A Taxonomy of Responsible Consumption Initiatives and Their Social Equity Implications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A bibliometric analysis does not require a universal minimum number of documents; it depends on the field of study and the scope of the analysis. However, the topic covered in the article is not an emerging or niche topic, so 47 documents are too few, and the review may appear incomplete or biased for the period 2010-2025.

With 47 documents, a solid descriptive or network bibliometric analysis can be performed, but with limited complexity:

• Valid descriptives: productivity by year, authors, institutions, countries, journals, citations, and keywords.
• Possible networks: co-authorship, keyword co-occurrence, or co-citation (albeit with lower density).

Therefore, you cannot perform an analysis of extensive field mapping or complex thematic evolution models, as the statistical validity would be compromised with so little data.

The recommendation is to broaden the search by including more databases (e.g., Scopus, WoS, Dimensions, and Lens), extend the time range, and supplement it with qualitative analysis (e.g., content review or conceptual trends).

In addition, it would be good to attach visual maps and use a specific program for bibliometric analysis.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which have been extremely helpful in improving our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.

We have carefully addressed all your suggestions and made the necessary revisions accordingly. We hope that this revised version meets the expected standards and is now suitable for publication in Nutrients.

A detailed response to each of your comments is provided below.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The scientific article ‘Organisational responsible consumption initiatives: Taxonomy and analysis of their contribution to social equity. A Systematic Review’ is a valuable attempt to systematically address responsible consumption initiatives in organisations and their impact on social equity. The authors have addressed a highly topical issue, which is important both from the perspective of sustainable development theory and management practice. Responsible consumption and social equity are among the key challenges facing contemporary organisations, and combining these two themes in a single analysis undoubtedly contributes to the originality and scientific significance of the work.

 

The strengths of the article include, above all, the apt choice of research topic and the precise justification for addressing it. The authors point to an existing research gap consisting in the lack of a systematic study of empirical evidence on the impact of responsible consumption initiatives on social justice and the reduction of inequality. The article thus contributes to the global discourse on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, in particular SDG 10 (‘reduce inequalities’) and SDG 12 (‘sustainable consumption and production’).

The research methodology adopted is also commendable. The authors applied the rigorous PRISMA 2020 protocol and its extension PRISMA-ScR, which ensures the transparency, repeatability and reliability of the entire review process. The use of two leading databases – Scopus and Web of Science – and clearly defined criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of publications confirm the methodological reliability. As a result, 47 scientific articles from 2010–2025 were identified, which formed the basis for the comparative analysis.

 

The work is characterised by its high empirical value. The authors present a broad cross-section of research from different continents, which allows for the identification of diverse organisational practices in the context of responsible consumption. A valuable element is the development of a taxonomy of eleven macro-categories of initiatives, including fair trade, circular economy, education, technologies for sustainable development, and business models based on social innovation. This classification is complemented by ten dimensions of social justice, including equality of access, distribution, environment, participation, recognition and technology. This approach captures the multidimensional nature of equity in organisations and makes a significant contribution to the development of literature on sustainable management.

 

Despite its numerous advantages, the article also has certain limitations. Although the analysis presented is very comprehensive, it is largely descriptive in nature. It lacks a clear analytical and critical component that would allow for a deeper understanding of the mechanisms linking responsible consumption with social justice. The authors could have developed a more coherent theoretical framework, integrating individual categories of initiatives with theories of justice, such as those of Rawls or Sen. The current approach is mainly descriptive, which means that the conclusions remain general and normative, sometimes lacking a clear anchorage in social theories.

Another limitation is the lack of a broader discussion of the regional context. Although the authors declare their focus on Latin America and Peru, most of the studies analysed come from European and North American countries. As a result, some of the conclusions are universal in nature but not strongly rooted in the realities of developing countries, which are the primary reference point for the study. The article could also benefit from being shortened – its current length (over 40 pages) means that some passages repeat information already contained in the text.

 

Despite these weaknesses, the article has clear scientific potential. In future versions, the authors could strengthen the theoretical component by presenting an integrated model linking organisational initiatives with various dimensions of equity and develop their reflection on the implications for public policy and management practice. Supplementing the discussion with methodological and geographical limitations and introducing visualisations of the results (e.g., maps of relationships between categories) would also increase the cognitive value of the text.

In summary, the paper is a solid and valuable study systematising knowledge about responsible consumption initiatives and their impact on social justice. It combines a variety of research approaches, offering a panoramic view of the state of research and directions for further exploration. The article meets most of the publication standards of the journal Sustainability, although it requires some substantive and editorial revisions, particularly in terms of deepening the interpretation and shortening the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which have been extremely helpful in improving our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.

We have carefully addressed all your suggestions and made the necessary revisions accordingly. We hope that this revised version meets the expected standards and is now suitable for publication in Sustainability.

A detailed response to each of your comments is provided below.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a highly interesting study, and the systematic analysis of such a broad selection of sector-specific literature is excellent. For further improvement, I suggest integrating data on the role of consumers in fair and sustainable markets, preferably by conducting an original survey—even with a limited yet well-selected and representative sample—in line with the aims of your study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which have been extremely helpful in improving our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.

We have carefully addressed all your suggestions and made the necessary revisions accordingly. We hope that this revised version meets the expected standards and is now suitable for publication in Sustainability.

A detailed response to each of your comments is provided below.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

The manuscript addresses a timely and socially significant topic — the role of organizational responsible consumption initiatives in promoting social equity — through a systematic literature review based on the PRISMA 2020 protocol.
The study’s originality lies in its attempt to build a taxonomy of organizational initiatives across equity dimensions (access, distributive, participatory, recognition, environmental, etc.). The research is methodologically well-structured and contributes to sustainability science by linking corporate responsibility, ethical consumption, and equity frameworks. However, the article requires substantial refinement in conceptual coherence, methodological transparency, and analytical depth. The structure is sound, but some parts (particularly the discussion and conclusion) need strengthening to highlight theoretical contribution and policy relevance.

1. The authors merge several conceptual domains — responsible consumption, equity, and sustainability — but the interconnections between these constructs are not sufficiently theorized. The study would benefit from a concise conceptual model illustrating how organizational initiatives translate into equity outcomes.
2. The taxonomy (Tables 3–4) is impressive in scope but descriptive rather than analytical. The authors should clarify the criteria for categorization, the logic behind grouping, and how these categories emerged from data rather than author interpretation. A conceptual linkage between “initiative types” and “equity outcomes” would considerably strengthen the paper’s analytical value.
3. While the paper aggregates 47 studies, it tends to summarize rather than critically synthesize them. The authors should identify contradictions, theoretical tensions, or research gaps in existing literature (e.g., between private- and public-sector initiatives, or Global North vs. Global South cases).
4. The dataset is dominated by studies from Europe and North America, with limited Latin American representation. This limitation should be explicitly acknowledged as it affects generalizability. The claim that the taxonomy has “global validity” needs to be qualified.
5. I would also recommend reconsidering the title of the manuscript. While it accurately reflects the systematic review aspect, it could be shortened or reframed to emphasize the paper’s analytical contribution — for instance, focusing on the taxonomy of responsible consumption initiatives and their equity implications.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is overall clear, but several passages are overly long and repetitive. Editing for academic conciseness and stylistic coherence is strongly recommended. Terms like “macrocategory” could be replaced by “thematic cluster” or “equity dimension” for smoother readability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments, which have been extremely helpful in improving our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work.

We have carefully addressed all your suggestions and made the necessary revisions accordingly. We hope that this revised version meets the expected standards and is now suitable for publication in Sustainability.

A detailed response to each of your comments is provided below.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document improved greatly. Thank you for addressing the comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your manuscript offers an impressive and carefully structured systematic review that significantly advances scholarly understanding of how responsible consumption initiatives intersect with social equity. The breadth of your analysis—spanning 47 empirical studies across multiple continents—demonstrates a remarkable commitment to methodological rigor and global perspective. Particularly valuable is the taxonomy you propose, which captures the multidimensional nature of equity and provides a powerful analytical tool for future research and policymaking. The clarity with which you integrate theoretical frameworks, from Rawls to Fraser and Sen, reflects deep scholarly maturity and strengthens the conceptual foundation of the paper. Overall, your work makes a meaningful contribution to sustainability research and offers important insights for organizations seeking to design equitable, socially transformative consumption practices.