Redefining Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Strategic Communication Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper treats CSR and sustainability as juxtaposed concepts, but does not clarify their theoretical boundaries (e.g., when mentioning the “extension of CSR to sustainability” in chapter 2, it only cites earlier studies). It is suggested to integrate the CSR 3.0 theory or the “triple bottom line” framework to clarify how sustainable development has evolved from a subset of CSR to an independent but complementary system, and to add theoretical discussions on the concept of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) to enhance the logical depth.
2. The methodology does not explain how to deal with the literature coverage bias of different databases (Scopus vs. Web of Science) (Chapter 5 only mentions the de-emphasis of 580 articles after merging the data), which may lead to doubtful representativeness of the sample.
3. The “Strategic Theme Map” in Figure 3 only presents the keyword clustering results, but does not explain why “information asymmetry” (Cluster 5) is categorized as an “emerging/declining theme” (Section 6.2.1), and why it is categorized as an “emerging/declining theme” (Section 6.2.2). “ (Section 6.2.1). Therefore, the explanation of keyword weighting algorithms (e.g., TF-IDF or PageRank) needs to be supplemented with case studies explaining how “information asymmetry” manifests itself in CSR disclosures (e.g., greenwashing strategies) to enhance the interpretability of the analysis.
4. Chapter 7 mentions that “integrated reporting improves transparency”, but the results section (Figure 3) does not provide relevant data support (e.g., citation frequency or emergent word analysis). The article should increase the time series analysis of the keyword “Integrated Reporting” (e.g., Burst value of emergent intensity), or cite specific corporate cases (e.g., Unilever's integrated reporting practice) to support the conclusion.
5. Chapter 3 discusses the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), but does not address the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which will come into effect in 2023, and does not analyze the impact of differentiation in Asian countries (e.g., China's ESG disclosure guidelines).
Suggestion: Add a discussion of the CSRD's “Double Materiality” principle and regional policy comparisons (e.g., EU mandatory disclosure vs. U.S. SEC climate disclosure proposal) to enhance the value of the practice guidance.
6. Section 6.3.4 mentions that “stakeholder demand drives disclosure”, but does not distinguish the differentiated demands of investors, consumers, NGOs and other groups (e.g., investors are concerned about ESG risks, and consumers are concerned about ethical supply chains).
7. The paper emphasizes “transparency” but fails to address the impact of digital tools (e.g., blockchain traceability, AI-generated reports) on CSR communication, which is out of touch with current practice. The article adds a discussion on the ethics of technology (e.g., how algorithmic bias affects ESG data collection) and cites case studies (e.g., IBM's AI-powered sustainability platform) to illustrate how technology can reconfigure disclosure models.
8. Only 15% of references are post-2020 literature. The article should increase the number of highly cited literature in the last three years (e.g., Eccles et al., 2020's study of SDGs and corporate strategy) and add an analysis of changes in CSR practices after COVID-19 (e.g., the surge in community health inputs).
9. Chapter 7 mentions that “terminological differences may lead to omissions from the literature” but does not quantify the impact (e.g., comparing differences in search results for different keyword combinations). The article needs to design a sensitivity analysis (e.g., replace “Sustainability Reporting” with “ESG Disclosure” for a new search) to quantify the impact of terminology choices on the sample size and to discuss their potential bias on the conclusions. The conclusions call for a “new approach” to the study.
10. The conclusion calls for “companies to adopt integrated reporting” but does not provide an implementation path (e.g., compatibility of the GRI and IIRC frameworks). The article needs to propose a phased roadmap (e.g., Phase 1: benchmarking against SASB standards; Phase 2: integrating SDGs indicators) and cite corporate practices (e.g., Nestlé's “Creating Shared Value” framework) to enhance operationalization.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language of the paper needs to be further improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachement and the complete separate file containing all the reviewer responses. Reviewer 1, thank you for the considerable effort you put into reviewing our paper. We feel your suggestions have improved the manuscript. We are appreciative.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for allowing me to review the following manuscript submitted to sustainability.

“Redefining Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Strategic Communication Practices” 3577953

This paper presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of corporate social responsibility(CSR) literature. The research questions are clearly stated in the manuscript. The article has potential since it examines an interesting topic related to the CSR and sustainability. There are some interesting contributions through the study. However, discussed below are some points which need to be addressed to provide a sounder theoretical contribution and make the article more relevant.

5. Methodology

The paper relies on publications from Scopus and Web of Science, but it does not provide sufficient details about the authority and academic influence of the included journals. To assess the robustness of the findings, it would be important to clarify: (1) the distribution of publications across journal tiers (e.g., ABS-rated journals), (2) how many are from ABS 3-star or higher-rated journals, and (3) whether the sample is dominated by high-impact or niche publications. Without this information, the representativeness and academic rigor of the literature analyzed remain unclear.

7. 7. Discussion

The discussion of limitations currently appears in section 7 ("Discussion") of the manuscript. According to conventional academic writing standards and journal formatting requirements, the limitations of the study should properly be addressed in the final section of the paper (typically labeled "Conclusions" or "Conclusion and Limitations"). This structural adjustment would improve the logical flow of the manuscript and align with standard scholarly practice. I recommend moving the limitations discussion to the concluding section while maintaining its current substantive content.

The response to RQ1 ("What foundational concepts underpin CSR and its communications strategies?") is unclear. Currently, the response reads as a general observation about CSR’s growth rather than an analysis of its conceptual underpinnings. To strengthen this section, the authors should: Define "foundational concepts" explicitly—are these theories, frameworks, or empirical trends? Map the identified clusters (e.g., "sustainability reporting") to established CSR theories or principles. Clarify the evolution of these foundations over time (e.g., how early philanthropy-focused CSR shifted to strategic communication).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Pease see the attached file as well as the complete responses to reviewers which were included in a separate file to the editor.

Reviewer 2, thank you for your positivity and encouraging suggestions. It is appreciated.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has discussed corporate social responsibility in perspective of strategic communications practices. During review, I found this article has merit to be consider for publication after revision rounds. I have the following comments for authors

1. The abstract of this article need to be revised properly. Authors should show the importance of this research and also emphasized on the research methodology.
2. Introduction section did not discuss the research gap, significance and research objectives. It is recommended to add a subsection in introduction section and explained the significance of this research work.
3. Authors did not consider the recently published articles to explaining their research work in introduction and literature review parts. It is important to show the recent development in the field. Therefore, please cite the recently published work in 2024 and 2025. 
4. Currently, there is no single article cited from recent years.
5. Figure 6 and 7 is difficult to understand. Please redraw.
6. The discussion section not reveal the key findings in detailed. 
7. What is the theoretical contribution of this work?
8. Current study limitations need to be included separately in conclusion section.

 

Redefining Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Strategic Communication Practices  

Author Response

Please see the attached file containing only our responses to you. In addition, we'd like you to see the complete file with responses to all the reviewers because, in some occasions, responses across reviewers was similar.

Reviewer 3, we are grateful for the time you took to provide guidance on our manuscript. We are appreciative you found merit in our work and we're hopeful this revision strengthens that opinion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of CSR communication literature over four decades, offering valuable insights into thematic trends and evolution. The study is well-structured and addresses a timely topic with significant implications for both academia and practice. However, several minor require improvement. 

1. The abstract mentions analyzing "3,513 documents extracted from Scopus and Web of Science" but does not specify inclusion/exclusion criteria (e.g., exclusion of non-English papers). Clarify how the final sample was determined to avoid ambiguity about potential selection bias.
2. The five research questions are broad and overlap thematically (e.g., RQ2 and RQ3 both address thematic clusters). Streamline or rephrase them to ensure distinctiveness and alignment with the results.
3. The PRISMA flowchart (Page 6) lacks critical details, such as the exact search strings used for each database and how duplicates were identified (e.g., manual vs. automated). Provide the full search syntax and clarify deduplication protocols to ensure reproducibility.
4. The literature review should be upgraded adding the latest development in literature. The following studies should be added: doi.org/10.3390/land14040682.
5. The description of clusters in Figure 3 (Page 8) relies heavily on keyword co-occurrence but lacks contextual examples from seminal papers. For instance, in Cluster 1 ("Integrating CSR with Sustainability Reporting"), cite specific studies that empirically demonstrate this integration to strengthen the narrative.
6. The thematic evolution section (Pages 11–15) describes shifts in clusters (e.g., from 12 to 5 themes) but does not statistically validate these changes (e.g., citation bursts, keyword frequency trends). Incorporate quantitative metrics to support claims about emerging/declining themes.
7. The discussion focuses heavily on academic trends but offers limited actionable insights for practitioners. Expand the "Implications for CSR Professionals" section by linking thematic clusters (e.g., integrated reporting) to specific strategies for improving stakeholder engagement or regulatory compliance.
8. The conclusion reiterates findings without synthesizing novel contributions. Highlight how this study advances bibliometric methods in CSR research or resolves gaps identified in prior reviews.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file that contains only responses to you. In addition, we hope you review our combined reviewer responses file because, in some cases, there were common themes across reviewers.

Reviewer 4, we greatly appreciate your efforts to help us improve our manuscript. You were very encouraging. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper uses a large number of "enumerative" statements (e.g., "Cluster 1 shows... Cluster 2 demonstrates...” However, there is a lack of critical analysis of conflicts, disagreements, and blind spots between different schools of thought and research perspectives.

2. Although the paper classifies 7 thematic Clusters, there is no clear logical correlation or theoretical model among these classifications.

3. Although the use of PRISMA processes and Biblioshiny is mentioned, search strategies (such as specific keyword combinations), exclusion criteria, etc., are vague and affect reproducibility.

4. Attached is PRISMA flow chart (currently mentioned but not seen);

5. Write out search formulas more clearly, such as "(CSR OR 'corporate social responsibility') AND (' communication 'OR' reporting ')";

6. Supplementary metadata coding strategies and documentation for inclusion in the exclusion criteria form.

7. Although the "future research directions" are listed in the last section of the article, most of them are generalities, such as "technology integration CSR" and "stronger transparency", and lack of innovation or in-depth exploration.

Author Response

Please see the file containing our point-by-point responses to only you. In addition, we hope you review the complete file containing comments/responses to all five reviewers because there were a few common themes from the reviews.

Reviewer 5, it's clear you put considerable effort into reviewing our paper in the spirit of helping us improve it. We feel the manuscript is stronger because of your comments and we hope you feel the same way. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper can be accepted now.

Author Response

We are grateful for your encouragement and thank you again for your help with the first revision.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Ok.

Author Response

We are grateful for your encouragement and thank you again for your help with the first revision.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hello, the problem with the article still hasn't been solved. I don't know what the reason is?

In the introduction and discussion section, more clearly and precisely explain what the unique theoretical contribution of this study is to the existing fields of CSR communication, sustainability reporting, or bibliometric research. For example, how does the proposed CSR Strategic Disclosure Indicator model (Table 1) fill the gaps in the existing theories or what kind of expansion or integration does it make to the existing theories? It is not enough to merely describe the phenomenon; it is necessary to distill theoretical insights

2. Consider whether it is possible to more deeply integrate certain core theories (such as stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, signal theory, institutional theory, etc.) to interpret the findings of bibliometrics, thereby enhancing the theoretical depth.

3. Read through the entire text to check if there are any sentences that can be expressed more concisely and precisely. SSCI journals have very high requirements for language. Clear, concise and professional academic language is necessary. It is impossible to meet the standards at present

4. At the end of the discussion section of the article, it was mentioned that there might be issues of confusion or ambiguity in terms such as CSR, sustainability, and ESG, which is a good observation point. It can be considered to define the scope and interrelationships of these core terms in this study earlier and more clearly in the introduction or literature review section, or to explore more deeply in the discussion the impact of the evolution/misuse of such terms itself on the development of the field.

After completing these, the article is acceptable.

Author Response

We are grateful for your ongoing contribution to our research and are certainly pleased that we satisfied most of your comments through our first revision. Below you will find responses to the remaining issues you raised. As per the journal’s protocol, we provide a response immediately following each comment. New language we have incorporated into the revision is then provided in red italics.

Comment 1. In the introduction and discussion section, more clearly and precisely explain what the unique theoretical contribution of this study is to the existing fields of CSR communication, sustainability reporting, or bibliometric research. For example, how does the proposed CSR Strategic Disclosure Indicator model (Table 1) fill the gaps in the existing theories or what kind of expansion or integration does it make to the existing theories? It is not enough to merely describe the phenomenon; it is necessary to distil theoretical insights

Response 1: Thank you for encouraging us to refine the discussion of this study’s contribution. In the revised manuscript, we have more clearly articulated the unique theoretical contribution of our research that is embodied in CSR Disclosure Indicator model we presented in our first revision. In addition to showing disclosures of practices of firms in different phases of their sustainability journeys, the model points to different theoretical lenses that have shaped the evolution of CSR and sustainability disclosures. In addition to the passage below, we have linked extant theory in other elements of the discussion. The strongest example is found on p. 21 of our Discussion:

This study contributes to the literature by linking the results of our bibliometric analysis to established organizational theories. The four strategic disclosure clusters identified in Table 1 are not merely descriptive; they reflect deeper patterns that align with theoretical frameworks. Practices in Cluster A (Foundational Disclosure) align with Agency Theory, which suggests that corporate motivations are often driven by control mechanisms embedded in regulatory frameworks. In this context, disclosure serves to mitigate risk through compliance. The emphasis on internal operations and employee development in this cluster indicates a lower level of maturity, given the limited scope of influence and the relative clarity of internal versus external activities. Cluster B (Philanthropy and Community Engagement) reflects elements of Legitimacy and Image Theories, where firms seek public approval by conforming to societal norms and expectations, particularly within communities adjacent to their operations. For instance, localized philanthropy is often used to demonstrate corporate citizenship. Reporting such actions can be instrumental in securing support for future expansion. Cluster C (Integrated CSR Strategy) is indicative of externally oriented organizational theories, including the Resource-Based View and Stakeholder Theory. Practices in this cluster demonstrate the strategic use of disclosure across the value chain to build stakeholder trust and achieve competitive advantage. Finally, Cluster D (ESG Risk Management and Ethical Disclosure) represents highly mature practices that draw on Institutional Theory and Signaling Theory. These disclosures aim to build legitimacy through alignment with widely accepted external frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Similarly, firms may report ESG ratings issued by independent organizations to reinforce their commitment to responsible practices and enhance perceived trustworthiness. Thus, a key academic contribution of the model presented in Table 1 is the application of well-established organizational theories to explain the patterns and shifts observed in our data—from predominantly symbolic CSR reports prior to 2006 to more structured, stakeholder-focused ESG reporting in recent years. This evolution reflects increasing pressure from institutions, markets, and society, as well as the growing need for companies to signal their credibility and long-term value. By grounding these developments in theory, our study moves beyond a descriptive account of trends to offer explanatory insights into the changing nature of CSR communication.

 

Comment 2. Consider whether it is possible to more deeply integrate certain core theories (such as stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, signal theory, institutional theory, etc.) to interpret the findings of bibliometrics, thereby enhancing the theoretical depth.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable suggestion which is in alignment with your Comment 1. We have revised the Discussion section accordingly to more deeply integrate theoretical frameworks into the interpretation of our bibliometric findings. Specifically, we align key thematic clusters with core theories to provide richer analytical depth. The new material presented in our response to your Comment 1 is evidence of how the manuscript has developed because of your suggestion. It is presented here again (p. 21):

This study contributes to the literature by linking the results of our bibliometric analysis to established organizational theories. The four strategic disclosure clusters identified in Table 1 are not merely descriptive; they reflect deeper patterns that align with theoretical frameworks. Practices in Cluster A (Foundational Disclosure) align with Agency Theory, which suggests that corporate motivations are often driven by control mechanisms embedded in regulatory frameworks. In this context, disclosure serves to mitigate risk through compliance. The emphasis on internal operations and employee development in this cluster indicates a lower level of maturity, given the limited scope of influence and the relative clarity of internal versus external activities. Cluster B (Philanthropy and Community Engagement) reflects elements of Legitimacy and Image Theories, where firms seek public approval by conforming to societal norms and expectations, particularly within communities adjacent to their operations. For instance, localized philanthropy is often used to demonstrate corporate citizenship. Reporting such actions can be instrumental in securing support for future expansion. Cluster C (Integrated CSR Strategy) is indicative of externally oriented organizational theories, including the Resource-Based View and Stakeholder Theory. Practices in this cluster demonstrate the strategic use of disclosure across the value chain to build stakeholder trust and achieve competitive advantage. Finally, Cluster D (ESG Risk Management and Ethical Disclosure) represents highly mature practices that draw on Institutional Theory and Signaling Theory. These disclosures aim to build legitimacy through alignment with widely accepted external frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Similarly, firms may report ESG ratings issued by independent organizations to reinforce their commitment to responsible practices and enhance perceived trustworthiness. Thus, a key academic contribution of the model presented in Table 1 is the application of well-established organizational theories to explain the patterns and shifts observed in our data—from predominantly symbolic CSR reports prior to 2006 to more structured, stakeholder-focused ESG reporting in recent years. This evolution reflects increasing pressure from institutions, markets, and society, as well as the growing need for companies to signal their credibility and long-term value. By grounding these developments in theory, our study moves beyond a descriptive account of trends to offer explanatory insights into the changing nature of CSR communication.

Comment 3. Read through the entire text to check if there are any sentences that can be expressed more concisely and precisely. SSCI journals have very high requirements for language. Clear, concise, and professional academic language is necessary. It is impossible to meet the standards at present.

Response 3. We have copy-edited the entire document and recruited the assistance of academics who have considerable publication experience. Hopefully you will find the revised manuscript has been streamlined where necessary and made more concise. That said, if you identify passages that remain overly complex, please point them out to us.

Comment 4. At the end of the discussion section of the article, it was mentioned that there might be issues of confusion or ambiguity in terms such as CSR, sustainability, and ESG, which is a good observation point. It can be considered to define the scope and interrelationships of these core terms in this study earlier and more clearly in the introduction or literature review section, or to explore more deeply in the discussion the impact of the evolution/misuse of such terms itself on the development of the field.

Response 4. Agreed. This revision now includes the following statement in the introduction of our paper (p. 2):

Companies disclose their CSR activities through various labels [12] like sustainability reporting, impact reporting, CSR reporting, ESG reporting, etc. The inconsistency in nomenclature is problematic because there has been a tendency to treat these distinct concepts as isomorphic, yet that has not always been true. CSR is grounded in firms’ philanthropic interactions with society, ESG has historically been focused on financial risks facing companies on material sustainability issues and impact is a general term that essentially means to have a strong effect. Using these terms as synonyms for sustainability leads to confusion because of the range of interpretations they naturally evoke. This communication gap has implications for stakeholder trust, transparency, and long-term engagement.