Green Advertising on Social Media: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper provides a systematic literature review on green advertising on social media. Both areas (green advertising and social media) are major trends and there has been growing research in the intersection. Conducting a literature review on this intersection is timely and worthwhile and it will surely help guide future research. In sum, the paper is well crafted. The contribution of the study is clearly described. The research questions are clear (although I think that the first three are less relevant). The SLR is done according to the typical guidelines for SLR and reported along the PRISMA guidelines.

Having said that, I believe that there are some issues to be fixed. 

While most studies of the SLR appeared 2011 or later, the authors included one paper from 1996. I am not aware of social media back in 1996 - at least no in our modern understanding of social media. I suspect that this paper needs to be dropped out of the SLR. 

I suggest to add the authors and years in Table 2 to improve the retrieval of the cited studies.

I did not understand how the authors conducted the thematic analysis. How did they end up with the seven main topics. Was this a top down/deductive process or a bottom up/inductive process? Are categories based on theories, concepts etc.? Who was conducting this research or better how many? And how was the interrater agreement? etc... Please be more precise when describing the method of the thematic analysis.

Moreover, the first category "message framing, emotions, and brand credibility" is the largest category. I guess the reason is that this category spans over several different categories. My guess is that there are three categories, which might be labelled "message framing", "emotions", "brand credibility". There are two option: A) find a reasonable umbrella term and give a reasonable explanation why these categories should be summed up. this should be justified by your method of the thematic analysis. Or B) split the category and report three separate categories.

Finally, I wonder why "conceptualization paper" is the seventh category. The other six categories are thematic once. Papers in these categories could be empirical or conceptual. So what is different to conceptualization? Or is this category more about social media strategy or something else? I suggest finding a contentwise/thematic label or drop this category.

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive comments. 
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, the paper is presented well. However, some issues need to be fixed and improved.

Firstly, in line 442 what does the straight vertical line means? 

Secondly, in line 421 the paragraph with title ''Corporate Green Advertizing'' should be more analyzed.

Moreover RQ 6,7,8 should be clearily analyzed like RQ1-2-3 in line 188.

The limitations should  have been analyzed at the end of the paper not before conclusion section.

In addtion Discussion and Results should be separate from Conclusion section and should be tied with the elements of the paper. The structure should be Discussion, Results, Conclusion, Limitations and Furthure research.

I hope that the authors will find the comments constructive and consider these as an attempt to help them enhance the quality of their manuscript.

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive comments. 
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This systematic literature review provides useful information on this topic, highlights research gaps, and suggests avenues for future research.

The article has a scientific structure, and the authors formulate a series of questions to which they find answers.

Please check in Table 1 - Journals- Impact factor-citations, column Impact factor. Some values ​​are far from the WoS IF for those journals.

The definition of the figures should be done under graphics or images.

We recommend authors include some bibliometric elements by using specific software (Vos Viewer).

I recommend a paper where you find this application and a different treatment for the future based on the Prisma technique (https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2021.1.4120)

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive comments. 
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Green “Advertising on social media: a systematic literature review” to Sustainability Journal. We appreciate your time and effort to review our work.

Reviewer 5 Report

The title as research question is clear, explicit and focused on the research core.

Recommend English Proofreading which will improve the quality and clarity of the text.

 Abstract: The abstract is too brief. Strong motivation of the research is necessary. It should be improved by presenting in summary each section of the paper. There is provided brief information about methodology and abstract information about results. Should be included more focused information about the research scope, utility and original contributions.

KEYWORDS – could be improved with 1, or 2 keywords referring to the specific concepts investigated.

 The Introduction: presents the paper framework and connection between green advertising and social media channels – arguing also the necessity of this approach both for researchers and businesses.

Within the Introduction is brief as it states the motivation and the 8 RQ.

The Introduction should be more documented on revealing the necessity of such research.

 Methodology – is based on PRISMA structural review.

The steps and methods of the research are clearly explained and represented in Tables and text.

There are no Objective or Hypothesis– of research – expressed in the Methodology section as the paper follows the PRISMA protocol for structural review and responds in the end to 8 RQ.

 Throghout the PRISMA methodology, the authors elaborate also the literature review for each key concept in different sub-sections and provide the necessary description and argumentation.   

Literature review comprises the many perspectives debated about the core concepts the paper is built on but is rather confusing and expresses several connections between the concepts and reality which at some point overlap. Some clarity should be brought to the final version.

- Message framing, emotions and brand credibility

- Greenwashing

- Green Skepticism

- Generations and green advertising

- Influencer Marketing and green advertising

- Corporate Green Advertising

- Conceptualization Papers

 Literature review includes references for supporting the researched concepts according to this journal standards and could be improved.

Literature review refers to defining the concepts, to characterizing the concepts, to framing the concepts in the actual literature landscape. The literature review elaborated with PRISMA methodology has the necessary flow in arguing the concepts.

Results

Results of PRISMA structural review are explained and discussed theoretically in detail.

Limitations  and Research Gaps sections should be integrated.

The information is presented very structured and briefly and could be better incorporated if approached together.

Conclusions

Conclusions are formulated in detail and summarize the results for the RQs. Authors insist on the results, connecting these to the global framework of the domain, both in theory and practice.

The paper style should be improved in order to resonate with a wider and diverse audience, as specific to this journal.

References

References do not fully correspond to the journal format.

Author Response

We would like to thank all reviewers for their constructive comments. 
Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done a good job revising the paper. I have no further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for responding, the paper has been improved and can now be published. Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review your paper.