Although the results of this study contribute to understanding the relationships among the perception of CSR, RG strategy, customer trust, and behavioral intention in casino settings, this study has limitations that may also address future research directions. First, the findings of the current study may not be generalized to other casino companies because this study collected data only from customers at K-Land Casino in Korea. Furthermore, RG strategies which have been implemented and perceptions of RG strategies can differ from other countries and cultures.
For example, K-Land Casino in Korea restricted access to the casino to prevent problem gambling. However, instead of the strategy of restricted access, Bellagio in Las Vegas provides their customers the option of enrolling in the Self-Limit Access Program. For the requested period, the enrolled customer cannot receive the company’s promotional mailings and casino services including credit, loyalty member privileges, and check-cashing (Bellagio, 2015).
Other gaming companies in Nevada has offered similar programs as well to comply with the state gaming regulation (NGC 5.170: Programs to address problem gambling) (Nevada Council on Problem Gambling, 2015). Hence, future research using these CSR and RG constructs in other jurisdictions or casino companies needs to be conducted.
Second, future study may consider other variables (e.g., image or reputation) not examined in this study when exploring the role of CSR and RG strategies in forming casino visitors’ trust and behavioral intention.
Finally, although this study identified the impacts of CSR and RG strategies on trust and behavioral intention from the perspective of casino visitors, future study may focus on other stakeholders, such as casino employees and local residents. Considering these constituencies may be valuable for better understanding of various casino stakeholders’ behaviors.