
common consequences of loyalty are less sensitive to price increases, greater efficiency in
implementation of marketing and better business results.
*The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (PestOE/EUE/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Engenharia e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).
A more complete definition of the concept of loyalty is given by Jacoby and Chestnut (1978)
who argues that brand loyalty translates repetition is not a random purchase behavior, the
same brand or same set of brands, part of a individual with decision-making capacity.
Moreover, Punniyamoorthy and Raj (2007: 223) said that “brand loyalty might be viewed as a
special case of relationship marketing, where the consumer has a significant psychological
attachment to the brand entity consumed”.
There are discrepancies in the literature on the concept of brand loyalty. This divergence is
basically two distinct approaches to analyze. One is the stochastic approach, in which behavior
is considered fair. The other approach treats loyalty as an attitude (Odin et. al. 2001). The first
is concerned with the buying behavior of a consistent brand over time - behavioral approach
and, second, binds to favorable attitudes towards the brand - perceptual approach.
Thus considering the brand loyalty performed as a behavioral response over time for one or
several alternative brands within a set of brands, loyalty may be seen as a function decisionmaking psychological, a process evaluation performed over time.
H2: Men and women linked to socially responsible brands have different loyal behaviors.
In the literature of the brand, the price premium has been studied by several authors, among
which are, Holbrook (1992), Kamakura and Russell (1993), Park and Srinivasan (1994),
Netemeyer et. al. (2004). In terms of marketing can be considered that the availability of a
consumer to pay a price premium is defined as the amount he is willing to pay for their
preferred brand, compared with a similar product without the brand. For Aaker (1996), the
price premium is a strong indicator of brand loyalty. To Blonde (2000), the price premium is a
basic criterion of brand loyalty, to indicate how the buyer is willing to pay for the brand
compared to another brand, which has a similar offer.
H3: Men and women linked to socially responsible brands are different willing to pay a higher
price for the brand.
Methodology
Initially we performed a pretest where they asked a group of students at a University in North
Portugal (N = 147) to classify a wide range of brands on the gender and the practice of social
responsibility policies. The analysis of these results we selected two brands classified as
socially responsible: Ikea perceived as a feminine brand and Nike brand perceived as a male.
Once selected brands for the study was conducted a second survey (N = 211) to collect
*The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (PestOE/EUE/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Engenharia e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).
information necessary for the estimation of multinomial regression models and validation of
hypotheses.
The gender difference in perception of socially responsible brands chosen was based on a set
of statements used adjectives opposites of masculinity and femininity (Till and Priluck, 2001).
Thus, in the survey were asked to each of its assessment inquired about "brand product
corresponds to a male / female", "brand is a marked characteristic of hardness / softness
scheduled", "brand is characterized by a tendency to be male / female tendency, " brand
corresponds to a product with a strong personality / delicate "," brand corresponds to a
character male / female. "
The collection of information on connecting to the brand was made resorting to the scale of
Sprott, and Spangenberg Czellar (2009) with eight items. Thus, we considered issues such as “I
have a special bond with the brands that I like”, “I consider my favorite brands to be a part of
myself”, “I often feel a personal connection between my brands and me”, “Part of me is
defined by important ”, “I feel as if I have a close personal connection with the brands I most
prefer”, “I can identify with important brands in my life”, “There are links between the brands
that I prefer and how I view myself”, e “my favorite brands are an important indication of who
I am”.
The collection of information from other constructs for the estimation of the model was made
using scales of social responsibility of Roberts (1996), loyalty of Yoo and Donthu (2001), price
premium of Chauduri and Halbrook (2001).
Results and Validation of Hypotheses
We surveyed 211 students at a university in northern Portugal. The sample is composed mainly
of individuals with less than 25 years. Of the respondents 53% are male and 47% female. This
is a sample of convenience, in an exploratory study the importance of gender differences In
the link to socially responsible brands.
*The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (PestOE/EUE/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Engenharia e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).
Was used a Likert scale of five points (1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree) to measure
the degree of agreement of the respondent against each set of items of the constructs.
It was done an factor analysis the scale used to evaluate the structure of the proposed set of
items in each of the constructs having three factors is obtained for the measurement scale of
the kind or brand Ikea or the Nike. The first factor of the Nike brand was considered the most
important and which comprises 39.351% of variance explained, includes items on the
masculinity of the brand (EG1, EG3 and EG5). The first factor of the brand Ikea, explains
36.932% of explained variance and includes items on the femininity of the brand (EG6, and
EG8 EG9). For other constructs, factor analysis confirmed the existence of a single factor. The
factors considered were the values that had eigenvalues greater than unity.
*The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (PestOE/EUE/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Engenharia e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).
The probability of occurrence of each of the hypotheses was determined by use of multinomial
regression models. The models were fitted with the software as described in PASW Statistic
Maroco (2010).
The model was used to estimate the probability of men and women have different behavior
towards socially responsible brands (1 - men with concerns about the social responsibility of
brands; 2 - women with concerns about the social responsibility of brands), in particular as
regarding the brand engagement (1 - no brand engagement, 2 - weak brand engagement, 3 average brand engagement; 4 - good brand engagement; 5 - excellent brand engagement), the
face of brand loyalty (1 - no loyalty; 2 - weak fairness, 3 - average loyalty; 4 - good fidelity; 5 excellent loyalty) and given the willingness to pay a price premium for the brand (1 - nothing 2
- poor layout, 3 - average disposition; 4 - good disposition; 5 - excellent disposition).
The fitted model is statistically significant (G2 (4) = 17,483; p = 0,002) and estimates of the
coefficients for each of the categories considered in relation to the reference class "men with
concerns about the social responsibility of brands" are given in the following table:
Table 1 – Estimation of Multinominal Logistic Model
Gender
β
Std. Error
Wald
df
Sig.
eβ
Intercept
1,335
0,503
6,789
1
0,034
LM1
0,658
0,792
7,865
1
0,124
0,126
LM2
0,756
0,490
6,987
1
0,212
0,342
LM3
0,987
0,735
7,345
1
0,311
0,453
LM4
1,455
0,467
7,865
1
0,004
0,465
LM5
1,458
0,734
7,456
0
0,007
0,345
LL1
-0,453
0,303
7,789
1
0,734
0,066
LL2
-0,476
0,593
5,865
1
0,562
0,092
LL3
-0,783
0,592
6,587
1
0,521
0,023
LL4
-1,152
0,532
6,545
1
0,454
0,035
LL5
-1,152
0,564
6,895
0
0,347
0,005
PP1
-0,354
0,484
6,281
1
0,271
0,006
PP2
-0,451
0,603
7,162
1
0,242
0,002
PP3
-0,537
0,762
6,482
1
0,121
0,073
*The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (PestOE/EUE/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Engenharia e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).
PP4
-1,252
0,456
6,241
1
0,234
0,065
PP5
-1,156
0,835
6,897
0
0,307
0,045
According to the fitted model can be concluded that women are more connected to brands of
men (βLM4 = 1,455; p =0,004 e βLM5 = 1,458; p =0,007). The odds ratio of the difference between
men and women is 46.5% for a good engagement to the brand and 34.5% for an excellent
engagement to the brand. Of hypotheses only confirms that men and women have different
engagements to socially responsible brand. Women have a greater engagement to the brands
socially responsible.
General Discussion and Conclusions
The results show that still have differences, in consumer behavior, when it comes to gender.
The importance of further research in this field is related to the adequacy of communication
strategies and brand management through social responsibility practices.
In future work, it is necessary to simultaneously measure multiple facets of gender identity,
such as roles, attitudes and traits of men and women in order to enrich the analysis. It should
also be detailed data analysis with the estimation of new models with the introduction of
variables such as age, income and education level.
References
Aaker, David A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York.
Alreck, Pamela L., Robert B. Settle and Michael A. Belch (1982), “Sex-Typed Product Images:
The Effects of Sex, Sex Role, Self-Concept and Measurement Implications”, Advances in
Consumer Research; pp. 604-609.
Barnett, M. L. (2007), “Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns
to Corporate Social Responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32, Nº 3, pp. 794816.
Bellizzi, Joseph A. and Laura Milner (1991), “Gender Positioning of a Traditionally MaleDominant Product”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 31, pp. 72-79.
Beu, D. S., M. R. Buckley and M. G. Harvey (2003), “Ethical Decision-Making, A
Multidimensional Construct”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 12, pp. 88-106.
*The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (PestOE/EUE/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Engenharia e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).
Blair, Elizabeth M. and Terence A. Shimp (1992), “Consequences of an Unpleasant Experience
with Music: A Second-Order Negative Conditioning Perspective”, Journal of Advertising, Vol.
21, pp. 35-43.
Boulstridge, E. and m. Carrigan (2000), “Do Consumers Really Care About Corporate
Responsibility? Highlighting the Attitude-Behaviour Gap”, Journal of Communication
Management, Vol. 4, Nº 4, pp. 355-368.
Castaldo, Sandro, Francesco Perrini, Nicola Misani and Antonio Tencati (2009), “The Missing
Link between Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumer Trust: The Case of Fair Trade
Products”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 84, pp. 1-15.
Chandrashkaran, M., K. Rotte, S. S. Tax and R. Grewal (2007), “Satisfaction Strength and
Customer Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XLIV, pp. 153-163.
Chaudhuri, A. (1999), “Does Brand Loyalty Mediate Brand Equity Outcomes?”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7, Nº 2, pp. 136-146.
Chaudhuri, A. e M. B. Holbrook (2001), “The Chain of Effects from Brand trust and Brand Affect
to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65, pp. 81-93.
Debevec, Kathleen and Easwar Iyer (1986), “Sex roles and Consumer Perceptions of
Promotions, Products and Self: What do we Know and Where Should we be Haeded?”,
Advances in Consumer Research, pp. 210- 214.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham e W. C. Black (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th Ed.,
Pearson, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N. J..
Holbrook, Morris B. (1992), “Product Quality, Attributes and Brand Names as Determinants of
Price: the case of consumer electronics”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 3, Nº 1. pp. 71-83.
Jacoby, J. e R. W. Chestnut (1978), Brand Loyalty: Measurement and Management, New York:
John Wiley.
Johnson, M. D., A. Herrmann and F. Huber (2006), “The Evolution of Loyalty Intentions”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70, pp.122-132.
Louro, Maria João Sousa (2000), “Modelos de Avaliação da Marca”, Revista de Administração
de Empresas, Vol. 40, Nº 2, pp. 26-37.
Kamakura, W. A. e G. J. Russell (1993), “Measuring Brand Value with Scanner Data”,
International Journal Research Marketing, Vol. 10, March, pp. 9-21.
Kim, John, Chris T. Allen and Frank R. Kardes (1996), “An Investigation of the Mediational
Mechanism Underlying Attitudinal Conditioning”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, pp.
318-328.
*The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (PestOE/EUE/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Engenharia e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).
Kim, John, Jeen-Su Lim and Mukesh Bhargava (1998), “The Role of Affect in Attitude
Formation: A Classical Conditioning Approach”, Journal of the Marketing Science, Vol. 26, pp.
143-152.
Maldonado, R., P. Tansuhaj and D. D. Muehling (2003), “The Impact of Gender on Ad
Processing: A Social Identity Perspective”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Nº 3,
avaible: http://www.amsreview.org/articles/maldonado03-203.pdf
Maroco, João (2010), “Análise Estatística com o PASW Statistic”, Report Number.
McCraken, Grant (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure
and Movement of Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.
13, pp. 71-84.
Mittal, B. e W. M. Lassar (1998), “Why do Customer Switch? The Dynamics of Satisfaction
versus Loyalty”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 12, Nº 3, pp. 177-194.
Netemeyer, et. al., (2004), “Developing and Validating Measures of facets of customer-based
brand equity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, Nº 2, pp. 209-224.
Odin, Yorick, Nathalie Odin e Pierre Valette-Florence (2001), “Conceptual and Operational
Aspects of Brand Loyalty. An Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 53, Nº
2, pp. 75-84.
Oliver, R. (1999), “Whence Consumer Loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, Special Issue,
pp. 33-34.
Page, G. and H. Fearn (2005), “Corporate Reputation: What do Consumers Really Care
About?”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 45, Nº 3, pp. 305-313.
Palan, Kay M. (2001), “Gender Identity in Consumer Behavior Research: A Literature Review
and Research Agenda”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Nº 10, available:
http://www.amsreview.org/articles/palan10-2001.pdf.
Palmatier, R.W., L. L. Scheer and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp (2007), “Customer Loyalty to
Whom? Managing the Benefits and Managing the Benefits and Risks of Salesperson-Owned
Loyalty”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XLIV, pp. 185-199.
Park, Chan Su e V. Srinivasan (1994), “A Survey-Based Method for Measuring and
Understanding Brand Equity and Its Extendibility”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, Nº
2, pp. 271-288.
Patterson, Claudine and Margaret K. Hogg (2004), “Gender Identity, Gesnde Salience and
Symbolic Consumption” in Gender and Consumer Behavior, Vol. 7, Association for Consumer
Resaerch.
*The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (PestOE/EUE/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Engenharia e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).
Perrini, F., S. Pogutz and A. Tencati (2006), Developing Corporate Social Responsibility. A
European Perspective, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK.
Punniyamoorthy, M. and M. P. Mohan Raj (2007), “An Empirical Model for Brand Loyalty
Measurement”, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 15, Nº 4,
pp. 222-233.
Roberts, J. A. (1996), “Will the Real Socially Responsible Consumer Please Step Forward?”,
Business Horizon, Vol. 39, pp. 79-83.
Roxas, M. L. and J. Y. Stoneback (2004), “The Importance of Gender across Cultures”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 50, pp. 149-165.
Shimp, Terence; Elnora W. Stuart and Randall W. Engle (1991), “A Program of Classical
Conditioning Experiments Testing Variations in Conditioned Stimulus and Context”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 1-12.
Simga-Mugan, C., B. A. Daly, D. Onkal and L. Kavut (2005), “The Influence of Nationality and
Gender on Ethical Sensitivity: An Application of the Issue-Contingent Model”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 57, pp. 139-159.
Sprott, David, Sandor Czellar and Eric Spangenberg (2009), “The Importance of a General
Measure of Brand Engagement on Market Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XLVI, pp. 92-104.
Strauss, B. e C. Friege (1999), “Regaining Service Customers: Cost and Benefits of Regain
Management”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 1, Nº 4, p. 347-361.
Till, Brian D. and Randi Lynn Priluck (2001), “Conditioning of Meaning in Advertising: Brand
Gender Perceptions Effects”, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 23, Nº
2, pp. 1 -8.
Vermeir, Iris and Patrick Van Kenhove (2008), “Gender Differences in Double Standards”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 81, pp. 281-295.
Vitell, S. J. (2003), “Consumer Ethics Research: Review, Synthesis, and Suggestions for the
future”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43, pp. 33-47.
Yoo, B. and N. Donthu (2001), “Developing and Validating a Multidimensional Consumer-Based
Brand Equity Scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52, pp. 1-14.
*The work reported in this paper was co-financed by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Portugal (PestOE/EUE/UI4005/2011) and carried out within the research centre Centro Lusíada de Investigação e Desenvolvimento em
Engenharia e Gestão Industrial (CLEGI).