Green Innovation in Business: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Trends, Contributors, and Future Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We appreciate your submission of the manuscript to the esteemed journal. Nevertheless, I have identified several significant issues that require attention before resubmission.

1. The abstract requires revision due to the inclusion of numerous findings, which complicates comprehension and may diminish reader interest.

2. The introduction section resembles a findings section more than it should. The introduction should employ a deductive approach, beginning with a global perspective and comparisons among significant studies in the field. This should then narrow down to specific study gaps, highlighting the necessity for this bibliometric analysis despite the existing body of research on the topic. Further, also add 2024-year studies of reputed journals and try to build a story in the introduction section for more beautification and comprehension. 

3. Much of the content generated through bibliometric analysis and the findings presented are primarily interpretations derived from the software outputs. Please consider incorporating additional information and critical analysis regarding the potential utility of this analysis for future studies, as this will enhance your chances of obtaining citations.

4. Finally, your title suggests that you will outline future research avenues based on this bibliometric analysis; however, I do not observe any specific recommendations for future studies. The final section resembles a conclusion and limitations section. It is essential to delineate the conclusions from the future research section. Subsequently, a comprehensive outline of future research should be developed, encompassing 10 to 15 topics. These topics should include empirical, experimental, qualitative, bibliometric, systematic, and other relevant areas that require attention to ensure the study's impactful contribution.  

Author Response

Comments 1: The abstract requires revision due to the inclusion of numerous findings, which complicates comprehension and may diminish reader interest.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the abstract to enhance clarity and maintain reader interest by focusing on the most significant findings. The updated abstract now succinctly highlights the key insights and contributions of our study. For detailed revisions, please refer to page 1 of the manuscript.

Comments 2: The introduction section resembles a findings section more than it should. The introduction should employ a deductive approach, beginning with a global perspective and comparisons among significant studies in the field. This should then narrow down to specific study gaps, highlighting the necessity for this bibliometric analysis despite the existing body of research on the topic. Further, also add 2024-year studies of reputed journals and try to build a story in the introduction section for more beautification and comprehension.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have incorporated your suggestions into the revised manuscript, particularly in the introduction section. The introduction now adopts a deductive approach, starting with a global perspective and comparing significant studies in the field. It then narrows down to specific research gaps, underscoring the necessity for this bibliometric analysis despite the existing literature. For detailed revisions, please refer to pages 1 and 2 of the manuscript.

Regarding the inclusion of studies from the full year 2024, we anticipate a delay of 4-5 months, as some publications may take 2-3 months to appear in the Web of Science. We appreciate your understanding.

Comments 3: Much of the content generated through bibliometric analysis and the findings presented are primarily interpretations derived from the software outputs. Please consider incorporating additional information and critical analysis regarding the potential utility of this analysis for future studies, as this will enhance your chances of obtaining citations.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have revised the article to incorporate additional information and critical analysis regarding the potential utility of our bibliometric analysis for future studies. This enhancement aims to provide deeper insights and increase the article's relevance and citation potential. For detailed revisions, please refer to pages 14 and 15 of the manuscript.

Comments 4: Finally, your title suggests that you will outline future research avenues based on this bibliometric analysis; however, I do not observe any specific recommendations for future studies. The final section resembles a conclusion and limitations section. It is essential to delineate the conclusions from the future research section. Subsequently, a comprehensive outline of future research should be developed, encompassing 10 to 15 topics. These topics should include empirical, experimental, qualitative, bibliometric, systematic, and other relevant areas that require attention to ensure the study's impactful contribution.  

Response: Thank you for your feedback. In response, we have refined the future research directions to focus on key areas that will enhance the understanding of Green Innovation (GI) in business and management. These directions include expanding database inclusion, exploring interdisciplinary approaches, and conducting meta-analyses. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of fostering international partnerships to fully harness GI's potential in promoting sustainable development. Future research should also investigate the impact of low-density themes on GI antecedents and outcomes, such as business financial performance, competitive advantage, and environmental policies across countries. These foundational studies will guide current research and pave the way for future inquiries into how GI can enhance organizational performance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. This paper addresses an important topic within the intersection of GI and business management, and it presents valuable insights into the current research landscape. Below, I have provided detailed feedback on four key areas. Addressing these points could significantly enhance the depth and clarity of the manuscript.

1. While the manuscript introduces the concept of green innovation, it would benefit from a more detailed historical and contextual foundation that emphasizes its evolution and increasing relevance in the business field.  Consider providing an overview of GI’s emergence, tracing its trajectory from niche interest to mainstream strategy within firm sustainability.  Situating GI within the broader movement toward corporate responsibility and sustainable development would provide readers with a clearer sense of the concept's relevance and urgency in today’s business environment.

2. The manuscript effectively identifies GI’s presence in business strategy but does not deeply explore its connections with established management theories, which could strengthen the theoretical foundation of your work. 

3.  Although the manuscript acknowledges the financial and operational benefits of GI, a more nuanced analysis of GI’s impact on firm performance could strengthen the implications of your findings.

4. Rather than focusing solely on mapping trends, the paper could delve into unique insights on under-researched areas within GI or recommend new interdisciplinary approaches that could address complex sustainability challenges.

While the manuscript offers a valuable bibliometric analysis, further elaboration on these three areas would significantly enhance its theoretical grounding, practical implications, and overall contribution to the literature on green innovation. By deepening the contextual foundation of GI, aligning it with core management theories, and analyzing its impact on firm performance, your work could offer richer insights into how GI transforms modern business practices.

Thank you again for the opportunity to review this manuscript, and I look forward to seeing the revisions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are instances of subject-verb agreement errors, such as "Management researcher analyze…". Please carefully check that all subjects agree with their verbs, particularly when dealing with plural nouns.

The manuscript occasionally misuses prepositions, such as "associated to" instead of the correct phrase "associated with." etc.

Author Response

Comments 1: While the manuscript introduces the concept of green innovation, it would benefit from a more detailed historical and contextual foundation that emphasizes its evolution and increasing relevance in the business field.  Consider providing an overview of GI’s emergence, tracing its trajectory from niche interest to mainstream strategy within firm sustainability.  Situating GI within the broader movement toward corporate responsibility and sustainable development would provide readers with a clearer sense of the concept's relevance and urgency in today’s business environment.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback and appreciation. We have revised the manuscript to include a more detailed historical and contextual foundation of Green Innovation (GI). The updated version now traces GI's evolution from a niche interest to a mainstream strategy within firm sustainability. We have also situated GI within the broader movement toward corporate responsibility and sustainable development, providing readers with a clearer understanding of its relevance and urgency in today's business environment. For detailed revisions, please refer to pages 1 and 2 of the manuscript.

Comments 2: The manuscript effectively identifies GI’s presence in business strategy but does not deeply explore its connections with established management theories, which could strengthen the theoretical foundation of your work. 

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have revised the manuscript to deepen the exploration of Green Innovation's (GI) connections with established management theories, thereby strengthening the theoretical foundation of our work. For detailed revisions, please refer to page 2 of the manuscript.

Comments 3: Although the manuscript acknowledges the financial and operational benefits of GI, a more nuanced analysis of GI’s impact on firm performance could strengthen the implications of your findings.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have enhanced the manuscript by providing a more nuanced analysis of Green Innovation's (GI) impact on firm performance, thereby strengthening the implications of our findings. For detailed improvements, please refer to pages 13 and 14 of the revised manuscript.

Comments 4: The introduction highlights the study's significance well, particularly its potential contributions to both theory and practice in the field of sustainable tourism management. Adding more on the practical implications for industry practitioners could enhance this section further.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated additional insights on the practical implications for industry practitioners, drawing from past research in the field of sustainable tourism management. For detailed revisions, please refer to page 2 of the manuscript.

Comments 5: Rather than focusing solely on mapping trends, the paper could delve into unique insights on under-researched areas within GI or recommend new interdisciplinary approaches that could address complex sustainability challenges.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated unique insights into under-researched areas within Green Innovation (GI) and proposed new interdisciplinary approaches to address complex sustainability challenges. For detailed revisions, please refer to pages 14 and 15 of the manuscript.

Comments 6: While the manuscript offers a valuable bibliometric analysis, further elaboration on these three areas would significantly enhance its theoretical grounding, practical implications, and overall contribution to the literature on green innovation. By deepening the contextual foundation of GI, aligning it with core management theories, and analyzing its impact on firm performance, your work could offer richer insights into how GI transforms modern business practices.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response, we have enhanced the manuscript by deepening the contextual foundation of Green Innovation (GI), aligning it with core management theories, and analyzing its impact on firm performance. These improvements aim to strengthen the theoretical grounding, practical implications, and overall contribution to the literature on GI. For detailed revisions, please refer to pages 13 and 14 of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this article authors conduct a bibliometric analysis of literature around the theme of green innovations. In my opinion the type of the paper needs to be changed, as it is more of a review paper rather than an article.

At the end of introduction section, an outline of remaining paper should be provided.

The readability of figures can be improved.

Figures are showing vosviewer name, can this be removed?

Discussion section should systematically answer the research questions framed in introduction section.

Discussion section also needs to be extended to outline an in depth research agenda in green innovation which can be followed by researchers. Currently, conclusion section has some future directions which are limited.

Author Response

Comments 1: At the end of introduction section, an outline of remaining paper should be provided.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added an outline of the remaining paper at the end of the introduction section and highlighted it in green. Please refer to page 3 for details.

Comments 2: The readability of figures can be improved

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We appreciate your suggestion and have taken steps to enhance the readability of the figures in our manuscript. We have improved the resolution to ensure clarity and better visual representation. Please review the updated figures in the revised document. Your feedback is invaluable in helping us improve the quality of our work.

Comments 3: Figures are showing vosviewer name, can this be removed?

Response: Thank you for your question. The figures are generated using VOSviewer, which automatically includes its copyright logo. Unfortunately, we are unable to remove this logo from the figures.

Comments 4: Discussion section should systematically answer the research questions framed in introduction section.

Response: Thank you for your insightful suggestion. We have carefully revised the discussion section to systematically address the research questions outlined in the introduction. This enhancement aims to provide a clearer and more structured analysis of our findings. For detailed revisions, please refer to the discussion section on pages 13 and 14. Your feedback is invaluable in improving the quality and coherence of our work.

Comments 5: Discussion section also needs to be extended to outline an in depth research agenda in green innovation which can be followed by researchers. Currently, conclusion section has some future directions which are limited

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have expanded the discussion section to include a comprehensive research agenda for green innovation, providing a detailed framework that researchers can follow. This enhancement aims to offer a more robust guide for future studies in this field. For more details, please refer to pages 13, 14, and 15 of the revised article. Your feedback is invaluable in helping us improve the depth and scope of our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have updated the manuscripts based on my comments. Few minor observations.

start of line 388 seems incomplete.

there are two section 5, seems the authors did not remove the older version