ࡱ> 463_cbjbj.$jA\jA\c****>*0RRRRRAAA$kf*AAAAA*RR?AFRRAhRxmHU0,!d<AAAAAAA**AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH :Dear Editor, we revised the paper according to the Reviewers comments. Details of our revisions are described below. The Reviewers comments are in bold, while our descriptive answers are in italics. Reviewer n. 1 The paper presents a research study about the role of social media tools (especially social network sites) to communicate corporate social responsibility. The study is worth of interest and is very timely. However, at present it cannot be taken into consideration for publication since it offers several weaknesses that should be addressed by authors. In the following, I will provide hints and suggestions for improvement: The title contains a tricky issue related to the denomination of Facebook Accordingly, we eliminate the denomination of Facebook The abstract the study methodology should be shortly presented We briefly described the study methodology into the abstract. The authors are encouraged to provide an Introduction, where to introduce the topic of the study and the aims, and a separate theoretical framework section. In this latter, authors should provide a detailed literature references corpus that served the purpose to orient the study and that provided a theoretical critical background. Accordingly, we created a section of Introduction and developed the theoretical framework in a new section. In the theoretical section, we reorganized the concepts and the previous structure of the theoretical framework was modified. In the previous paper we followed the following structure: 1) Corporate Social Responsibility; 2) Community of Practice Theory; 3) Corporate Social Responsibility and Social media. We found this structure fragmented. Thus, to serve the purpose of the paper, we redefine the structure as follows. First, we introduced the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility; second, we highlighted the linkage between Corporate Social Responsibility and the social media; then, we focused on the relevant role of virtual Communities of practice as sense-making phenomena. I am not convinced that the communication model between corporate and stakeholders really reflects the three components of a community of practice, at least as it is presented in the manuscript. Authors should discuss at a better extent how the CoP model would be appropriate to support their study approach. They also should discuss why Facebook is the most appropriate tool where to carry out the study. In my opinion, there are too many implicit reasons and claims that undermine the value of the presented study. Accordingly, we introduced new references to support our theoretical ideas. Especially, new authors were introduced, such as: Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3-16. Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of Practice. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 683685. Moreover, the previous references were repositioned into the theoretical section. Consistent with the comment about Facebook, we tried to stress the appropriateness of Facebook both in the Introduction and in the section of Method > Context and data corpus. I do not see much value and meaning in presenting data related to the enterprises together in Table 1 and in General overview of the Results section since the two companies are different in values and purposes. I appreciated more the comparison between the two enterprises. Were the two corpus of data statistically different? Some kind of quantitative measure would help. The previous description concerning the Table 1 was confused. For this, the reviewer found such a table meaningless. In the revised paper, we tried to clarify that Table 1 synthetized some excerpts we used to categorize the textual notes collected in Facebook. The table 1 was reported in the section Procedure and analysis. Thus, we did not eliminate the Table 1. If the reviewer will consider this choice as not appropriate, well eliminate the table. According to the request of the reviewer, we adopted quantitative measures (frequencies and Chi-square tests) to compare the two enterprises. English language and style should be thoroughly revised by an English native speaker. An English native speaker was involved for the language revision. Reviewer n. 2 Il lavoro ben strutturato e coerente con gli interessi della rivista. Il background teorico adeguato e i risultati sono complessivamente ben presentati e discussi. Si suggerisce solo di evidenziare maggiormente - specie sul piano espositivo - il nesso tra le domande di ricerca e i risultati presentati. Thanks for this comment. We tried to stress the linkage between the research questions and results reorganizing the paper as above described! To conclude, thank you for these relevant comments, which gave us the possibility to improve our research paper. tw   A  R S n o 9X9 0÷̷̫~rir]hs_h+6mH sH h+6mH sH h+h+6mH sH h+h|6mH sH h+h5mH sH h|6mH sH h|h|6mH sH h|hF@6mH sH hF@hF@6mH sH hF@6mH sH hF@h5mH sH hF@hN,5mH sH hF@5mH sH hF@mH sH h{phF@mH sH #   A  0 !/gdN, &dPgdgds_ & Fgds_gd+ & Fgd+gd| & Fgd| & FgdF@gdgdF@4t!")./cbcȽȪvkhF@hF@mH sH hs_hF@6mH sH hs_h5h/?h5hs_hN,5mH sH hs_hF@5mH sH hF@hmH sH hs_mH sH hs_h@YmH sH hs_hs_mH sH hs_hmH sH hs_6mH sH hs_h+6mH sH hs_hs_6mH sH /cbcgdF@gd,1h. A!n"n#$n%  s666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666p62&6FVfv2(&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv&6FVfv8XV~ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ OJPJQJ_HmHnHsHtHL`L Normale dCJ_HaJmHsHtH LA L Car. predefinito paragrafoXiX 0Tabella normale4 l4a 4k 4 0 Nessun elenco D@D F@ Paragrafo elenco ^m$PK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭Vgի_O{+;_aϞ?xd4Ca\ TLx0DDh3b$g@_]",6#x+/-arh%(\sia.}dn td;@bJl.4S 41blYmBq8 6q:XC2$#F$,m!Fln9Fm# wCL0^B "!+H6e2q=. 3Lӛ`m6X /ed"Am> td!6ġB":63E7MPVҺ@/ĒK;X)Jj@ =HFqߐuuҗ> z;!;jCw6;`Ʉ}E|K{vҽ~~hoULjܷO  W[wi҇AiZq7R0%H8 B4}ٕNfX|5D׏`{vWې&3IT-$A$`AP+{', ~-@- lp\0'*DD)M**2ӻiT#VtSrݹ[2CpEto"Io(<ᢋx\N8q(Z\~+ Q3K rA$vmDF: jWe~zd H ;#Hn (1^oi4'^gBƔɮ>QP: c$c/cL# @0(  B S  ?l w /e an h k AMe333333333333 v9k 0/be')?^)`?o()^`.pL^p`L.@ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PL^P`L.'% N,/?F@@Ys_Nfq|+ce@c@UnknownG.Cx Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial7.@CalibriA$BCambria Math"q2Ag2Ag # #!n20ZZOHP  $P2!xx  Nadia Sansonegianvito d'aprile Oh+'0|  8 D P\dltNadia SansoneNormalgianvito d'aprile2Microsoft Office Word@@ХymH@ХymH՜.+,0 hp|  # Z  Titolo  !"$%&'()*,-./0125Root Entry FbzmH71TableWordDocument.$SummaryInformation(#DocumentSummaryInformation8+CompObjv  F$Documento di Microsoft Word 97-2003 MSWordDocWord.Document.89q