Sustainability at the Intersection: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Impact of Social Movements on Environmental Activism from 1998 to 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of "Sustainability at the Intersection: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Impact of Social Movements on Environmental Activism from 1998 to 2025."

 

This study aims to perform a comprehensive bibliometric review examining the relationship between environmental activism and sustainability, covering the period from 1998 to 2025. It analyzes 475 documents sourced from the ISI Web of Science database. Employing a quantitative method, the research identifies trends, prominent authors, patterns, topics, and themes related to environmental activism focused on sustainability. By tracing the development of the field from its foundational work, the study offers insights into sustainable environmental efforts. The findings highlight that sustainability is now a pervasive concept across various sectors and cannot be considered in isolation. Environmental activism has the potential to promote change towards a more sustainable future across all examined areas. The study emphasizes the urgent need for interdisciplinary initiatives and collaborations to achieve these sustainability goals.

 

1. The paper presents a "PRISMA Work Flow" as Figure 1 that uses only articles and proceedings papers between 1998 and 2025 from Web of Science. This hugely restricts the possible findings. There are a lot of good journals that are not archived by Web of Science and ignoring working papers, theses and books ignores a lot of relevant work.
2. The authors searched exclusively using the terms "sustainability" in conjunction with "environmental activism". I would be a lot more comfortable if they had widened their search to include "ESG" and "environmental activism" as ESG is often used interchangeably with sustainability.
3. In terms of determining themes, I am surprised the authors chose to forego using Author Keywords vis-a-vis relevance and centrality degrees. This would have been much more straight-forward than using keywords.

4. There are a number of grammar and punctuation errors.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Review of "Sustainability at the Intersection: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Impact of Social Movements on Environmental Activism from 1998 to 2025."

 

This study aims to perform a comprehensive bibliometric review examining the relationship between environmental activism and sustainability, covering the period from 1998 to 2025. It analyzes 475 documents sourced from the ISI Web of Science database. Employing a quantitative method, the research identifies trends, prominent authors, patterns, topics, and themes related to environmental activism focused on sustainability. By tracing the development of the field from its foundational work, the study offers insights into sustainable environmental efforts. The findings highlight that sustainability is now a pervasive concept across various sectors and cannot be considered in isolation. Environmental activism has the potential to promote change towards a more sustainable future across all examined areas. The study emphasizes the urgent need for interdisciplinary initiatives and collaborations to achieve these sustainability goals.

 

1. The paper presents a "PRISMA Work Flow" as Figure 1 that uses only articles and proceedings papers between 1998 and 2025 from Web of Science. This hugely restricts the possible findings. There are a lot of good journals that are not archived by Web of Science and ignoring working papers, theses and books ignores a lot of relevant work.
2. The authors searched exclusively using the terms "sustainability" in conjunction with "environmental activism". I would be a lot more comfortable if they had widened their search to include "ESG" and "environmental activism" as ESG is often used interchangeably with sustainability.
3. In terms of determining themes, I am surprised the authors chose to forego using Author Keywords vis-a-vis relevance and centrality degrees. This would have been much more straight-forward than using keywords.

4. There are a number of grammar and punctuation errors.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment 1: “The paper presents a "PRISMA Work Flow" as Figure 1 that uses only articles and proceedings papers between 1998 and 2025 from Web of Science. This hugely restricts the possible findings. There are a lot of good journals that are not archived by Web of Science and ignoring working papers, theses and books ignores a lot of relevant work.”

Dear reviewer, the decision to use the ISI Web of Science database was made to ensure a high-quality selection of scholarly articles and proceedings papers for the study. While we acknowledge that this may limit the scope of findings, we aimed for a focused and rigorous analysis by utilizing a reputable and widely recognized database known for its high-impact publications.

Comment 2: “The authors searched exclusively using the terms "sustainability" in conjunction with "environmental activism". I would be a lot more comfortable if they had widened their search to include "ESG" and "environmental activism" as ESG is often used interchangeably with sustainability.”

Thank you for your comment! By focusing on the terms "sustainability" in conjunction with "environmental activism", we aimed to maintain specificity in our search criteria to ensure relevance to the study's objectives. While including terms like "ESG" could provide additional insights, we opted for a targeted approach to maintain coherence in the analysis. We have now added a section in our manuscript that explains our choice of keywords better.

Comment 3: “In terms of determining themes, I am surprised the authors chose to forego using Author Keywords vis-a-vis relevance and centrality degrees. This would have been much more straight-forward than using keywords.”

We appreciate your observation. The choice to use specific keywords rather than author keywords for determining themes was to streamline the analysis process and maintain consistency in identifying key topics and trends in the literature. While author keywords could offer a different perspective, we aimed for a structured approach to theme identification through specific keywords.

Comment 4: “There are a number of grammar and punctuation errors.”

Dear reviewer, your attention to grammar and punctuation errors is duly noted. We reviewed and refined the text to enhance its quality and readability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is conventional but still interesting. However, so far, the provided background, research and methodology lead to rather obvious and superficial conclusions. Consequently, so far, the biggest "plus" of the articles is the vizualization, i.e. nice and relevant figures/charts. Nevertheless, this is defintely not enough and at least the following issues MUST be fixed before the paper could be truly considered for the publication:

1. The provided theoretical background is very superficial and this is espeically worrysome concerning the nature of the paper (comparing and processing published articles). The concepts of sustainabilty, environmental activism and CSR/CSV in general are presented as STATIC and basically the same for almost three decades. This is wrong, please consider publications of Rob van Tulder, Indiano D´Adamo, R. MacGregor, F. Rubáček, M. Hála, M. Sani, R. Pakšiová, etc. The pendulum keeps moving!
2. Obviously, you must expand your pool of considered and cited  references.
3. What about equivalents? How and why have you selected your keywords? What about positive and negative meaning, etc.?
4. What about looking a little bit inside, going beyond key words and understanding deeper the surveyed published articles ?! 
5. How have your reconciled and addressed the problem of regional and jurisdictional particularities - in law, policies, publication trends?
6. What about the input of the key international law players, such as the UN and EU?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Needs to be improved, please correct as well typos.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

Comment 1:

“The provided theoretical background is very superficial and this is espeically worrysome concerning the nature of the paper (comparing and processing published articles). The concepts of sustainabilty, environmental activism and CSR/CSV in general are presented as STATIC and basically the same for almost three decades. This is wrong, please consider publications of Rob van Tulder, Indiano D´Adamo, R. MacGregor, F. Rubáček, M. Hála, M. Sani, R. Pakšiová, etc. The pendulum keeps moving!”

 

While much of the literature implicitly treats sustainability, environmental activism, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) as stable or clearly delineated categories, recent scholarship emphasizes the fluid and evolving nature of these constructs [3–5]. Over the past three decades, the concept of sustainability has undergone transformations, shifting from an ecological and conservationist paradigm to an integrative socio-economic and governance framework that includes ESG standards, stakeholder accountability, and SDG alignment [3,6–9]. Similarly, environmental activism has evolved from grassroots protest movements to encompass institutionalized, digital, and organizational forms of engagement, often embedded within corporate structures [9–11]. Activism today includes shareholder engagement, online mobilizations, and symbolic brand resistance—suggesting a plurality of tactics and arenas that challenge traditional dichotomies between activism and institutions. Moreover, the movement from CSR to Creating Shared Value (CSV) reflects a reconceptualization of corporate responsibility not merely as reputational management, but as an integral part of business strategy aimed at simultaneously achieving economic and societal value [3,12–15]. Scholars argue that this transition implies a need to assess dynamic stakeholder relationships, long-term impact models, and sustainability-oriented innovation [16–18]. In parallel, the emergence of the circular economy and bioeconomy has reframed sustainability as a systemic transformation process, emphasizing resource efficiency, innovation, and socio-economic integration [9,11,17,19]. These perspectives demonstrate that sustainability is not a static end goal, but a dynamic process shaped by institutional shifts, political pressures, technological developments, and evolving social values.

 

Comment 2:

“Obviously, you must expand your pool of considered and cited  references.”

 

We agree that our reference base was initially too narrow. We have extended our manuscript to include more diverse international contributions, including recent meta-analyses, legal commentaries, and theoretical papers that better reflect the depth of the current academic discourse.

Comment 3:

 

“What about equivalents? How and why have you selected your keywords? What about positive and negative meaning, etc.?”

 

Dear reviewer, regarding the concern about keyword selection, we have now included a new subsection in the methodology that clearly justifies our criteria. We discuss not only how and why the keywords "sustainability" and "environmental activism" were chosen, but also the implications of their range, including positive and negative connotations. Additionally, we clarify how we dealt with equivalents, variants, and translations where possible, while acknowledging the limitations imposed by working within a single-language dataset (English) and a single database (WoS).

We deliberately selected the terms "sustainability" and "environmental activism" as our core search criteria to maintain thematic focus. These terms were chosen because they best represent the intersection we aimed to explore: the influence of social movements and civic engagement on systemic environmental change.

To ensure clarity, we excluded more general terms, such as "ecology," "climate," or "green transition," which could have included articles that did not prioritize activism or social engagement in sustainability discourses. We acknowledge, however, that important related concepts such as "climate justice," "ecological citizenship," "greenwashing," and "resilience" emerged through keyword co-occurrence analysis, and we analyze these in subsequent thematic clusters.

Regarding keyword equivalence, we considered potential synonyms and variant spellings. For example, both "corporate social responsibility" and "CSR" were recognized, as were "green activism" and "environmentalism." Positive and negative valences were also considered terms such as "greenwashing" reflect a critical stance within the sustainability discourse, and their appearance in our dataset underscores the diversity of perspectives present.

 

 

Comment 4:

“What about looking a little bit inside, going beyond key words and understanding deeper the surveyed published articles ?!”

 

Thank you very much for your valuable and insightful comment. Your suggestion has inspired valuable reflections for the future development of our research. While our current study primarily employed a quantitative bibliometric approach, we took an additional step by defining thematic groups based on author keywords and publication content to highlight research directions and trends (see lines 597–645).

In line with your recommendation, we have now incorporated an analysis of the role played by key international legal actors, such as the European Union and the United Nations (lines 722–752). We also expanded our discussion of the Global South’s underrepresentation in the literature and the limitations this imposes on the broader research landscape (lines 722–740).

We fully recognize the importance of a more qualitative perspective, particularly in addressing frameworks and deeper contextual nuances, and we see this as an interesting direction for future work. We are grateful for the opportunity to enhance our study based on your expertise.

 

 

Comment 5:

 

“How have your reconciled and addressed the problem of regional and jurisdictional particularities - in law, policies, publication trends? What about the input of the key international law players, such as the UN and EU?”

 

We agree this was underdeveloped in the original manuscript. We now include a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section that addresses jurisdictional differences in environmental policy and activism, highlighting regional contrasts and legal frameworks. We also explore how regional publishing trends may influence dominant narratives and underrepresent local movements from the Global South.

 

 

Legal systems, policy priorities, and cultural contexts powerfully shape the form and substance of environmental activism and sustainability discourse. For instance, while European countries operate within a supranational policy framework such as the EU Green Deal and the CSRD, the U.S. maintains a more decentralized, litigation based approach [12,52,112].

Moreover, countries in the Global South, such as Brazil, India, or Kenya, often feature unique activism narratives centered on land rights, indigenous sovereignty, and environmental justice in postcolonial and resource-extractive contexts. These dynamics are not always visible in English publications indexed in databases like Web of Science.

To partially address this limitation, our analysis recognized region specific clusters of research activity, as seen in our co-authorship and co-citation networks. Future research should explicitly explore regionally grounded forms of environmental mobilization that may remain underrepresented in mainstream bibliometric analyses.

The role of supranational governance institutions is pivotal in setting both normative agendas and operational frameworks for sustainability and environmental activism. The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development has provided a globally adopted blueprint, where Goals 13 (Climate Action) and 17 (Partnerships) directly influence both activist and policy landscapes. Activists and NGOs often align their advocacy strategies to these frameworks, using them as leverage points in negotiations and campaigns [52,53].

The European Union, through mechanisms like the European Green Deal and the CSRD, has further institutionalized sustainability. These instruments demand transparency, measurable targets, and stakeholder engagement, influencing both corporate behavior and civil society’s capacity to hold institutions accountable. For example, the CSRD requires companies to disclose environmental impact information based on double materiality a principle born from activist and academic pressure for more holistic sustainability accounting [53].

Our analysis acknowledges the important role of these global frameworks play in standardizing language, metrics, and strategic objectives across jurisdictions. Their presence reflects a shift: sustainability and activism are now globalized discourses, governed not just by state actors but by institutions that coordinate, finance, and legitimize collective action [113].

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript offers a significant and timely contribution to the literature by presenting a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the evolving relationship between environmental activism and sustainability from 1998 to 2025. The study is well-conceived and methodologically robust, utilizing established tools such as the PRISMA framework and VoSviewer software to identify patterns, clusters, and research trajectories across interdisciplinary domains. The analysis is thorough, and the discussion of results is insightful, offering a multi-dimensional perspective that bridges environmental science, social movements, governance, education, and corporate responsibility.

The manuscript is generally well-organized and clearly written. The narrative flows logically from the objectives through to the conclusions, and the visual representations of data—such as the keyword co-occurrence networks and country collaboration maps—are helpful in enhancing reader comprehension. The language is fluent and of high academic quality throughout.

That said, I would like to offer a few suggestions that I believe will further strengthen the paper. First, please note that in Figure 1, which presents the PRISMA workflow, the text within the blue cell is partially cut off or misaligned. This formatting issue affects the clarity of the figure and should be corrected to ensure that readers can fully understand the document selection and screening process.

Second, while the literature review is well-structured and draws from diverse disciplinary sources, it could be enriched by incorporating two recent publications that are directly relevant to your study's scope and would enhance its analytical depth. These include the article titled 1. "ESG Integration and Green Computing: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis" published in Sustainability (April 2025, 17(7):3266, DOI: 10.3390/su17073266), and 2. the paper titled "Digital Transformation in SMEs: Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Era: A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis" published in Sustainability (November 2024, 16(23):10536, DOI: 10.3390/su162310536).

These works provide valuable insights into the role of technological change and ESG dynamics within the sustainability discourse and would align well with the themes already explored in your manuscript.

Moreover, consider providing further insight into how emerging technologies or digital platforms beyond social media (e.g., AI tools, blockchain in ESG reporting) influence sustainability-driven activism, which could strengthen your analysis of digital transformation.

It would also be beneficial to clarify whether any regional gaps (e.g., underrepresentation of the Global South) might limit the generalizability of the findings, even though the limitation section briefly touches on language and database scope.

In conclusion, this is a well-crafted and impactful paper that addresses a topic of growing importance. With the above minor revisions—particularly correcting the formatting issue in Figure 1 and expanding the literature base to include the suggested references—I believe the manuscript will be of even greater value to the academic community. I commend the authors for their thorough and thoughtful work.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Comment 1: “First, please note that in Figure 1, which presents the PRISMA workflow, the text within the blue cell is partially cut off or misaligned. This formatting issue affects the clarity of the figure and should be corrected to ensure that readers can fully understand the document selection and screening process.”

The formatting issue in Figure 1 has been rectified to ensure clear and accurate presentation of the PRISMA workflow, enhancing reader comprehension of the document selection process.

Comment 2: “Second, while the literature review is well-structured and draws from diverse disciplinary sources, it could be enriched by incorporating two recent publications that are directly relevant to your study's scope and would enhance its analytical depth. These include the article titled 1. "ESG Integration and Green Computing: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis" published in Sustainability (April 2025, 17(7):3266, DOI: 10.3390/su17073266), and 2. the paper titled "Digital Transformation in SMEs: Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Era: A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis" published in Sustainability (November 2024, 16(23):10536, DOI: 10.3390/su162310536).”

We have included the suggested recent publications, "ESG Integration and Green Computing" and "Digital Transformation in SMEs", in our literature review. These additions enrich the analytical depth of the study and align well with the themes explored in the manuscript.

Recent bibliometric contributions have highlighted the significance of ESG integration within the context of green computing, demonstrating a sharp increase in interdisciplinary research that connects sustainability with technological systems [50]. Additionally, others have conducted a comparative bibliometric analysis that captures how digital transformation among SMEs, both before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, reshaped organizational priorities concerning sustainability [51]. Their work demonstrates that small and medium-sized enterprises have adopted sustainable digital strategies not only as a response to crises but also as long-term frameworks for environmental governance.

Such bibliometric expansions suggest that emerging technologies no longer serve merely as instruments of efficiency but as active enablers of sustainability. Integrating ESG principles through digital platforms represents not only a shift in compliance logic but also a paradigm change in the way sustainability is interpreted and operationalized by institutions. The confluence of AI, blockchain, and big data in promoting ecological accountability, transparency, and real time monitoring is increasingly recognized in scholarly discourse. These studies complement our analysis by situating environmental activism in a broader technological transformation, reinforcing our conclusion that sustainability is now a cross-sectoral and digitally mediated endeavor.

The influence of international governance bodies, especially the United Nations and the European Union, cannot be overstated. The UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [52] and the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive [53] have codified sustainability as a normative and operational imperative. These frameworks are not only shaping national regulations but also altering the research and activism by providing common standards, targets, and monitoring mechanisms.

 

Comment 3: “Moreover, consider providing further insight into how emerging technologies or digital platforms beyond social media (e.g., AI tools, blockchain in ESG reporting) influence sustainability-driven activism, which could strengthen your analysis of digital transformation.”

Following your recommendation, we have expanded our analysis to include insights on the influence of emerging technologies like AI and blockchain on sustainability-driven activism. This enhancement provides a more comprehensive examination of digital transformation's impact on sustainability efforts.

 

Comment 4: “It would also be beneficial to clarify whether any regional gaps (e.g., underrepresentation of the Global South) might limit the generalizability of the findings, even though the limitation section briefly touches on language and database scope.”

We appreciate this observation. The limitation section has been expanded to acknowledge the underrepresentation of Global South contributions and the possible implications for generalizability. In the Study Limitations section, we added:

A further limitation lies in the underrepresentation of studies from the Global South, which may affect the findings toward Western centric academic perspectives. Future research should explicitly aim to incorporate non-English sources and broader regional datasets to enhance global inclusivity.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the paper is improved and is a fine contribution to the field.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your hard work and provided improvements. I am fully satisfied with your current version and strongly recommend its publication.