Corporate Social Responsibility: Where Does It Come from, and Where Does It Go? Evolution of the Conceptual Structure from 1975 to 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is well structured. The starting question is sufficiently detailed, as well as the methodology and analysis proposal.

The results are very well presented. The peculiarities of the data analysis are detailed, giving a good image of the thoroughness and meticulousness of the work carried out and its exploration.

The article intends to continue in the future with the exploitation of data. My suggestion is that they include other bibliometric databases that come from other journal indexes and compare the results obtained with the new ones. Having already a working method and an analysis format, the procedure can be very fruitful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.- It is good research and improves upon the literature in the area.

2.- The proposed methodology is interesting and allows an adequate study and evolution of the key concepts.

3.- In the introducction, the authors should highlight the contribution of this research over other related works in the area of ​​bibliometrics. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for your interesting topic. I did like the topic, however, after reading the paper I noticed that you have mainly focused on different aspects of CSR such as drivers,...., not specifically on the conceptualization of CSR.

 

The other issue is about the analysis periods. I could not find a strong criterion for this categorization. 

Best,

Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I was pleased to revise the paper entitled “Corporative Social Responsibility: Where Does It Come from, and Where Does It Go? Evolution of the Conceptual Structure from 1975 to 2021”, which is aimed at analyzing the conceptual structure of the CSR field, contributing to understanding its development and evolution between 1975 and 2021, opening a discussion of what these concept relationships might show in the understanding, development, and future application of CSR in business and society. 

While the topic is of interest, I have some major concerns related to the contribution of this study to the existing research and methodological issues, and, thus, I would recommend a major revision. 

The paper starts with an introductory section, where a summary of the results is provided. However, they are not provided with a homogeneous style. Moreover, I cannot find here the motivation to contact this study and a clear gap in the literature that this study is intended to contribute in. Only after the presentatio of the results we can find the following section related to the methodological aspects: "The SciMAT software is used in this analysis due to the fact that it can develop the 116 science mapping approach [57]. This was applied to the database obtained from the Sci- 117 ence Citation Index-Expanded (SCI-E) and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) of 118 WOS spanning from 1975 to 2021, covering most of the important international journals 119 in the area [58]. In order to broadly study the field without any bias, the study selected all 120 the papers containing the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility in their titles, ab- 121 stracts and/or keywords. After a thorough cleaning process, the database obtained con- 122 sidered 6861 articles for analysis.". I would suggest to move this part above, before the brief presentation of the results. 

After the introduction, I cannot find a literature review section and related identification of the literature gap. I would suggest that this is fundamental in order to clearly identify the need for this study and the stream of the literature in which the paper is intended to contribute.  

Moving to the methodological session, I can find some missing information. First, you stated that "The database was obtained on March 31, 2022, with a total of 6861 papers. It then 128 underwent a data cleaning and re-processing that concluded on August 21, 2022.", but you did not mention the inclusion and exclusion criteria. You stated that the analysis is divided into seven periods, however it is not clear why and how (what is the ratio of using highest number of citations for each period is missing) they have been identified. Please provide justifications by consulting previous literature. It is not clear which keywords you adopted. Corporate Social Responsibility is the only one? If this is the case you might be able to not to include all relevant articles. It is not clear to me the purpose of the following section: "An example of redundancy is what happens with the keywords grouped under the concept of "FINANCIAL-PERFORMANCE". In this case, independent keywords in the literature are grouped as: FINANCIAL-PERFORMANCE; FINANCIAL-PERFORMANCES; FIRM-FINANCIAL-PERFORMANCE; FINANCIAL-PERFORMANCE-(FP); FIRM-FINANCIAL-PERFORMANCE-(FFP); among others. There were also keywords that were grouped because they point directly to a level of detail not considered relevant for the purposes of the study, such as those for the concept of STAKEHOLDER-THEORY: STAKEHOLDER-THEORY; STAKEHOLDER-APPROACH; STAKEHOLDER-PRESSURES; STAKEHOLDER-RELATIONS – STAKEHOLDERS-INFLUENCE. The same thing happened with the concepts of Corporate-Social-Responsibility; CSR; CSR-PREFERENCES; CORPORATE-SOCIAL-RESPONSIBILITY-STRATEGIES, and 20 more keywords that point to the same concept and were treated as a single concept to 192 improve the analysis of co-occurrence.". Please better explain. Moreover, you consulted only one databases, however, previous studies on systematic literature review suggested to consult more than one database to make sure to capture all relevant pieces of knowledge. You analyzed articles in all available languages: please better specify how you manage the analysis. Please better justify also the starting date of the analysis: why did you selected 1975? "Table 1: Analysis periods and number of papers" is presented twice. You stated that "For periods 5, 6, and 7, only keywords that were repeated at least 2, 3, and 4 times respectively, were considered to be candidates for the networks. Likewise, for a link between two concepts to be a candidate for a co-occurrence network, it must be present at least 3 times for periods 5 and 6, and co-occur at least 4 times to be part of a network in the last period. For the rest of the periods, no restrictions on occurrence or co-occurrence were considered.": Please better justify this choice. In general, Figures provided are not easy to read and understand, thus I would suggest revising them in order to make them more auto explicative. Please specify why you presented Figure 6 with the Thematic networks of the only cluster for the 1975 – 1991 period. 

Concerning the discussion and conclusion section, you mentioned that "there are three very clear focuses of research on CSR". However, from the current version of the paper its contribution to the current literature is not clear to me. Moreover, I did not find many connections between the results of this study and previous literature. Thus, I would suggest strengthening this section by focusing more on the theoretical and practical implications of the research, such as the limitations that could open avenues for further research that I suggest mentioning in the paper. 

 

Finally, the paper is not always presented in an intelligible fashion and in standard English, thus I advise the authors get editing help from someone with full professional proficiency in English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Why is table 1 repeated twice?

Figure 3 headings are unclear- seems to be a formatting problem

Figure 5 is very difficult to read and understand for the general reader

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 6 Report

Comments:

·        This paper has relevance and the potential to contribute to the literature. However, I believe that still needs to be improved before being considered to publication

·        The main concern is one of contribution, and these needs to be clearly addressed in the paper, both in the introduction and in the concluding sections. At the beginning of the paper, I strongly suggest that authors include statements that clearly indicate what is the research question, why this research question is important (why it will add to the literature) and how their study answers that question, or at least throws light on it . Also, the paper needs to more visibly provide a clear "motivation". Why is the paper of interest to you and why would/could/should it be of interest to a reader of the journal? This need to be clearly explained, particularly to the international readership, who may be more interested in the implications for or learning what they can derive from this research rather than answers to the questions you might address

·        The authors approach the “Where does it come from” issue but they could be more elaborate. I would expect a broader analysis, mentioning more detail regarding the content of several papers mentioned. As an example, see lines 75 to 78: the paragraph is clear but sheds no light about the “model”, the “definitions”, the “dimensions” and the “initiatives”…

·        On line 37, authors mention seven periods, but they only mention 4 along the introduction. This should be coherent;

·        Authors should provide bibliography citations on line 39, when mentioning “bibliographic reviews in the field”;

·        On lines 106 and 107, font size is wrong;

·        On line 122 and 123 the sentence is not correct, because authors have mentioned the words “obtained considered” at once and one of them should be erased;

·        The methodology is appropriate, although others could have been chosen; this comes as a limitation of the study

·        On line 187, the words “STAKEHOLDER-THEORY” appear repeated;

·        On line 203, authors mention that they have chosen a period of five years, but do not explain the rationale behind this decision; it should be explained;

·        After line 206, a table appears and is repeated again 3 lines below; this should be corrected;

·        On line 207, the “source” sentence seems confused with another sentence..;

·        When mentioning figures 3, 4, 5, I believe that the authors should bring the figures closer to the place where they are mentioned;

·        On line 258, there is a style (italic) at the beginning of the sentence that I don’t understand;

·        Figure 1 is too small to be interpreted; I would change that;

·        On line 290, the “source” sentence is not correctly presented;

·        Figure 3 has several flaws: difficult to read; words erased (Ex.: “Isolated and highly studied” – it only appears “Isolated and highly”; this must be corrected;

·        Figure 4 should be divided, because it appears in different pages;

·        I don’t understand lines 417, 418 and 419: is the sentence interrupted?

·        Table 2 must fit one page; it helps its reading;

·        Figure 5 is impossible to read - please improve this;

·        On lines 515 and 516, authors mention that their findings “will be expanded with future analysis…” – why not now??

·        On line 534, CG is only Governance?

·        About line 612 and 613, I believe that authors should provide answers and not finish its paper with a question. If the approach is not adequate, they should indicate a correct approach.

·        Authors should revise the references list because it has several flaws regarding formats.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for revising the paper!

Best,

Reviewer

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for submitting the revised version of the paper entitled "Corporative Social Responsibility: Where Does It Come from, and Where Does It Go? Evolution of the Conceptual Structure from 1975 to 2021". I have noticed that the suggestions provided by the reviewers have been addressed adequately by the author(s) and, thus, I recommend accepting the revised version of the manuscript.