Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media for Organizational Engagement in SMEs: A Comprehensive Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media platforms have become pivotal tools for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), offering vast opportunities for enhanced organizational engagement. However, these platforms also present challenges such as data privacy concerns, feedback management, and content saturation. This systematic review critically evaluates the existing literature on the dual role of social media in fostering organizational engagement while addressing key barriers faced by SMEs. We systematically assessed 104 peer-reviewed articles sourced from Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, focusing on the impact of social media on marketing strategies and organizational outcomes in SMEs. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment, and effect measures, including mean difference and odds ratio, were employed to evaluate performance metrics such as customer engagement, business performance, and long-term organizational impact. Key findings indicate that 74% of SMEs reported improvements in brand visibility, with customer engagement increasing by 65%. However, significant concerns were identified, with 45% of studies highlighting privacy issues and 52% addressing challenges in managing negative feedback. The review emphasizes that while social media can enhance market reach and customer interaction, its effectiveness largely depends on strategic content management and planning. This review provides actionable insights for SMEs aiming to optimize social media use, highlighting the need for future research to address privacy management and feedback strategies for sustained success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".