The Role of Digital Marketing in Shaping Sustainable Consumption: Insights from a Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The review is quite long and gives an overall good impression, but some areas of it could be criticised more. Think more about getting into debates, disagreements, or inconsistencies in the papers, instead of summarizing what one has found.
• Lines (81-124) - These parts, especially methodology pieces, can be made concise and shorter so that it is an easy read.
• Lines (99–124) - It is good that SCOPUS is being used in this way, but it must be remembered that other important databases, especially Web of Science, are not being used. Explain how this choice can affect how inclusive and unbiased your review will be.
• Lines (202-337) - Perhaps include a summary table or section that clearly lays out the main characteristics of the included studies (e.g., their methodology, geographical range, or study quality). This will make it clearer to readers.
• Lines (524-841) - The "Theoretical Perspectives" section (Discussion article) would be improved with a consideration and examination of contradictory or inconsistent results in literature regarding the impact of digital marketing on sustainable consumption in the actual world
• The article mentions such concepts as digital availability and moral rule-making (lines 22-23). It would be helpful to elaborate on these and outline some specific research questions (lines 524-841).

Author Response

1. The review is quite long and gives an overall good impression, but some areas of it could be criticised more. Think more about getting into debates, disagreements, or inconsistencies in the papers, instead of summarizing what one has found.

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have revised the manuscript to strengthen its critical dimension. In the updated version, particularly in Sections 4.2 to 4.4, we move beyond summarising findings to actively engaging with debates, contradictions, and inconsistencies in the literature. For example, we contrast the broad reach of influencer marketing with concerns over authenticity and greenwashing; the benefits of personalisation with the risks of privacy breaches and consumer manipulation; and the visibility gains from SEO with potential biases in resource allocation and credibility. We also discuss the tension between the positive impact of emotional storytelling on loyalty and the scepticism it may generate when not backed by tangible action, as well as the promise of transparency tools versus the risks of information overload and unverifiable claims. Other critical points include the reliability of eWOM in light of susceptibility to bias or astroturfing, the effectiveness of FOMO in driving sustainable behaviour against the risk of short-termism and the commodification of sustainability, and the inclusive potential of digital campaigns compared to persistent structural access gaps. We further highlight the intention–action gap and variations in impact across different contexts and geographies. To consolidate these perspectives, we have added a “Critical Synthesis” at the end of Section 4, which integrates these debates and reflects on their theoretical, methodological, and managerial implications. We believe these changes address the reviewer’s request for a deeper and more analytical engagement with the literature.

 

2. Lines (81-124) - These parts, especially methodology pieces, can be made concise and shorter so that it is an easy read.

 

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We agree that clarity and conciseness in the methodology section are essential for improving readability and accessibility. In response, we have revised Lines 81–124 to streamline the content while preserving methodological rigour. We condensed explanations of the PRISMA framework and LRSB approach by removing repetitive justifications and focusing on the most relevant procedural elements.

Descriptions of database selection and keyword refinement were rewritten more succinctly, and redundant phrases were eliminated.

Tables and figures (e.g., Table 1 and Table 2) have been retained for clarity but are now introduced with briefer transitions to enhance flow.

 

3. Lines (99–124) - It is good that SCOPUS is being used in this way, but it must be remembered that other important databases, especially Web of Science, are not being used. Explain how this choice can affect how inclusive and unbiased your review will be.

 

We appreciate this important observation. Indeed, while Scopus offers extensive coverage and robust analytical tools, we acknowledge that the exclusion of other databases, particularly Web of Science, may affect the inclusiveness and balance of the review.

To address this, we have added a paragraph in the methodology section (Lines 95-102 in the revised version) that explicitly discusses the limitations of relying solely on Scopus. We now reflect on the potential exclusion of region-specific, emerging, or non-English literature that may be indexed in other databases such as Web of Science or Google Scholar. This may lead to a partial representation of the global research landscape.

Additionally, we clarify that the decision to focus exclusively on Scopus was driven by its advanced bibliometric functionalities, consistent metadata, and alignment with the PRISMA, based LRSB approach, which prioritises transparency and replicability. Nonetheless, we now recognise this as a limitation that should be considered when interpreting the results.

 

4. Lines (202-337) - Perhaps include a summary table or section that clearly lays out the main characteristics of the included studies (e.g., their methodology, geographical range, or study quality). This will make it clearer to readers.

 

Thank you very much for this thoughtful suggestion. We fully understand the value of such a table, particularly in traditional systematic literature reviews. However, we have chosen not to include a detailed summary table of the individual characteristics of the 84 studies, as this would not align with the main purpose of a systematic review combined with bibliometric analysis, which is to identify overarching patterns, thematic trends, and intellectual structures in the field, rather than to provide article-level summaries.

Moreover, incorporating a comprehensive table covering methodology, geographical scope, and study quality for each included publication would significantly increase the length of the manuscript and shift the focus away from the aggregated analytical insights that this methodological approach prioritises.

Nonetheless, we have ensured transparency and representativeness by presenting the distribution of publications by type, year, country, and source, along with visual and thematic maps generated using VOSviewer, which offer readers a clear understanding of the dataset’s scope.

We truly appreciate your comment and hope this explanation clarifies the rationale behind our editorial decision.

 

5. Lines (524-841) - The "Theoretical Perspectives" section (Discussion article) would be improved with a consideration and examination of contradictory or inconsistent results in literature regarding the impact of digital marketing on sustainable consumption in the actual world

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. As noted in our response to Comment 1, we have already addressed this point by adding a dedicated “Critical Synthesis” at the end of Section 4, which examines contradictory and inconsistent results in the literature regarding the impact of digital marketing on sustainable consumption. This addition directly engages with existing debates, highlighting tensions, paradoxes, and gaps between theory and practice in the field.

 

6. The article mentions such concepts as digital availability and moral rule-making (lines 22-23). It would be helpful to elaborate on these and outline some specific research questions (lines 524-841).

 

 

We thank the reviewer for their observation. However, after carefully revisiting the manuscript, we believe there may be a misunderstanding. The concepts “digital availability” and “moral rule-making” are not part of our theoretical framework or terminology, nor are they explicitly discussed in the manuscript. They do not appear in the sections indicated (lines 22–23) in our text. For clarity, we have reviewed the relevant sections to ensure that no such terms are implied, and no changes were necessary.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations to the authors; this is an interesting and rigorously prepared study.
The methodology has been rigorously applied, and the results, especially the quantitative analysis, are presented in detail.
Regarding the section "3. Publication Distribution," although the presentation of the results is quite informative, I would suggest clarifying which part of the bibliometric analysis conducted through VOSviewer is explicitly performed on the set of 84 papers selected for analysis or on a broader sample resulting from the indicated keywords.
Regarding the section titled "4. Theoretical Perspectives," I wonder if the title is the most appropriate. I don't believe different "theories" are being addressed; I understand that what is being done is an orderly summary of the content presented by the analyzed articles and the points of view contributed by the various authors. In that sense, perhaps it would be more appropriate to speak of a conceptual framework or a state-of-the-art approach.
Otherwise, I reiterate my congratulations. The topic of sustainability is experiencing momentum, and numerous studies have been conducted on it (although not many from a communications and marketing perspective), so your contribution is especially appreciated.

Author Response

1. Congratulations to the authors; this is an interesting and rigorously prepared study.
   The methodology has been rigorously applied, and the results, especially the quantitative analysis, are presented in detail.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and encouraging feedback. We are pleased that the methodological rigour and the depth of the quantitative analysis have been recognised. This acknowledgment reinforces our efforts to ensure transparency, replicability, and clarity in both the systematic review process and the presentation of results.

 

2. Regarding the section "3. Publication Distribution," although the presentation of the results is quite informative, I would suggest clarifying which part of the bibliometric analysis conducted through VOSviewer is explicitly performed on the set of 84 papers selected for analysis or on a broader sample resulting from the indicated keywords.

 

Thank you for this pertinent observation. We acknowledge the importance of ensuring transparency regarding the scope of the bibliometric analysis. In response, we have clarified in Section 3 that all bibliometric visualisations and analyses performed using VOSviewer, such as keyword co-occurrence networks, thematic maps, and co-citation analysis, were exclusively based on the final set of 84 documents selected after applying all inclusion criteria. No broader dataset was used for these analyses.

This clarification has now been explicitly added to the manuscript (Line 203) in the revised version), ensuring readers clearly understand the dataset underlying the bibliometric outputs.

 

3. Regarding the section titled "4. Theoretical Perspectives," I wonder if the title is the most appropriate. I don't believe different "theories" are being addressed; I understand that what is being done is an orderly summary of the content presented by the analyzed articles and the points of view contributed by the various authors. In that sense, perhaps it would be more appropriate to speak of a conceptual framework or a state-of-the-art approach.

 

Thank you for this insightful observation. We agree with the reviewer that the current title, "Theoretical Perspectives", may not fully reflect the nature of the content, which is more accurately an organised synthesis of key findings, dominant themes, and author perspectives emerging from the literature.

In response, we have revised the section title to “Conceptual Overview and State of the Art” to better align with the actual structure and intent of the section. This updated title more clearly communicates that the section serves to map out the conceptual contributions and thematic directions of the analysed studies, rather than present distinct theoretical models.

 

4. Otherwise, I reiterate my congratulations. The topic of sustainability is experiencing momentum, and numerous studies have been conducted on it (although not many from a communications and marketing perspective), so your contribution is especially appreciated.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this encouraging feedback. We are particularly pleased that our focus on the intersection of sustainability, communication, and marketing is recognised as a timely and valuable contribution. This area indeed remains underexplored compared to other domains, and we hope our review helps to consolidate current knowledge while also guiding future research in this critical and evolving field.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a very important topic. But in the introduction, the basic concepts should be defined much more thoroughly, their relationship should be presented. This is a very concise introduction.

Starting from Figure 9, the results should be analysed much more deeply.

As if point 9 does not really have a close connection with the results presented in the study (as if the study is divided into two parts: the previous connections and the results, the two are not connected) – but here the new connections, the new insights could be presented. This would show how this study contributes to our knowledge to date. 

The figures are very small, difficult to see.

I do not recommend publishing the study in this form, it needs a thorough and major revision.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

1. It is a very important topic. But in the introduction, the basic concepts should be defined much more thoroughly, their relationship should be presented. This is a very concise introduction.

 

Thank you for this valuable comment. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance of the topic and fully agree that a more robust conceptual foundation in the Introduction would improve clarity and coherence.

In response, we have expanded the introductory section to more thoroughly define and contextualise the key concepts, namely sustainability, digital marketing, and sustainable consumption. We also now clarify how these concepts interrelate and justify their relevance within the scope of this study.

 

2. Starting from Figure 9, the results should be analysed much more deeply.

 

Thank you for this valuable observation. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the analysis starting from Figure 9 to provide a more in-depth and critical interpretation of the results.

For the thematic map, we now examine each quadrant in detail, discussing not only the conceptual maturity and centrality of the themes but also their interconnections, potential gaps, and tensions in the literature. This includes:

• Analysing how basic themes (“consumer behaviour”, “electronic commerce”, “sustainable development”) provide the conceptual foundation of the field, while highlighting the risk of conceptual redundancy and the need for integration with emerging areas.
• Exploring motor themes (“marketing”, “consumer”, “digital marketing”, “marketing strategy”, “sale”) as research engines, and discussing possible overemphasis on commercial objectives versus sustainability goals.
• Assessing niche themes (“sustainability”, “decision-making”, “digitisation”) as conceptually mature yet insufficiently connected to core research streams, identifying opportunities for greater theoretical integration.
• Investigating emerging or declining themes (“predictive analytics”, “tourism”, “social media”) to evaluate whether they represent underexplored opportunities or diminishing research priorities.

We have also connected the thematic map analysis to the co-citation network in Figure 10, showing how the concentrated intellectual core supports theoretical cohesion but may limit the inclusion of peripheral, innovative perspectives. These deeper insights are intended to go beyond descriptive mapping and contribute to a richer understanding of the intellectual and thematic structure of the field. All changes have been incorporated and are indicated in the revised manuscript.

 

3. As if point 9 does not really have a close connection with the results presented in the study (as if the study is divided into two parts: the previous connections and the results, the two are not connected) – but here the new connections, the new insights could be presented. This would show how this study contributes to our knowledge to date. 

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the need to strengthen the connection between the different analytical results and to show more clearly how the study contributes to current knowledge. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new integrative paragraph at the end of the section 3. This paragraph synthesises the key findings from the publication distribution, citation analysis, thematic mapping, and co-citation network, explicitly linking them to the broader development of the field. It explains how the research area has evolved from a niche topic to a mature and influential domain, identifies the role of core journals in consolidating theoretical and methodological frameworks, and highlights emerging and underexplored themes with high potential for innovation. The synthesis also reflects on the interplay between the established intellectual core and the peripheral novel ideas, emphasising the opportunities to bridge these elements for future research. This addition ensures that the results are not presented in isolation but are instead connected to a coherent narrative that demonstrates the study’s contribution to advancing the literature.

 

4. The figures are very small, difficult to see.

 

Thank you for this practical and important comment. In response, we have adjusted all figures in the revised manuscript to ensure higher resolution and increased size, particularly for Figures 6 through 10, which contain detailed visual data (e.g., keyword networks, thematic maps, and co-citation diagrams).

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses an important and relevant topic at the intersection of digital marketing and sustainable consumption, which may be valuable for readers of the Sustainability Journal. Its strengths lie in a solid methodological foundation (LRSB, PRISMA), interdisciplinary scope, and clear visual presentation. The analysis of diverse strategies and the identification of research gaps—particularly digital inclusivity and data ethics—make it a valuable contribution to the field.

However, in my opinion, the article discusses sustainable consumption in a general way, without clearly distinguishing between the three pillars of sustainability: environmental, social and economic. In the context of analysing digital marketing strategies, such a distinction is justified. I recommend deepening understanding of sustainable consumption across these three dimensions, as this would improve the analytical precision and cognitive value of the paper.

Also, the methodology section lacks a clear justification for the time frame used in the analysis. While the paper states that it includes studies up to April 2025, it does not specify when the analysis begins, nor does it explain why that particular period was selected.

In addition, while the number of citations is a valuable measure of impact, it may be beneficial to consider complementing the analysis with a reflection on the extent to which the most frequently cited publications contributed to the advancement of knowledge in the field of sustainable marketing, both in theory and methodology.

 

Author Response

1. This article addresses an important and relevant topic at the intersection of digital marketing and sustainable consumption, which may be valuable for readers of the Sustainability Journal. Its strengths lie in a solid methodological foundation (LRSB, PRISMA), interdisciplinary scope, and clear visual presentation. The analysis of diverse strategies and the identification of research gaps—particularly digital inclusivity and data ethics—make it a valuable contribution to the field.

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this encouraging and thoughtful evaluation. We are particularly pleased that the methodological rigour, interdisciplinary perspective, and clarity of visual presentation were recognised. We also appreciate the acknowledgement of our efforts to highlight underexplored areas such as digital inclusivity and data ethics, which we believe are critical to advancing the sustainability discourse in digital marketing. Your feedback reinforces our motivation to continue developing research in this area.

 

2. However, in my opinion, the article discusses sustainable consumption in a general way, without clearly distinguishing between the three pillars of sustainability: environmental, social and economic. In the context of analysing digital marketing strategies, such a distinction is justified. I recommend deepening understanding of sustainable consumption across these three dimensions, as this would improve the analytical precision and cognitive value of the paper.

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful observation regarding the potential value of explicitly distinguishing between the three pillars of sustainability, environmental, social, and economic, when analysing digital marketing strategies. We recognise that such a distinction could enhance analytical precision and provide richer cognitive insights. However, after revisiting the dataset, we confirmed that the studies collected do not systematically apply or discuss this tripartite framework. In many cases, the literature addresses sustainability in a more integrated or generalised manner, without separating its dimensions, which makes it challenging to extract evidence-based conclusions specific to each pillar without moving beyond the scope of the review.

Given our methodological commitment to accurately reflecting the state of the literature, we have decided not to incorporate this distinction in the current manuscript. Instead, we have preserved the integrated approach adopted in the original studies, ensuring that our findings remain fully aligned with the evidence base. We note, however, that this is a promising direction for future research and could be fruitfully explored in follow-up studies or systematic reviews specifically designed to examine the differentiated role of environmental, social, and economic dimensions in sustainable digital marketing strategies.

 

3. Also, the methodology section lacks a clear justification for the time frame used in the analysis. While the paper states that it includes studies up to April 2025, it does not specify when the analysis begins, nor does it explain why that particular period was selected.

 

Thank you for this pertinent observation. We have now clarified in the methodology section that the analysis includes all available peer-reviewed publications indexed in Scopus up to April 2025, with no predefined starting date. Our aim was to ensure comprehensive coverage of the existing literature on the topic, capturing both foundational and recent developments in the field.

This decision aligns with the systematic and inclusive nature of the review, and it allows the analysis to reflect the full temporal evolution of research at the intersection of digital marketing and sustainable consumption. We have added this clarification to the revised manuscript (Lines 95-99).

 

4. In addition, while the number of citations is a valuable measure of impact, it may be beneficial to consider complementing the analysis with a reflection on the extent to which the most frequently cited publications contributed to the advancement of knowledge in the field of sustainable marketing, both in theory and methodology.

 

Thank you for this excellent suggestion. We fully agree that citation count alone does not capture the theoretical or methodological significance of highly cited publications. In line with this valuable suggestion, we have expanded the discussion following the citation trend analysis (Figure 5) to go beyond the descriptive reporting of citation counts. While the upward trajectory—peaking in 2024 with over 140 citations—demonstrates growing academic interest in the intersection of digital marketing and sustainability, we now also reflect on the intellectual contributions of the most frequently cited works. Specifically, we identify how seminal publications in our dataset have advanced the field by (i) refining the conceptual boundaries of sustainable digital marketing, (ii) introducing robust methodological frameworks for empirical and bibliometric analysis, and (iii) shaping subsequent research trajectories on critical themes such as consumer behaviour, data ethics, and sustainable branding. This complementary perspective ensures that the citation analysis captures not only quantitative influence but also the qualitative significance of these studies in driving theoretical and methodological innovation within sustainable marketing research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the study, which is now of much higher quality than the previous version.