A Systematic Review of Driving Sustainability Through Circular Economy Marketing: Insights and Strategies for Green Marketing Innovation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the opportunity to review your manuscript, which is very well articulated and descriptive. I have only a few comments regarding it, which I detail below:
Appearance
In lines 79 and 80, there is a typo
Figure 1, the image is blurred
Introduction
This section should highlight the study's originality in relation to previous literature. How is the study different and necessary?
Methodology
Including and describing the data analysis technique from the selected manuscripts is necessary.
Results
According to a research question, it is essential to highlight the research and policy framework gaps found related to circular economy marketing; a table can support this. This section discusses the theoretical perspectives found; although they are mentioned in the methodology, they are not discussed in the results.
Conclusions
I strongly recommend describing the limitations of the study.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. The comments and suggestions were very much appreciated and seen as an opportunity to improve the article. As such I took this chance to make also some minor corrections in the bibliography missing and in the written text.
Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files
Comments 1: Appearance. In lines 79 and 80, there is a typo in Figure 1, the image is blurred
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The figure was substituted for a better quality one.
Comments 2: Introduction - This section should highlight the study's originality in relation to previous literature. How is the study different and necessary?
Response 2: Thank you for your comment, I agree with it, and some changes were made in the introduction section accordingly with the suggestion.
Comments 3: Methodology - Including and describing the data analysis technique from the selected manuscripts is necessary.
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. The data analysis technique is described as follows PRISMA framework. But to enhance the research done and the data analysis, I added an appendix that illustrates the articles identified and their main contribution.
Comments 4: Results - According to a research question, it is essential to highlight the research and policy framework gaps found related to circular economy marketing; a table can support this. This section discusses the theoretical perspectives found; although they are mentioned in the methodology, they are not discussed in the results.
Response 5: Thank you for pinpointing this issue. A Discussion section was added to the conclusion to enhance the policy framework situation which is also identified in the table 4.
Comments 5: Conclusions - I strongly recommend describing the limitations of the study.
Response 5: You are so right in making this remark, thank you. The study limitations were included in the conclusion section.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGENERAL SUGGESTIONS.
1). Title should be - Your Topic: A Review and Future Research Agenda
Or. Topic : Advances, Approaches and Analytical Areas
2). RESEARCH GAPS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: At least 20-25% of the paper, in a REVIEW paper, should be dedicated for developing future research agenda with reference to theory, methodology, constructs.
3). TABLES. Authors need to know more about the articles used in this systematic review apart from PRISMA. You have to create tables on widely used methods, theories, variables and widely studied industry contexts etc. Such info is more useful . You can add such tables so that your study will be useful
a) Journal selection criteria. Normally, people select SSCI listed journals (Web of science) or journals with Impact factor (Paul & Rosado-serrano, 2019, International marketing review). I would like to see a table with journals used for this study and impact factors for each journal.
b) Year of publication. Did you used a filter for year of publication?
c)ALSO, THINK ABOUT Using one of the frameworks (TCCM or ADO or W) or develop your own framework for structuring your review. If you can not structure the entire review with a framework , make sure that your section- Directions for future research is developed based on one of these frameworks (TCCM or ADO or W). Please acknowledge /reference the benchmark paper if you use their framework.
W framework
Xie, E., Reddy, K. S., & Liang, J. (2017). Country-specific determinants of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A comprehensive review and future research directions. Journal of World Business, 52(2), 127-183.
or
TCCM framework
Paul, J & Alexander Rosado-Serrano, (2019) "Gradual Internationalization vs Born-Global/International new venture models: A review and research agenda", International Marketing Review, https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280
or
ADO framework
Paul, J., & Benito, G. R. (2018). A Review of Research on Outward Foreign Direct Investment From Emerging Countries, Including China: What Do We Know, How Do We Know, and Where Should We Be Heading?. Asia Pacific Business Review, 24(1), 90-115.
or
TCM framework
Paul, J., Parthasarathy, S., & Gupta, P. (2017). Exporting challenges of SMEs: A review and future research agenda. Journal of world business, 52(3), 327-342.
4. GOALS: The main purpose of a review article is to critically analyze the literature, theories used methods used, contexts and identify the research gaps and set future research agenda based on those gaps. Your results and suggestions seem to me without justification. From which paper you conclude each of your suggestions, challenge, factors, implementation…It is not clear!
To sum up: the paper is interesting and could be greatly improved by a "re-packaging" of the discussion in order to draw attention to the original contribution. I believe this could be achieved with minor effort on the part of the authors.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. The comments and suggestions were very much appreciated and seen as an opportunity to improve the article. As such, I took this chance to make also some minor corrections in the bibliography missing and in the written text.
Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
Comments 1: Title should be - Your Topic: A Review and Future Research Agenda Or. Topic: Advances, Approaches and Analytical Areas.
Response 1: Thank you so much for your suggestion it made me reflect on the study presented and despite your valuable suggestion the goal of this research is not to design a future research agenda but to identify the marketing strategies and tactics, within the circular economy marketing concept, in pursue of sustainability, that helps businesses to make the circular economy transition more efficiently and with success. Therefore, the title was maintained since it expresses more of the research goal
Comments 2: RESEARCH GAPS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: At least 20-25% of the paper, in a REVIEW paper, should be dedicated for developing future research agenda with reference to theory, methodology, constructs.
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. I emphasise that this was not the goal of the literature review. Instead, I was looking for critical insights to introduce in green marketing strategies and practices to pursue the overall goal of helping businesses transition into a circular economy marketing perspective.
Comments 3: TABLES. Authors need to know more about the articles used in this systematic review apart from PRISMA. You have to create tables on widely used methods, theories, variables and widely studied industry contexts etc. Such info is more useful . You can add such tables so that your study will be useful
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion, you are absolutely right. An Appendix was added to the paper, where it is possible to understand the articles chosen and their characteristics and main contributions for the research.
Comments 4: Journal selection criteria. Normally, people select SSCI listed journals (Web of science) or journals with Impact factor (Paul & Rosado-serrano, 2019, International marketing review). I would like to see a table with journals used for this study and impact factors for each journal.
Response 4: Your comment is appreciated, and the research description mentions that the “databases searched were from Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using the following keywords: "circular economy marketing," "green marketing innovation," "sustainability strategies," and "eco-friendly marketing."”
Comments 5: Year of publication. Did you used a filter for year of publication?
Response 5: To answer your question clearly, I emphasise that only keywords were used int the database research: "circular economy marketing," "green marketing innovation," "sustainability strategies," and "eco-friendly marketing.
Comments 6: ALSO, THINK ABOUT Using one of the frameworks (TCCM or ADO or W) or develop your own framework for structuring your review. If you can not structure the entire review with a framework , make sure that your section- Directions for future research is developed based on one of these frameworks (TCCM or ADO or W). Please acknowledge /reference the benchmark paper if you use their framework.
Xie, E., Reddy, K. S., & Liang, J. (2017). Country-specific determinants of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A comprehensive review and future research directions. Journal of World Business, 52(2), 127-183.
or
TCCM framework - Paul, J & Alexander Rosado-Serrano, (2019) "Gradual Internationalization vs Born-Global/International new venture models: A review and research agenda", International Marketing Review, https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-10-2018-0280
Response 5: Your suggestions are very important and made me reflect. Within my research goal, I could follow the 6Ws framework since it adapts easily to what I was looking for. But I chose PRISMA since it assures the transparency of the research process. However, if I were to use 6Ws, I would reach these points:
- Who (Authors) -Various authors including Camargo Hermosilla, Chabowski et al., Chamberlin & Boks, Cui et al., De Jesus & Mendonna, among others.
- What (Focus Area) -Circular economy marketing, green marketing strategies, consumer engagement, eco-innovation, sustainability in business models, and green branding.
- Where (Industry/Market) - Multiple industries including textile and apparel, retail, automotive, consumer goods, electronics, hospitality, food and beverage, and SMEs in emerging economies.
- When (Publication Years)-Studies range from 2012 to 2025, with an increasing focus on circular economy marketing in recent years.
- Why (Importance of Study)-Highlights how circular economy marketing can drive sustainability, enhance consumer perceptions, reduce greenwashing risks, and improve corporate sustainability metrics.
- How (Methodology)-Various research approaches, including systematic literature reviews, case studies, empirical surveys, theoretical analyses, mixed-method studies, and experimental research.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe first paragraph of the Introduction is repeated on the second page, right after the research questions. Please, delate one of them.
Consider if all your current research questions (6) stated on page 2 were finally included and got an answer. In any case, research questions must be numbered (RQ1, RQ2...) and explicitly answered with your results.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. The comments and suggestions were very much appreciated and seen as an opportunity to improve the article. As such, I took this chance to also make some minor corrections in the bibliography missing and in the written text.
Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the resubmitted files.
Comments 1: The first paragraph of the Introduction is repeated on the second page, right after the research questions. Please, delete one of them.
Response 1: Thank you so much for noticing this mistake. I altered the introduction and deleted the repetition and added some text to improve it.
Comments 2: Consider if all your current research questions (6) stated on page 2 were finally included and got an answer. In any case, research questions must be numbered (RQ1, RQ2...) and explicitly answered with your results.
Response 2: Your suggestion was very much appreciated, since it made sense to me. Therefore, I highlighted in the discussion and conclusion section where the research gave answers to the research questions.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper on Circular Economy Marketing (CEM) highlights its innovative approach to aligning business strategies with sustainability goals, emphasizing the integration of advanced technologies and transparent branding.
The paper's strengths are evident in several key areas. Firstly, the comprehensive literature review stands out. By employing the PRISMA methodology, the authors ensure a rigorous and transparent review process. This meticulous approach provides a solid foundation for the paper's conclusions, lending credibility and depth to the findings.
Additionally, the paper's interdisciplinary approach is noteworthy. It integrates insights from various disciplines, including behavioral economics, macro marketing, and sustainable supply chain management. This fusion of perspectives offers a holistic view of Circular Economy Marketing (CEM), enriching the analysis and broadening the scope of the study.
Moreover, the practical implications of the study are significant. The paper provides actionable insights for businesses, policymakers, and researchers. It highlights how CEM can drive green innovation and enhance competitiveness, offering concrete strategies and recommendations that stakeholders can implement. This practical focus ensures that the research is not only theoretical but also applicable in real-world contexts, making it a valuable resource for those looking to promote sustainability through innovative marketing approaches.
However, it faces several weaknesses, including a lack of empirical data (case studies for SLR context), overgeneralization across industries, insufficient analysis of consumer behavior, and the absence of standardized impact metrics. Additionally, challenges such as scalability for SMEs, greenwashing risks, and fragmented regulatory frameworks hinder its effectiveness. Addressing these issues through targeted research, industry-specific studies, and robust regulatory support is crucial for advancing CEM and ensuring its long-term success.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. The comments and suggestions were very much appreciated and seen as an opportunity to improve the article. As such, I took this chance to also make some minor corrections in the bibliography missing and in the written text.
Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the resubmitted files.
Comments 1: However, it faces several weaknesses, including a lack of empirical data (case studies for SLR context), overgeneralization across industries, insufficient analysis of consumer behavior, and the absence of standardized impact metrics. Additionally, challenges such as scalability for SMEs, greenwashing risks, and fragmented regulatory frameworks hinder its effectiveness. Addressing these issues through targeted research, industry-specific studies, and robust regulatory support is crucial for advancing CEM and ensuring its long-term success.
Response 1: Thank you for your words of appreciation for the work described. They are very motivating. According to your final comments, the study limitations were introduced in the conclusion as suggested.
