This study aims to empirically investigate how corporate strategy mitigates consumer boycotts caused by animosity toward economic sanction. First, the study focuses on the cross-culture emotions (i.e., animosity and affinity) and explores the direct and indirect effect of animosity toward economic sanction on boycott attitude (via consumer affinity). Additionally, it focuses on the moderating effect of brand strength and corporate social contribution on boycott attitude. We conduct a longitudinal analysis of boycotts by South Koreans on the Japanese products, which started in South Korea in 2019; and additionally, we employ PROCESS macro to test the moderated mediation hypothesis, using the data collected from South Korea in 2020 and 2021. Our findings reveal that the data collected in 2020 and in 2021 have the same implications. The main findings are as follows. First, while animosity toward economic sanction directly increases boycott attitude, it also indirectly increases boycott attitude via consumer affinity. Second, the assumption that both brand strength and corporate social contribution weaken the positive and direct effects of animosity toward economic sanction on boycott attitude was not supported. Third, we find that corporate social contribution weakens the positive and indirect effect of animosity toward economic sanction on boycott attitude. However, unlike our prediction, brand strength strengthens the positive and indirect effects of animosity to economic sanction on boycott attitude. The three key theoretical implications are as follows. First, while many studies have examined the role of animosity as a cause of boycott, only a few studies have simultaneously addressed the conflicting emotions of affinity (Kim, Yan, Kim, Terasaki, & Furukawa, 2022). This study extends boycott research by exploring the relationship between animosity and boycott attitudes by considering the mediating effect of affinity. Second, to our best knowledge, only a few boycott studies have explored corporate strategies that adequately respond unanticipated country boycotts where the companies are not directly associated with the causes or motives of such boycotts (Kim & Kinoshita, 2023). This study extends boycott research by investigating brand strength and corporate social contribution as corporate strategies in the context of consumer boycotts. Third, although it is known that consumer boycotts change with time, only a few boycott studies are based on longitudinal analyses (Ettenson & Klein, 2005); hence, this study examines consumer boycotts longitudinally to improve the generalization of our findings. Our findings also present some managerial implications for global companies facing unexpected country boycotts by local consumers. When boycotts are caused by economic sanctions between countries, brand strength exerts a two-sided effect. Regarding consumer sentiment, the higher the brand strength, the higher the affinity for the country represented by the brand, and vice versa; however, consumers may also choose to boycott a brand with high strength. Consumers may feel angry and engage in boycotts when they feel betrayed by a brand with strong brand strength. However, corporate social contribution reinforces a sense of closeness in the country it presents and contributes toward mitigating the boycott attitude; this is because consumers consider their corporate social contribution as a beneficial activity for their country. Therefore, global companies that expand overseas should not only use their brand strength, but also engage in activities that are beneficial to the country and enhance the familiarity of the consumers of the country to develop a sense of cultural affinity. In addition, this study also has implications for policymakers. Economic sanctions against a specific country not only lower consumers’ affinity, but also leave a negative impact on the global companies with high brand strength. Therefore, policymakers must proceed with caution when they make an economic sanction for a certain country.