sustainability analysis research paper

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 13 July 2023

Integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria: their impacts on corporate sustainability performance

• Anrafel de Souza Barbosa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3178-4149 1 ,
• Maria Cristina Basilio Crispim da Silva 1 ,
• Luiz Bueno da Silva 1 ,
• Sandra Naomi Morioka 1 &
• Vinícius Fernandes de Souza 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  410 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

17k Accesses

14 Citations

Metrics details

• Business and management
• Development studies
• Environmental studies

In a corporate sustainability context, scholars have been studying internal and external relations provided by Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria, mostly from the organizational perspective. Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to map and analyze the literature on the impacts of integrating ESG criteria on corporate sustainability performance from different points of view. The methodology used followed the Preferred Report Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, corroborated by a critical analysis. The results indicate that the integration of ESG criteria, observed from different perspectives, strengthens corporate sustainability performance. They also revealed narrowing gaps in the literature regarding methodological analysis. Most of the papers in the analyzed sample use company-level data and employ regression analysis in their analysis. The present study concludes that companies, regardless of nationality, follow the guidelines of ESG criteria integration and such procedure brings several benefits. It points to the lack of more confirmatory research approaches from a workers’ perspective, as the interest remains in the economic-environmental realm from the organizations’ point of view. The absence of such evidence points to a gap in the literature that suggests the need for new study initiatives.

Similar content being viewed by others

Toward a new understanding of environmental and financial performance through corporate social responsibility, green innovation, and sustainable development

Muddassar Sarfraz, Ilhan Ozturk, … Heesup Han

Who’s in and who’s out? Reading stakeholders and priority issues from sustainability reports in Turkey

Sibel Hoştut, Seçil Deren van het Hof, … Gülten Adalı

Assessments of the environmental performance of global companies need to account for company size

Rossana Mastrandrea, Rob ter Burg, … Franco Ruzzenenti

Introduction

The discussion surrounding the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria and corporate sustainability has gained significant momentum in recent years, primarily driven by the evolving societal expectations regarding new models of production and consumption (Nishitani et al., 2021 ). Until the mid-1990s, according to Clarkson ( 1995 ), the focus of companies’ success was primarily centered on satisfying the needs of a single stakeholder, namely the shareholder. However, as time passed and the panorama shifted, particularly influenced by public policy changes, this perspective has undergone transformations. Gradually, other stakeholders have exerted pressure on companies, resulting in the integration of corporate sustainability into the strategic management of organizations, leading them to practice the ESG criteria (Wang et al., 2018 ).

Corporate sustainability performance refers to a company’s ability to operate in a manner that upholds ecological integrity, social well-being, and sound governance principles, while simultaneously generating value for its shareholders (Ahmad et al., 2023 ; Luque-Vílchez et al., 2023 ). It encompasses the effective management of environmental resources, fostering positive social relationships, and maintaining high standards of ethical conduct (Bellandi, 2023 ). The assessment of corporate sustainability performance requires the evaluation of both qualitative and quantitative indicators, examining various dimensions such as environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and corporate governance (Sandberg et al., 2022 ).

ESG criteria are used to assess corporate sustainability and ethical performance of companies and investments (Arora and Sharma, 2022 ). They are adopted by corporations to monitor and control the impacts of business activities on internal and external environments (Viranda et al., 2020 ). They mainly include: (i) collecting information; (ii) developing solutions; (iii) dealing with ESG issues in compliance with standards; (iv) conducting training; and (v) providing good communication (Boiral, 2002 ; Montabon et al., 2007 ; Merli and Preziosi, 2018 ). ESG criteria include prevention and preservation performance indicators (Gond et al., 2012 ). Besides, it requires coordination between the environmental department and other departments within companies, and balance between sustainable development goals and other corporate goals.

ESG criteria incorporates environmental, social, and governance factors into investment and business decision-making processes, and involves conditions relevant to traditional financial metrics when analyzing investments or valuing companies (Madden, 2022 ). These conditions can include metrics such as carbon emissions, water usage, employee diversity, labor practices, board diversity, executive compensation, etc. Thus, ESG criteria provide quantitative and qualitative information about a company’s sustainability practices and their potential impact on various stakeholders (Khalil et al., 2022 ; Uyar et al., 2023 ).

ESG integration involves incorporating environmental, social and governance indicators into investment and business decision-making processes. Instead of considering ESG criteria as separate from financial analysis, integration recognizes their materiality and incorporates them alongside traditional financial analysis. This integration can happen at various stages of the investment process, including portfolio construction, risk assessment, due diligence, and ongoing monitoring. Integration aims to identify and manage risks and opportunities related to ESG criteria, ultimately seeking to enhance long-term investment performance and sustainability (Gebhardt et al., 2022 ; Harasheh and Provasi, 2023 ).

ESG criteria provide the data and metrics to assess a company’s sustainability and ethical performance, while the integration involves incorporating these criteria into investment and business decision-making processes to better understand and manage the potential impacts on financial performance and corporate sustainability (Alda, 2021 ; Sahoo and Kumar, 2022 ).

In this sense, the integration of the ESG criteria has become an instrument responsible for defining, planning, operationalizing and executing the actions of corporations directed at environmental prevention and preservation, in addition to social responsibility and the quality performance of their activities (Barbosa et al., 2021 ).

Both from the standpoint of Sustainable Development Goals and the company response to shifting consumer preferences, interest in corporate sustainability has been increasing importance (Boulhaga et al., 2022 ). When looking for the relationship between the implementation of the ESG criteria and the corporate sustainability, the literature presents a heterogeneous scenario. Some researchers advocate a positive relationship (Harymawan et al., 2022 ; Kim et al., 2022 ), and others have confirmed a negative relationship (Rajesh and Rajendran, 2020 ).

As is the case with research by Lee and Isa ( 2022 ), they find a positive relationship between the implementation of ESG criteria and financial performance, suggesting that ESG criteria can increase company value. In addition, the authors also find evidence that the disclosure of ESG criteria can improve the relationship with corporate sustainability performance. Already in the study by Xu et al. ( 2022 ), the heterogeneity analysis demonstrates that the negative relationship between ESG disclosure and the risk of falling stock prices is more significant in state-owned companies, companies with higher agency costs and in companies in the development phase.

Although the results are ambiguous, there are several positive examples of the relationship between the ESG criteria and the corporate sustainability, which influences the reasons why research on sustainable business models has been carried out and why organizations are changing their business model in the direction of sustainability. Additionally, there is a lot of pressure to consider ESG factors when making decisions, particularly from capital investors and financial institutions (Jonsdottir et al., 2022 ; Park and Oh, 2022 ).

Organizations responding to the pressure to implement ESG criteria must manage environmental, social, and economic risks (Triple Bottom Line) and understand their short, medium, and long-term impacts (Bravi et al., 2020 ). To this end, many companies adopt management systems related to ESG criteria to integrate elements of the Triple Bottom Line, address stakeholder needs, and mitigate risks (Esquer-Peralta et al., 2008 ).

Thus, the ESG criteria cannot be seen only as a cost, since they can bring benefits to the company and be a competitive advantage over competitors (Barbosa et al., 2023 ; Zhang et al., 2021 ).

That said, the need for an innovative and coherent research field focused on ESG issues increases as environmental, social, and governance problems intensifies (Vanderley, 2020 ).

The literature has already discussed the research situation, qualitatively and quantitatively, regarding ESG criteria through the prism of corporations, usually in the context of trying to improve the field’s problem-solving ability in relation to companies’ concerns and practices. Baumgartner and Rauter’s ( 2017 ) research addresses the strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop sustainable organizations and promote the integration of ESG criteria into business activities and techniques.

This narrow interpretation is criticized by several scholars as being insufficiently analytical, as well as lacking a rigorous appreciation of the historical basis of human-environment interaction, highlighting worker perception (Bryant and Wilson, 1998 ; Herghiligiu et al., 2019 ).

Existing research on ESG criteria primarily focuses on the corporate perspective (Bourcet, 2020 ; Khanchel et al., 2023 ; Tsang et al., 2023 ). However, this literature review did not identify any references that support the worker’s perspective or address their involvement in organizational management, as highlighted by Ouni et al. ( 2020 ).

Therefore, this study aims to map and analyze the literature on the impacts of integrating ESG criteria on corporate sustainability performance through different points of view. The research will employ both qualitative and quantitative analysis and consider the viewpoints of both employers and employees. This study aims to fill the existing gap in the literature, as no significant research has yet converged in this direction.

As is the case with the research of Huang ( 2021 ), who conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to examine the link between ESG activities and organizational financial performance, focusing on the institutional aspect. Similarly, Taliento et al. ( 2019 ), who investigated the impact of ESG factors on economic performance, emphasizing the corporate sustainability advantage and business understanding.

This research holds significance due to the growing global efforts to establish ESG criteria and mitigate environmental, social, and economic risks (Triple Bottom Line) for sustainable development. It aims to comprehend how these risks can affect sustainable development in the short, medium, and long-term, considering both organizational and collaborative perspectives (workers) (Bravi et al., 2020 ).

In this sense, the main objective of this paper is to map and analyze the literature on the impacts of integrating ESG criteria on corporate sustainability performance through different points of view. To achieve the proposed objective, the investigation addressed the following research questions:

What are the main features of the literature on ESG criteria?

What are the main methodological approaches used to study ESG criteria impact on corporate sustainability?

What are the main impacts of integrating ESG criteria on corporate sustainability performance observed in the literature?

This paper is divided into six sections, including this introduction (section 1). Section “Theoretical backgrounds: Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria” refers to the theoretical foundation on the ESG criteria and the construction of the research hypotheses. Subsequently, in section “Methodological procedures”, the methodological procedures of the research are discussed. In section “Results”, the results are developed. Then, in section “Discussion”, a discussion is carried out. And, finally, in section “Conclusion”, the research conclusions are highlighted.

Theoretical backgrounds: Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria

The ESG criteria are about the set of organizational practices that considers in its context environmental, social, and governance factors, with a view to achieving long-term sustainability (Sultana et al., 2018 ). The proportionality of these three aspects in business management has the purpose of analyzing the operations in a holistic way, not limited merely to the economic and financial aspects (Cek and Eyupoglu, 2020 ). In this sense, the economic, transparency and ethical precepts are articulated, seeking to ensure the competitiveness and the perdurability of a company. (Oncioiu et al., 2020 ).

The environmental dimension involves assessing the corporation’s carbon footprint, natural resource usage (energy consumption and efficiency), recycling policies, waste management, and efforts to minimize environmental impacts (Rajesh, 2020 ). The social dimension encompasses the company’s relationships with employees, suppliers, partners, clients, and communities. It includes promoting diversity, non-discrimination, gender pay equality, equal opportunities, employee education, and community protection (Li and Wu, 2020 ). The governance dimension focuses on leadership, internal controls, executive compensation, audits, shareholder rights, anti-corruption policies, and transparency and accountability practices (Cek and Eyupoglu, 2020 ).

ESG criteria, also known as sustainable or socially responsible investments, assist investors in assessing companies’ initiatives and commitment to environmental, social, and governance issues. These criteria can be applied internally or externally in a company’s management (Du Rietz, 2018 ).

That said, compliance with ESG policies and practices is increasingly important to investors, employees, and customers, shaping company perception and performance evaluation beyond financial measures (Beretta et al., 2019 ).

While ESG indicators may vary by region, market, and industry, there are emerging best practices in the corporate world (Khalid et al., 2021 ). Thus, an example of ESG practices can be observed through the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI), created by initiative of investors in partnership with the United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) and the UN Global Compact, with the aim of guiding the market in the pursuit of responsible development (Bauckloh et al., 2021 ; Naffa and Fain, 2020 ).

Therefore, one way to find out whether a particular organization is sustainable is to evaluate its performance by ESG indexes. However, these indexes have limitations as they may not capture the multidimensional aspects of ESG criteria comprehensively. Consequently, a broader focus on ESG criteria is needed, considering corporate sustainability performance.

Methodological procedures

There are distinct alternatives that can be appreciated in the deployment of a SLR, comprising a bibliometric approach, meta-analysis (Hunter et al., 1986 ) and content analysis approaches. (White and McCain, 1998 ). These three techniques were applied in the present study. The scope of this study provides qualitative and quantitative analysis of publications, in the synthesis and assimilation of the most explored academic research and authors with the support of citation analysis, as well as in the critical analysis of the sample of articles collected.

To address the research aims, which is to map and analyze the literature on the impacts on corporate sustainability performance provided by the integration of ESG criteria, this study relied on two procedures. The first procedure was a consistent and robust SLR materialized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) methodology, which blends reference analysis, network analysis, and content analysis. The second method was a critical in-depth analysis of a specific sample of articles collected through the PRISMA structured procedure, which integrated and supported the initial technique, as already used in the sustainability literature (Bolis et al., 2014 ).

Primary procedure: PRISMA methodology

The PRISMA methodology is a directive that aims to provide scholars to improve the peculiarity of the externalization of research information, as well as to guide in the critical conjecture of a review of articles already published (Page et al., 2021 ).

Eligibility and ineligibility criteria

The documents eligible for the sample of this research were those published in the last 5 years (period from 2017 to March 2022); belonging to the study domain of environmental, social and governance areas (research area); considered exclusively as research articles (document type); disseminated only in scientific journals (journals ); written only in English language (language); and intrinsic to the topic of this research. The ineligible studies were those without a well-defined scientific structure, those without relevant data implicated in the theme of this research, those without access to the text ( in press ), and those that did not propose quantitative analysis (as this is a relevant point for future research).

Selection of the scientific databases

As a basis for this SLR and starting to answer the questions listed to achieve the objective of this study, the initial sample of articles followed systematic strategies that were adopted to consult the bibliometric databases until March 2022. Three scientific knowledge bases, Scopus , Web of Science ( WoS ), and Science Direct ( SD ) were used in to identify studies related to the ESG criteria.

The level of quality, the number of publications, the area of knowledge, and the set of metadata essential for the analysis of the references (including titles, abstracts, keywords, year of publication, number of citations, list of authors, countries, among others) were the criteria of choice for these 3 scientific databases. Scopus is one of the largest scientific knowledge bases of peer-reviewed literature (Morioka and de Carvalho, 2016 ). WoS can cover all indexed journals with an impact factor calculated in JCR ( Journal Citation Report ) (Carvalho et al., 2013 ). And SD combines reliable full-text publications in the scientific, technical and health fields (Direct, 2020 ). Another factor also considered was that all 3 databases provide metadata compatible with Mendeley reference analysis software (Carvalho et al., 2013 ).

Sampling procedure

The sampling procedure used to screen the articles was search by search terms, which were adapted for each defined bibliographic database. This was performed in March 2022. The keyword terms for the investigation were applied as follows: ("Environmental, Social, and Governance") AND (Impact* OR Effect* OR Performanc* OR Integrat*) AND (Sustainab*).

The initial searches are shown in Table 1 .

The first triage was applied as " Article title, Abstract, Keywords " in Scopus , as " Topic " in WoS and as " Title, abstract or author-specified keywords " in SD resulting in 5,760 collected documents ("Initial Sample"). Then, the primary parameter for refining the references was run as " Publication Years ", reducing the number of records by 1,152 documents. The secondary elimination criterion was applied as " Topic Area ", synthesizing the sample into 580 searches.

Continuing with the exclusion process, the third suppression factor was submitted as " Document Type ", summarizing the records into 486 studies. Subsequently, "Source Type" was used as the fourth parameter of reference reduction, reducing the records by 3 documents. Subsequently, the penultimate refinement requirement was performed as " Language ", subtracting 9 more references. Finally, the reading of the titles and abstracts of the articles was used as the sixth ground for the refinement of the sample as " Off Topic ", restricting to 3,172 documents that did not directly address the topic of this study. Thus, the quantity of rejected documents was 5,402 references, resulting in a sample of 358 research articles selected from the 3 scientific databases.

The references were then entered into Mendeley software to verify the intersections of studies between the databases. The triage identified 229 duplicate documents, which were excluded, reducing the sample to 129 articles. Subsequently, an isolated analysis of each of the 129 selected publications was performed to assess compatibility with the eligibility and ineligibility criteria focusing on the adequacy to the research premises and quality parameters related to the methodological peculiarity of the publications. This analysis resulted in an exclusion of 82 studies. The "Remaining Sample" became 47 research articles.

After rejecting studies that did not satisfy the "Initial Sample" pre-selection process, that were in duplicate, and that did not have the eligibility criteria, the snowball method was applied (Yin et al., 2020 ). The references were expanded to incorporate other studies that were cited in the 47 articles in the "Remaining Sample". The total number of records selected through the snowball technique was 2 studies ("Additional Sample"). The inclusion of the additional articles followed the same eligibility (except for the year of publication) and ineligibility criteria cited in section “Eligibility and ineligibility criteria”. Thus, the "Final Sample" for the conduct of this SLR was 49 research articles.

Reference analysis

Data tabulation and grouping strategies directed the stratification of information and a narrative synopsis. A spreadsheet ( Microsoft Excel 2021) and Mendeley software were used to manage the selected articles to transcribe predominant methodological minutiae of each research study comprising the assessment instrument used, the setting, participants, and substantive findings in terms of validity and credibility. The number of publications summarized by year and journal was the initial parameter of the reference analysis process. This resource made it possible to see how the records succeeded over the years and to discriminate the journals that repeatedly dealt with the theme of this research.

Network analysis

In this step, with the assistance of the VOSviewer software , the network analysis was performed, considering the compatibility of keywords and authors were analyzed through clustering diagrams. The first citation network developed was that of most relevant keywords. The second network developed was that of co-citations, which shows the degree of equivalence between the references presenting the articles mentioned together. The analysis of this network can help assimilate the intellectual character of a field and map the thematic similarities of scholars and the aspect of how groups of researchers relate to each other (Pilkington and Liston-Heyes, 1999 ).

Another analysis performed was on the methodological approaches applied among the studies. For this diagnosis, a deductive multivariate approach was applied based on the theoretical foundation and knowledge from the references. This analysis used insights extracted from the keywords and the analysis of important topics.

Content analysis

Each article included in the final sample was specifically cataloged using Mendeley software that comprised the metadata generated by scientific databases. For the content analysis, the articles were classified in order to consider the tools applied, the scope of application, the relevant industries, the research objectives, and the advantages and limitations of the process required to obtain the research results.

Secondary procedure: critical (interpretative) analysis

Critical analysis is a research skill outlined to contribute to the interpretation of complex issues to understand specific conjunctures (Gil-Guirado et al., 2021 ). Critical analysis involves multiple iterative cycles of interpreting and perceiving the content of parts of the phenomena of interest, and this assimilation of the parts entails a better understanding of the contexts as a whole (Valor et al., 2018 ).

To deepen the assimilation of the contexts, each researcher involved forms an understanding of their perspective in continuous cycles until a "cognitive fusion" is achieved resulting in a better conception of the phenomena. This approach does not aim to construct a theory, but rather to infer a better understanding of the contexts (Bolis et al., 2014 ). Thus, to complement the answers to the questions of this research, critical analysis was applied, which involved dialectical reasoning cycles to identify the understanding (systematization of applicable processes to determine the meaning and scope of methodologies) of researchers on the impacts of integrating ESG criteria on corporate sustainability performance with the aim of finding the "cognitive fusion".

The initial cycle demanded a series of reviews, syntheses, and interpretations of the sample of articles collected in the structured procedure (PRISMA). In the next cycle, the collaborative critical process was adhered to, resulting in the refinement of the main methodological characteristics fragmented by each ESG criterion. Later, in the final interpretive cycle, the procedures of the first two cycles were analyzed, which provided additional perspectives and insights that complemented the previous interpretations.

Risk of bias

To assess the methodological quality of the included articles, the Prediction Study Trend Risk Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used. (Wolff et al., 2019 ). This tool includes 20 questions divided into four domains (participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis). The risk of bias for each domain was rated as low risk, high risk, or very unclear to judgment (Wolff et al., 2019 ). Two researchers of the present study independently assessed the risk of bias of the included articles and performed an evaluation by qualitative analysis. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer.

The document collection strategy yielded 129 records, and after screening titles and abstracts and applying eligibility and ineligibility criteria, 49 articles were selected for this systematic literature review (SLR). Please refer to Fig. 1 for the SLR flow diagram.

Source: Adapted from Page et al. ( 2021 ).

Consistent with Nishitani et al.’s ( 2021 ) assertion, Fig. 2 demonstrates the contemporary nature of discussions on ESG criteria and corporate sustainability, indicating their recent consolidation. In this specific context, the eligibility and ineligibility criteria of the articles were disregarded, and only a keyword search for "Environmental, Social, and Governance" was conducted across three databases. This was solely done to quantify the research related to the theme.

Source: Scopus , WoS , and SD .

It is evident that there has been an increasing number of studies focused on ESG criteria over the years, with a peak of 649 research articles in 2021 (an average of 54 articles per month). This trend aligns with the growing interest of organizations in implementing ESG criteria (Qureshi et al., 2021 ).

Literature overview

Starting to answer the first research question ( What are the main characteristics of the literature on ESG criteria? ), an overview of the literature was conducted based on descriptive statistics of the sample of 49 selected articles. Table 2 presents the most influential studies. It lists the publications with 20 or more citations in the Scopus database.

The study that stood out the most was that of Xie et al. ( 2019 ), which investigates whether environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance, with 115 citations over 3 years, an average of 38 citations/year; followed by the respective research of Garcia et al. ( 2017 ), which highlights the sensitive emerging market sectors in relation to improved ESG performance, published in the year 2017 and has 104 citations; and by Qureshi et al. ( 2020 ), which analyzes the moderating role of the impact of sustainability disclosure and board diversity on firm value, with 41 citations in 2 year, both averaging approximately 21 citations per year.

The articles of the core sample were designated from the network analysis of keywords, a quantitative technique practiced to identify the repercussion and expressiveness of an author or an article (Garfield and Morman, 1981 ). Nevertheless, this methodology should also take into account the relevance of the journal, besides computing the average annual citation (Carvalho et al., 2013 ), as shown in Table 2 .

That said, Fig. 3 shows, through the network analysis of the VOSviewer software , the relationship between the keywords and the articles in the designated sample, with recurrences of at least 2 times (this implies that terms that appear only once were not displayed). Other points to be observed are that the more consistent (full-bodied) the meshes the stronger the connections and the larger the points (nodes) of connections the more relevance they have.

Source: Scopus, WoS , and SD .

Network analysis enables a better explanation of the consonance between the terms discovered, as well as simplifying the differentiation between the groupings literally associated with its operating principles.

There were 4 sets of keywords identified. Of the 4 sets of the keyword network analysis, 3 contain the term " ESG " and its variations. In the case of the terms " sustainability and performance ", all 4 clusters register their presence. This demonstrates that the search terms adopted were assertive, since it can be seen that they adhere to the proposed theme.

The research by Zhang et al. ( 2020 ), which discusses how ESG initiatives affect innovation performance for corporate sustainability; and the research of Xu et al. ( 2021 ), which examines the impacts of research and development (R&D) investment and ESG performance on green innovation performance; ratify the cited adherence.

Research topics: the main methodologies

The predominant impacts addressed in the sample of 49 scientific studies collected, classified by level of analysis and methodological interpellation, are evidenced in Table 3 , which already awakens the dissolution to the second research question ( What are the main methodological approaches used to study ESG criteria impact on corporate sustainability? ).

A content analysis of the full texts of the articles selected for this SLR was performed and it was found that approximately 87.75% of the studies (43 references) were conducted using information from companies through databases. Analyzes were quantitative, 46 studies, approximately 93.87%, applied regression analysis. Of these, 6 investigations, approximately 13.04%, implemented structural equation modeling. These results, corroborate the conjuncture that there is no evidence in the literature regarding research allusive to a mapping and quantitative analysis of the impacts of the integration of ESG criteria on corporate sustainability performance, from an employee’s perspective.

By Fig. 4 , it can be distinguished that the organizations’ commitment does not focus exclusively on financial performance (12 studies), but also prioritizes corporate sustainability (12 studies).

Financial performance and corporate sustainability were investigated in approximately 49% of the research (24 records), proving corporate concern for both sustainable development and economic performance. Landi et al. ( 2022 ), highlight this awareness in their investigation of the incorporation of sustainability into risk management and the impacts on financial performance. Taken together, these practices have the potential to minimize cost and risk, enhance the company’s reputation and legitimacy, intensify innovation, and solidify growth paths and trajectories, all of which are vitally important to stakeholder value creation. (Ting et al., 2020 ).

The corporate sustainability performance disclosed through the ESG criteria was investigated in an attempt to demonstrate the quality of an organization, because through environmental, social, and governance analysis, it is possible to determine how the company positions itself in relation to society and the planet, in addition to offering more transparency to the investor (Mohammad and Wasiuzzaman, 2021 ).

Figure 5 displays a broad view of the amount of research performed around the world according to the sample of articles selected for this SLR.

It can be seen that Europe stands out in the evolution of ESG criteria with approximately 32.65% of research, with the highest visibility for Italy and Spain. The research by Conca et al. ( 2021 ), on the impacts of ESG reports in European agri-food companies; and (Baraibar-Diez and Odriozola, 2019 ), related to the effects of ESG parameters on the social responsibility committees of European corporations, highlight the aforementioned evolutionary prominence.

Figure 6 displays the most often consulted databases to collect information about the ESG criteria of the listed companies for their corporate sustainability performance.

Source: Table 3 .

Thomson Reuters and Bloomberg databases stand out because they are providers of reliable answers that help organizations make confident decisions and better manage business (Alsayegh et al., 2020 ). This reinforces the fact that most studies use publicly available data to measure ESG, whether than collect the ESG criteria for the companies under investigation.

Critical analysis

Critical analysis is a method of study for understanding difficult and complex situations, especially when interpretations of the same articulation are possible and competing. It is a form of text analysis and has been handled to discover their original meanings and how they are interpreted (Shephard et al., 2019 ).

Thus, complementing the results of the primary approach (PRISMA method), a critical analysis was implemented based on the selection of 49 articles considered for discussion. The aim was to answer the third question of this research ( What are the main impacts of integrating ESG criteria on corporate sustainability performance observed in the literature? ). Table 4 shows the main perceptions of the fragmented research according to each of the ESG criteria.

The cycles of the critical analysis involved a series of reviews, syntheses, and interpretations of ESG criteria affecting corporate sustainability performance identified in the 49 selected articles corroborating the structured process of this SLR. The results are shown in Tables 3 and 4 , which summarize the focus of the research, the methodologies applied, and the main gaps, contributions, and limitations of the studies.

In this SLR, the need for future empirical studies was also identified. There are still several research questions that need to be answered in depth. Some propositions for future investigations and possible research questions are outlined in Table 5 .

Analyzing the risk of bias in scientific research is of paramount importance as it can significantly impact the validity and reliability of research findings. It helps ensure that research outcomes accurately reflect reality and can be trusted by other researchers, policymakers, and the public (McGuinness and Higgins, 2021 ). Reproducibility is a fundamental principle of scientific research and transparently analyzing bias allows researchers to identify potential pitfalls and enhance the reproducibility of their work. Ethical considerations are also important as biased research can lead to harm, perpetuate discrimination, or favor specific individuals or groups unjustly (Marshall et al., 2015 ). Analyzing bias helps to improve the quality of evidence available for decision-making processes and ensures that the scientific literature remains reliable, allowing researchers to build upon a solid foundation of unbiased evidence. By carefully evaluating and addressing bias, researchers can enhance the quality and impact of their work (Reveiz et al., 2015 ; Wang et al., 2022 ).

In accordance with Table 6 (PROBAST diagnostics), most (93.9%) of the included research evidenced a minimal risk of bias and a low concern for applicability. The participants were the companies selected in each study; the predictors were the variables measured; the results were verified by the mathematical models; and the analysis, encompass the techniques used. The quality of the studies included in this study was rated from satisfactory to excellent.

Drawing upon rigorous research, this paper elucidates the prominent features that have appeared from the examination of ESG criteria. Table 2 and Fig. 3 show the repercussion, expressiveness and relevance of studies, authors, and journals.

The content analysis highlighted in Table 3 found that the literature on ESG criteria were carried out with information from companies through databases and applied regression analysis. These findings support the idea that there is no evidence in the study literature that maps or quantifies the effects of incorporating ESG criteria on corporate sustainability performance from the viewpoint of employees.

Ouni et al. ( 2020 ), in their study on the mediating role of ESG strands in relation to executive board gender diversity and corporate financial performance, highlighted the need for future research that focuses not only on organizational understanding, but especially on the perception of women (workers) themselves, as board members, of their role and their contribution to financial performance, which strengthens the gap characterized in this SLR.

Researchers employ various methodologies to study ESG criteria, allowing for nuanced insights and robust analysis (see Table 3 ). Quantitative studies utilize large-scale data sets, statistical models, and financial indicators to explore the relationship between ESG criteria and financial performance, risk management, and firm valuation (Alkaraan et al., 2022 ; Mavlutova et al., 2022 ). Qualitative research methods employ interviews, case studies, and content analysis to investigate the organizational processes, stakeholder perceptions, and contextual factors that influence ESG practices and outcomes (Petavratzi et al., 2022 ). Some studies adopt an integrated approach by combining quantitative and qualitative methods to gain a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of ESG criteria. These integrated approaches contribute to a holistic understanding of ESG-related phenomena (Aldowaish et al., 2022 ; Rehman et al., 2021 ).

Recognizing the strengths and limitations of methodologies, researchers have increasingly adopted mixed-methods approaches to investigate the impact of ESG criteria on corporate sustainability, integrating data collection and analysis processes to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem (Gebhardt et al., 2022 ). This approach allows researchers to triangulate findings, validate results, and gain a more nuanced perspective on the relationship between ESG criteria and corporate sustainability (Harasheh and Provasi, 2023 ). By leveraging the strengths of methodologies, research offers a more holistic and robust approach to studying complex phenomena.

The positive relationship of voluntary disclosure of corporate sustainability through the ESG criteria of organizations found in this study (see Table 4 ) provides evidence that the implementation of environmental and social strategies within an efficient system of corporate governance in the company strengthens the performance of corporate sustainability. The results also show that environmental performance and social performance are significantly positively related to sustainable economic performance, indicating that the corporation’s economic value and the creation of value for society are interdependent.

A similar fact was also found in the investigation of Zhang et al. ( 2020 ), on environmental, social and governance initiatives that affect innovative performance for corporate sustainability, which revealed that corporate governance initiatives play a moderating role in the relationship between environmental initiatives and performance innovation and the relationship between social initiatives and innovative performance.

Shaikh ( 2021 ), in his study on ESG practices and solid performance, explains the importance of voluntary reporting of non-financial indicators and a company’s responsibility towards stakeholders, reflected in the corporation’s accounting performance.

Integrating ESG criteria into business practices can have potential negative impacts, although specific effects may vary depending on context and implementation. As shown by the investigations of Wasiuzzaman et al. ( 2022 ), which verifies the extent to which culture can affect the relationship between ESG disclosure and company performance, evidencing the negative impact on the profitability of energy companies; and of Suttipun and Yordudom ( 2022 ), which analyzes the extent, level and trend of ESG disclosure in companies in Thailand, to test the different levels between high and low profile industries, which found a negative impact of governance disclosure on market reaction . Another example is the research of Yu et al. ( 2020 ), about Greenwashing in ESG disclosures, which identified organizations’ manipulations of ESG disclosures to increase market value.

While these concerns exist, effectively integrating ESG criteria can drive long-term value creation, risk management and stakeholder confidence. Implementing robust ESG practices requires careful consideration, transparency, and ongoing evaluation to mitigate potential negative impacts and ensure sustainable results.

The main objective of this article is to map and analyze the literature concerning the impacts of the integration of ESG criteria on corporate sustainability performance. To this end, an SLR was performed using the PRISMA methodology, with the intention of selecting the most relevant articles.

Figure 2 revealed an increase in the number of publications on ESG criteria. In 2017, there were only 97 published papers. Already in 2021, this number expanded to 649 manuscripts, an evolution of approximately 570%.

The references were systematically appraised using a hybrid approach that combined literature review methodologies, including structured and objective techniques such as bibliometric analysis, network analysis, and content analysis, to identify key highlights and gaps in the literature related to the theme of this investigation; as well as subjective text interpretation technique (critical analysis), to robust the structured analysis.

This study assisted in diagnosing the methodologies addressed and narrowing the gaps in the literature in four ways. Initially, the article presents a bibliometric analysis with a perspective on ESG criteria and sustainability performance based on the sampling of 49 research studies outlining the main papers and journals (according to Table 2 ). Subsequently, with the aid of network analysis the main keywords were highlighted (see Fig. 3 ).

Next, based on an in-depth content analysis, the article presents the main study highlights, the focus of the research, and the stratification of methods (Table 3 ). Finally, the critical analysis is juxtaposed to consolidate the initial structured analysis (Table 4 ).

Several authors have discussed the topic addressed by this SLR, such as Lokuwaduge and Heenetigala ( 2017 ), who made an interpellation of the integration of ESG precepts for an organizational sustainable development. Another reference is the paper by Bouslah et al. ( 2013 ), which analyzed the ESG dimensions and corporate risks.

But there is no evidence, to the knowledge of the authors of this paper, in the sample selected for this SLR, of research on a mapping and quantitative analysis of the impacts of integrating of ESG criteria on corporate sustainability performance as a result of workers’ perceptions. The study points out the lack of more confirmatory research approaches applying a multidimensional perspective of workers, as the interest remains in the economic-environmental perspective from the organizations’ point of view. It was also found that none of the studies listed made use of other types of diagnostic instruments diverging from the databases.

That said, the absence of such evidence highlights a gap in the literature that suggests the need for new study initiatives to fill it.

In addition to the opportunities for future studies proposed in Table 5 , future researches could explore the developing standardized metrics, common metrics that are relevant across different sectors and geographies; the relationship between ESG and financial performance, mechanisms behind this relationship, such as the impacts of ESG criteria on customer loyalty or employee satisfaction; the impacts of ESG criteria on non-financial stakeholders, such as employees, customers, and communities; the role of technology in ESG, such as artificial intelligence and blockchain in ESG reporting and decision-making; and on emerging ESG issues, such as the impact of climate change on supply chains or the ethical considerations of artificial intelligence.

Therefore, it would be important to establish standards and parameters that allow companies to understand and evaluate ESG criteria. In this sense, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) could develop a global standardization on ESG that defines parameters, guidelines, and criteria with quality indicators, in line with the ISO 9001 standard already recognized worldwide.

This exploratory work highlights as a contribution the aspect of guiding corporations in understanding how the integration of ESG criteria can positively impact corporate sustainability performance, providing investment optimization and better business planning.

Furthermore, some important conclusions related to the ESG criteria can be obtained. It was observed that companies, regardless of nationality, follow the guidelines of ESG criteria integration and such procedure brings many benefits, such as: improving the organization’s image with stakeholders; increasing the corporation’s competitiveness; promoting corporate sustainability; improving the conjuncture in relation to gender diversity; improving intellectual opportunities; among others.

This research has limitations related to the use of keyword search engines and the filters of the selected databases. The keyword groups are asked to be elaborated in diverse ways, so the combinatorial analysis of the groupings may bring different answers. The filters of the scientific databases have disparate search characteristics, which may cause divergences in the answers. Another limitation was the critical analysis that may have generated an interpretation bias. Nevertheless, the PROBAST method and the systematic multi-method approach applied (bibliometric, network analysis, and content analysis) helped to mitigate this limitation.

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this research as no data were generated or analyzed.

Aboud A, Diab A (2019) The financial and market consequences of environmental, social and governance ratings: the implications of recent political volatility in Egypt. Sustain Account Manag Policy J 10:498–520. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2018-0167

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad H, Yaqub M, Lee SH (2023) Environmental-, social-, and governance-related factors for business investment and sustainability: a scientometric review of global trends. Environ Dev Sustain https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-02921-x

Alda M (2021) The environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimension of firms in which social responsible investment (SRI) and conventional pension funds invest: The mainstream SRI and the ESG inclusion. J Clean Prod 298:126812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126812

Aldowaish A, Kokuryo J, Almazyad O, Goi HC (2022) Environmental, social, and governance integration into the business model: literature review and research agenda. Sustain. 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052959

Alkaraan F, Albitar K, Hussainey K, Venkatesh VG (2022) Corporate transformation toward Industry 4.0 and financial performance: the influence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG). Technol Forecast Soc Change 175:121423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121423

Alsayegh MF, Rahman RA, Homayoun S (2020) Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure. Sustain 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12093910

Arayssi M, Jizi M, Tabaja HH (2020) The impact of board composition on the level of ESG disclosures in GCC countries. Sustain Account Manag Policy J 11:137–161. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2018-0136

Arif M, Sajjad A, Farooq S, Abrar M, Joyo AS (2020) The impact of audit committee attributes on the quality and quantity of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures. Corp Gov 21:497–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2020-0243

Arora A, Sharma D (2022) Do Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Performance Scores Reduce the Cost of Debt? Evidence from Indian firms. Australas Account Bus Financ J 16:4–18. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v16i5.02

Atan R, Alam MM, Said J, Zamri M (2018) The impacts of environmental, social, and governance factors on firm Performance: panel study of Malaysian companies. Manag Environ Qual An Int J https://doi.org/10.1108/MEQ-03-2017-0033

Baraibar-Diez E, Odriozola MD (2019) CSR committees and their effect on ESG performance in UK, France, Germany, and Spain. Sustain. 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185077

Baraibar-Diez E, Odriozola MD, Fernández Sánchez JL (2019) Sustainable compensation policies and its effect on environmental, social, and governance scores. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26:1457–1472. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1760

Barbosa A de S, Bueno da Silva L, de Souza VF, Morioka SN(2021) Integrated management systems: their organizational impacts Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 33:794–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2021.1893685

Barbosa A de S, Bueno da Silva L, Morioka SN, da Silva JMN, de Souza VF (2023). Integrated management systems and organizational performance: a multidimensional perspective. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2023.2181153

Bauckloh T, Schaltegger S, Utz S, Zeile S, Zwergel B (2021) Active first movers vs. late free-riders? An empirical analysis of UN PRI signatories’ commitment, J Bus Ethics https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04992-0

Baumgartner RJ, Rauter R (2017) Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization. J Clean Prod 140:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.146

Bellandi F (2023) Equilibrating financially sustainable growth and environmental, social, and governance sustainable growth. Eur Manag Rev 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12554

Beretta V, Demartini C, Trucco S (2019) Does environmental, social and governance performance influence intellectual capital disclosure tone in integrated reporting. ? J Intellect Cap 20:100–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2018-0049

Birindelli G, Dell’Atti S, Iannuzzi AP, Savioli M (2018) Composition and activity of the board of directors: Impact on ESG performance in the banking system. Sustain 10:1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124699

Bodhanwala S, Bodhanwala R (2018) Does corporate sustainability impact firm profitability? Evidence from India. Manag Decis 56:1734–1747. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2017-0381

Boiral O (2002) Tacit knowledge and environmental management. Long Range Plann 35:291–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(02)00047-X

Bolis I, Morioka SN, Sznelwar LI (2014) When sustainable development risks losing its meaning. Delimiting the concept with a comprehensive literature review and a conceptual model. J Clean Prod 83:7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.041

Boulhaga M, Bouri A, Elamer AA, Ibrahim BA (2022) Environmental, social and governance ratings and firm performance: the moderating role of internal control quality. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2343

Bourcet C (2020) Empirical determinants of renewable energy deployment: a systematic literature review. Energy Econ 85:104563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104563

Bouslah K, Kryzanowski L, M’Zali B (2013) The impact of the dimensions of social performance on firm risk. J Bank Financ 37:1258–1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.12.004

Bravi L, Santos G, Pagano A, Murmura F (2020) Environmental management system according to ISO 14001:2015 as a driver to sustainable development. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 27:2599–2614. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1985

Bravo F, Reguera-Alvarado N (2019) Sustainable development disclosure: environmental, social, and governance reporting and gender diversity in the audit committee. Bus Strateg Environ 28:418–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2258

Bryant RL, Wilson GA (1998) Rethinking environmental management. Prog Hum Geogr 22:321–343. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913298672031592

Carvalho MM, Fleury A, Lopes AP (2013) An overview of the literature on technology roadmapping (TRM): Contributions and trends. Technol Forecast Soc Change 80:1418–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.11.008

Cek K, Eyupoglu S (2020) Does environmental, social and governance performance influence economic performance? J Bus Econ Manag 21:1165–1184. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.12725

Clarkson ME (1995) A Stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20:92–117. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9503271994

Conca L, Manta F, Morrone D, Toma P (2021) The impact of direct environmental, social, and governance reporting: empirical evidence in European-listed companies in the agri-food sector. Bus Strateg Environ 30:1080–1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2672

De Masi S, Słomka-Gołębiowska A, Becagli C, Paci A (2021) Toward sustainable corporate behavior: the effect of the critical mass of female directors on environmental, social, and governance disclosure. Bus Strateg Environ 30:1865–1878. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2721

Direct S (2020) Science direct advertisement. Clin Microbiol News 42:201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinmicnews.2020.12.002

Du Rietz S (2018) Information vs knowledge: corporate accountability in environmental, social, and governance issues. Account Audit Account J 31:586–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2013-1198

Esquer-Peralta J, Velazquez L, Munguia N (2008) Perceptions of core elements for sustainability management systems (SMS). Manag Decis 46:1027–1038. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810890195

Gangi F, Daniele LM, Varrone N, Vicentini F, Coscia M (2021) Equity mutual funds’ interest in the environmental, social and governance policies of target firms: does gender diversity in management teams matter? Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 28:1018–1031. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2102

Garcia AS, Mendes-Da-Silva W, Orsato R (2017) Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: evidence from emerging markets. J Clean Prod 150:135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.180

Garcia AS, Orsato RJ (2020) Testing the institutional difference hypothesis: a study about environmental, social, governance, and financial performance. Bus Strateg Environ 29:3261–3272. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2570

Garfield E, Morman ET (1981) Citation indexing: its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. Isis. https://doi.org/10.1086/352799

Gebhardt M, Thun TW, Seefloth M, Zülch H (2022) Managing sustainability—does the integration of environmental, social and governance key performance indicators in the internal management systems contribute to companies’ environmental, social and governance performance? Bus Strateg Environ 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3242

Gil-Guirado S, Cantos JO, Pérez-Morales A, Barriendos M (2021) The risk is in the detail: Historical cartography and a hermeneutic analysis of historical floods in the city of murcia. Geogr Res Lett 47:183–219. https://doi.org/10.18172/cig.4863

Gond JP, Grubnic S, Herzig C, Moon J (2012) Configuring management control systems: theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability. Manag Account Res 23:205–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.06.003

Harasheh M, Provasi R (2023) A need for assurance: do internal control systems integrate environmental, social, and governance factors? Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 30:384–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2361

Harymawan I, Nasih M, Agustia D, Putra FKG, Djajadikerta HG (2022) Investment efficiency and environmental, social, and governance reporting: Perspective from corporate integration management. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 29:1186–1202. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2263

He R, Chen X, Chen C, Zhai J, Cui L (2021) Environmental, social, and governance incidents and bank loan contracts. Sustain 13:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041885

Herghiligiu IV, Robu IB, Pislaru M, Vilcu A, Asandului AL, Avasilcai S, Balan C (2019) Sustainable environmental management system integration and business performance: a balance assessment approach using fuzzy logic. Sustain. 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195311

Huang DZX (2021) Environmental, social and governance (ESG) activity and firm performance: a review and consolidation. Account Financ 61:335–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12569

Hunter JE, Schmidt FL, Jackson GB (1986) Meta-analysis: cumulating research findings across studies. Educ Res 15:20–21. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015008020

Jonsdottir B, Sigurjonsson TO, Johannsdottir L, Wendt S (2022) Barriers to using ESG data for investment decisions. Sustain 14:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095157

Khalid F, Sun J, Huang G, Su CY (2021) Environmental, social and governance performance of chinese multinationals: a comparison of state-and non-state-owned enterprises. Sustain. 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074020

Khalil MA, Khalil R, Khalil MK (2022) Environmental, social and governance (ESG)—augmented investments in innovation and firms’ value: a fixed-effects panel regression of Asian economies. China Financ Rev Int https://doi.org/10.1108/CFRI-05-2022-0067

Khanchel I, Lassoued N, Baccar I (2023) Sustainability and firm performance: the role of environmental, social and governance disclosure and green innovation. Manag Decis https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2021-1252

Kim J, Cho E, Okafor CE, Choi D (2022) Does environmental, social, and governance drive the sustainability of multinational corporation’s subsidiaries? Evidence from Korea. Front Psychol 13:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.899936

Koroleva E, Baggieri M, Nalwanga S (2020) Company performance: are environmental, social, and governance factors important? Int J Technol 11:1468–1477. https://doi.org/10.14716/ijtech.v11i8.4527

Kuo TC, Chen HM, Meng HM (2021) Do corporate social responsibility practices improve financial performance? A case study of airline companies. J. Clean. Prod. 310:127380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127380

Landi GC, Iandolo F, Renzi A, Rey A (2022) Embedding sustainability in risk management: The impact of environmental, social, and governance ratings on corporate financial risk. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2256

Lee S-P, Isa M (2022) Environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices and financial performance of Shariah-compliant companies in Malaysia. J Islam Account Bus Res https://doi.org/10.1108/JIABR-06-2020-0183

Li J, Wu D (2020) Do corporate social responsibility engagements lead to real environmental, social, and governance impact? Manage Sci 66:2564–2588. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3324

Lokuwaduge CSDS, Heenetigala K (2017) Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: an Australian study. Bus Strateg Environ 26:438–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1927

López-Toro A, Sánchez-Teba EM, Benítez-Márquez MD, Rodríguez-Fernández M (2021) Influence of ESGC indicators on financial performance of listed pharmaceutical companies alberto. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094556

Luque-Vílchez M, Gómez-Limón JA, Guerrero-Baena MD, Rodríguez-Gutiérrez P (2023) Deconstructing corporate environmental, social, and governance performance: heterogeneous stakeholder preferences in the food industry. Sustain Dev 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2488

Madden BJ (2022) Bet on innovation, not environmental, social and governance metrics, to lead the Net Zero transition. Syst Res Behav Sci 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2915

Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Wallace BC (2015) Automating risk of bias assessment for clinical trials. IEEE J Biomed Heal Informatics 19:1406–1412. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2015.2431314

Mavlutova I, Fomins A, Spilbergs A, Atstaja D, Brizga J (2022) Opportunities to increase financial well-being by investing in environmental, social and governance with respect to improving financial literacy under covid-19: the case of Latvia. Sustain. 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010339

McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT (2021) Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods 12:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1411

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Merli R, Preziosi M (2018) The EMAS impasse: factors influencing Italian organizations to withdraw or renew the registration. J Clean Prod 172:4532–4543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.031

Minutolo MC, Kristjanpoller WD, Stakeley J (2019) Exploring environmental, social, and governance disclosure effects on the S&P 500 financial performance. Bus Strateg Environ 28:1083–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2303

Miralles-Quirós MM, Miralles-Quirós JL, Redondo-Hernández J (2019) The impact of environmental, social, and governance performance on stock prices: evidence from the banking industry. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26:1446–1456. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1759

Mohammad WMW, Wasiuzzaman S (2021) Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) disclosure, competitive advantage and performance of firms in Malaysia. Clean Environ Syst 2:100015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2021.100015

Moneva JM, Bonilla-Priego MJ, Ortas E (2020) Corporate social responsibility and organisational performance in the tourism sector. J Sustain Tour 28:853–872. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2019.1707838

Montabon F, Sroufe R, Narasimhan R (2007) An examination of corporate reporting, environmental management practices and firm performance. J Oper Manag 25:998–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.10.003

Morioka SN, de Carvalho MM (2016) A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business. J Clean Prod 136:134–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.104

Naffa H, Fain M (2020) Performance measurement of ESG-themed megatrend investments in global equity markets using pure factor portfolios methodology, PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244225

Ng TH, Lye CT, Chan KH, Lim YZ, Lim YS (2020) Sustainability in Asia: the roles of financial development in environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance. Soc Indic Res 150:17–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02288-w

Nishitani K, Nguyen TBH, Trinh TQ, Wu Q, Kokubu K (2021) Are corporate environmental activities to meet sustainable development goals (SDGs) simply greenwashing? An empirical study of environmental management control systems in Vietnamese companies from the stakeholder management perspective. J Environ Manage 296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113364

Nitescu DC, Cristea MA (2020) Environmental, social and governance risks-New challenges for the banking business sustainability. Amfiteatru Econ 22:692–706. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2020/55/692

Oncioiu I, Popescu DM, Aviana AE, Şerban A, Rotaru F, Petrescu M, Marin-Pantelescu A (2020) The role of environmental, social, and governance disclosure in financial transparency. Sustain 12:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12176757

Ortas E, Gallego-Álvarez I, Álvarez I (2019) National institutions, stakeholder engagement, and firms’ environmental, social, and governance performance. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26:598–611. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1706

Ouni Z, Mansour JB, Arfaoui S (2020) Board/executive gender diversity and firm financial performance in Canada: the mediating role of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) orientation. Sustain 12:1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208386

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Park SR, Oh KS (2022) Integration of ESG information into individual investors’ corporate investment decisions: utilizing the UTAUT framework. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.899480

Peng LS, Isa M (2020) Environmental, social and governance (Esg) practices and performance in shariah firms: agency or stakeholder theory? Asian Acad Manag J Account Financ 16:1–34. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamjaf2020.16.1.1

Petavratzi E, Sanchez-Lopez D, Hughes A, Stacey J, Ford J, Butcher A (2022) The impacts of environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues in achieving sustainable lithium supply in the Lithium Triangle. Miner Econ 35:673–699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-022-00332-4

Pilkington A, Liston-Heyes C (1999) Is production and operations management a discipline? A citation/co-citation study. Int J Oper Prod Manag 19:7–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579910244188

Pirtea MG, Noja GG, Cristea M, Panait M (2021) Interplay between environmental, social and governance coordinates and the financial performance of agricultural companies. Agric Econ (Czech Republic) 67:479–490. https://doi.org/10.17221/286/2021-AGRICECON

Qureshi MA, Akbar M, Akbar A, Poulova P (2021) Do ESG endeavors assist firms in achieving superior financial performance? A case of 100 best corporate citizens. SAGE Open 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211021598

Qureshi MA, Kirkerud S, Theresa K, Ahsan T (2020) The impact of sustainability (environmental, social, and governance) disclosure and board diversity on firm value: the moderating role of industry sensitivity. Bus Strateg Environ 29:1199–1214. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2427

Rajesh R (2020) Exploring the sustainability performances of firms using environmental, social, and governance scores. J Clean Prod 247:119600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119600

Rajesh R, Rajendran C (2020) Relating environmental, social, and governance scores and sustainability performances of firms: an empirical analysis. Bus Strateg Environ 29:1247–1267. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2429

Reboredo JC, Sowaity SMA (2022) Environmental, social, and governance information disclosure and intellectual capital efficiency in jordanian listed firms. Sustain. 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010115

Rehman RU, Abidin MZU, Ali R, Nor SM, Naseem MA, Hasan M, Ahmad MI (2021) The integration of conventional equity indices with environmental, social, and governance indices: Evidence from emerging economies. Sustain 13:1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020676

Reveiz L, Chapman E, Asial S, Munoz S, Bonfill X, Alonso-Coello P (2015) Risk of bias of randomized trials over time. J Clin Epidemiol 68:1036–1045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.001

Romano M, Cirillo A, Favino C, Netti A (2020) ESG (Environmental, social and governance) performance and board gender diversity: the moderating role of CEO duality. Sustain 12:1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219298

Sachin N, Rajesh R (2021) An empirical study of supply chain sustainability with financial performances of Indian firms. Environ Dev Sustain https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01717-1

Sahoo S, Kumar S (2022) Integration and volatility spillover among environmental, social and governance indices: evidence from BRICS countries. Glob Bus Rev 23:1280–1298. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509221114699

Sandberg H, Alnoor A, Tiberius V (2022) Environmental, social, and governance ratings and financial performance: evidence from the European food industry. Bus Strateg Environ 2471–2489. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3259

Shahzad F, Baig MH, Rehman IU, Saeed A, Asim GA (2021) Does intellectual capital efficiency explain corporate social responsibility engagement-firm performance relationship? Evidence from environmental, social and governance performance of US listed firms. Borsa Istanbul Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2021.05.003

Shaikh I (2021) Environmental, social, and governance (Esg) practice and firm performance: an international evidence. J Bus Econ Manag 23:218–237. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2022.16202

Shakil MH (2021) Environmental, social and governance performance and financial risk: moderating role of ESG controversies and board gender diversity. Resour Policy 72:102144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102144

Shephard K, Rieckmann M, Barth M (2019) Seeking sustainability competence and capability in the ESD and HESD literature: an international philosophical hermeneutic analysis. Environ Educ Res 25:532–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1490947

Sul W, Lee Y (2020) Effects of corporate social responsibility for environmental, social, and governance sectors on firm value: a comparison between consumer and industrial goods companies. Eur J Int Manag 14:866–890. https://doi.org/10.1504/EJIM.2020.109817

Sultana S, Zulkifli N, Zainal D (2018) Environmental, social and governance (ESG) and investment decision in Bangladesh. Sustain 10:1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061831

Suttipun M, Yordudom T (2022) Impact of environmental, social and governance disclosures on market reaction: an evidence of Top50 companies listed from Thailand. J Financ Report Account 20:753–767. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-12-2020-0377

Taliento M, Favino C, Netti A (2019) Impact of environmental, social, and governance information on economic performance: evidence of a corporate “sustainability advantage” from Europe. Sustain. 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061738

Terzani S, Turzo T (2021) Religious social norms and corporate sustainability: The effect of religiosity on environmental, social, and governance disclosure. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 28:485–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2063

Ting IWK, Azizan NA, Bhaskaran RK, Sukumaran SK (2020) Corporate social performance and firm performance: comparative study among developed and emerging market firms. Sustain. 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12010026

Tsang YP, Fan Y, Feng ZP (2023) Bridging the gap: building environmental, social and governance capabilities in small and medium logistics companies. J Environ Manag 338:117758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117758

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Uyar A, Kuzey C, Karaman AS (2023) Does aggressive environmental, social, and governance engagement trigger firm risk? The moderating role of executive compensation. J Clean Prod 398:136542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136542

Valor C, Antonetti P, Carrero I (2018) Stressful sustainability: a hermeneutic analysis. Eur J Mark 52:550–574. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2016-0712

Vanderley LB (2020) Conscientização ambiental na implantação de um sistema de gestão ambiental: um estudo de caso em uma empresa do Polo Industrial de Manaus. Sist Gestão 14:335–347. https://doi.org/10.20985/1980-5160.2019.v14n4.1474

Viranda DF, Sari AD, Suryoputro MR, Setiawan N (2020) 5 S Implementation of SME Readiness in Meeting Environmental Management System Standards based on ISO 14001:2015 (Study Case: PT. ABC). IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 722. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/722/1/012072

Wang S, Li J, Zhao D (2018) Institutional pressures and environmental management practices: the moderating effects of environmental commitment and resource availability. Bus Strateg Environ 27:52–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1983

Wang Y, Ghadimi M, Wang Q, Hou L, Zeraatkar D, Iqbal A, Ho C, Yao L, Hu M, Ye Z, Couban R, Armijo-Olivo S, Bassler D, Briel M, Gluud LL, Glasziou P, Jackson R, Keitz SA, Letelier LM, Ravaud P, Schulz KF, Siemieniuk RAC, Brignardello-Petersen R, Guyatt GH (2022) Instruments assessing risk of bias of randomized trials frequently included items that are not addressing risk of bias issues. J Clin Epidemiol 152:218–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.10.018

Wasiuzzaman S, Ibrahim SA, Kawi F (2022) Environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure and firm performance: does national culture matter? Meditari Account Res https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-06-2021-1356

White HD, McCain KW (1998) Visualizing a discipline: an author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. J Am Soc Inf Sci 49:327–355

Google Scholar  

Wolff RF, Moons KGM, Riley RD, Whiting PF, Westwood M, Collins GS, Reitsma JB, Kleijnen J, Mallett S (2019) PROBAST: a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. Ann Intern Med 170:51–58. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-1376

Xie J, Nozawa W, Yagi M, Fujii H, Managi S (2019) Do environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance? Bus Strateg Environ 28:286–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2224

Xu J, Liu F, Shang Y (2021) R&D investment, ESG performance and green innovation performance: evidence from China. Kybernetes 50:737–756. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2019-0793

Xu N, Liu J, Dou H (2022) Environmental, social, and governance information disclosure and stock price crash risk: evidence from Chinese listed companies. Front Psychol 13:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.977369

Yin YN, Wang Y, Jiang NJ, Long DR (2020) Can case management improve cancer patients quality of life?: a systematic review following PRISMA. Medicine (Baltimore) 99:e22448. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000022448

Yu EPY, Van Luu B, Chen CH (2020) Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures. Res Int Bus Financ 52:101192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101192

Zhang Q, Loh L, Wu W (2020) How do environmental, social and governance initiatives affect innovative performance for corporate sustainability? Sustain 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12083380

Zhang Y, Ruan H, Tang G, Tong L (2021) Power of sustainable development: does environmental management system certification affect a firm’s access to finance? Bus Strateg Environ 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2839

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the support received from the Federal University of Paraíba and the Federal Institute of Paraíba.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil

Anrafel de Souza Barbosa, Maria Cristina Basilio Crispim da Silva, Luiz Bueno da Silva & Sandra Naomi Morioka

University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil

Vinícius Fernandes de Souza

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

For greater transparency, the individual contributions of the authors are as follows: AdSB: contributed to conceptualization, methodology, validation, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft, visualization, and project administration; MCBCdS and LBdS: contributed to validation, writing—review and editing, and supervision; SNM: contributed to validation, methodology, and writing—review and editing; and VFdS: contributed to validation and writing—review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anrafel de Souza Barbosa .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

de Souza Barbosa, A., da Silva, M.C.B.C., da Silva, L.B. et al. Integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria: their impacts on corporate sustainability performance. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 410 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01919-0

Download citation

Received : 13 November 2022

Accepted : 05 July 2023

Published : 13 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01919-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on the academic research agenda. A scientometric analysis

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Research Institute on Policies for Social Transformation, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Córdoba, Spain

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Public Policy Observatory, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, Chile

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Finance and Accounting, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Córdoba, Spain

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Social Matters Research Group, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Córdoba, Spain

• Antonio Sianes, 
• Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, 
• Pilar Tirado-Valencia, 
• Antonio Ariza-Montes

• Published: March 17, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Today, global challenges such as poverty, inequality, and sustainability are at the core of the academic debate. This centrality has only increased since the transition from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), whose scope is to shift the world on to a path of resilience focused on promoting sustainable development. The main purpose of this paper is to develop a critical yet comprehensive scientometric analysis of the global academic production on the SDGs, from its approval in 2015 to 2020, conducted using Web of Science (WoS) database. Despite it being a relatively short period of time, scholars have published more than five thousand research papers in the matter, mainly in the fields of green and sustainable sciences. The attained results show how prolific authors and schools of knowledge are emerging, as key topics such as climate change, health and the burden diseases, or the global governance of these issues. However, deeper analyses also show how research gaps exist, persist and, in some cases, are widening. Greater understanding of this body of research is needed, to further strengthen evidence-based policies able to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the achievement of the SDGs.

Citation: Sianes A, Vega-Muñoz A, Tirado-Valencia P, Ariza-Montes A (2022) Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on the academic research agenda. A scientometric analysis. PLoS ONE 17(3): e0265409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409

Editor: Stefano Ghinoi, University of Greenwich, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: September 10, 2021; Accepted: March 1, 2022; Published: March 17, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Sianes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

1.1. from the millennium agenda to the 2030 agenda and the sustainable development goals (sdgs).

To track the origins of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, we must recall the Millennium Agenda, which was the first global plan focused on fighting poverty and its more extreme consequences [ 1 ]. Approved in 2000, its guiding principle was that northern countries should contribute to the development of southern states via Official Development Assistance (ODA) flows. The commitment was to reach 0.7% of donors’ gross domestic product [ 2 ] to reduce poverty by half by 2015. The relative failure to reach this goal and the consolidation of a discourse of segregation between northern and southern countries [ 3 ] opened the door to strong criticism of the Millennium Agenda. Therefore, as 2015 approached, there were widespread calls for a profound reformulation of the system [ 4 ].

The world in 2015 was very different from that in the early 2000s. Globalization had reached every corner of the world, generating development convergence between countries but increasing inequalities within countries [ 5 , 6 ]. Increasing interest in the environmental crisis and other global challenges, such as the relocation of work and migration flows, consolidated a new approach to development and the need of a more encompassed agenda [ 7 ]. This new agenda was conceived after an integrating process that involved representatives from governments, cooperation agencies, nongovernmental organisations, global business, and academia. The willingness of the 2030 Agenda to ‘leave no one behind’ relies on this unprecedented global commitment by the international community [ 8 ].

As a result of this process, in 2015, the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted the document “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” [ 9 ], later known as the 2030 Agenda. This new global agenda is an all-comprising strategy that seeks to inform and orient public policies and private interventions in an extensive range of fields, from climate change to smart cities and from labour markets to birth mortality, among many others.

The declared scope of the Agenda is to shift the world on to a path of resilience focused on promoting sustainable development. To do so, the 2030 Agenda operates under the guidance of five principles, formally known as the ‘5 Ps’: people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnerships [ 10 ]. With these pivotal concepts in mind, the Agenda has established a total of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 specific targets to be pursued in a 15-year period, which reflects the scale and profound ambition of this new Agenda.

The SDGs do not only address what rich countries should do for the poor but rather what all countries should do together for the global well-being of this and future generations [ 4 ]. Thus, the SDGs cover a much broader range of issues than their predecessors, the Millennium Development Goals [ 11 ], and are intended to be universal on the guidance towards a new paradigm of sustainable development that the international community has been demanding since the 1992 Earth Summit [ 7 , 12 , 13 ].

Despite this potential, some criticise their vagueness, weakness, and unambitious character. Fukuda-Parr [ 14 ], see weaknesses on the simplicity of the SDGs, which can lead to a very narrow conception that reduces the integral concept of development. The issue of measurement is also problematic; for some researchers, the quantification of objectives not only reduces their complexity, but leads to them being carried out without considering the interdependencies between the objectives [ 12 , 13 ]. Other authors have identified difficulties associated with specifying some of the less visible, intangible aspects of their qualitative nature such as inclusive development and green growth [ 14 , 15 ]. Finally, Stafford-Smith et al. [ 16 ] state that their successful implementation also requires paying greater attention to the links across sectors, across societal actors and between and among low-, medium-, and high-income countries.

Despite these criticisms, the SDGs have undoubtedly become the framework for what the Brundtland report defined as our common future. Unlike conventional development agendas that focus on a restricted set of dimensions, the SDGs provide a holistic and multidimensional view of development [ 17 ]. In this line, Le Blanc [ 12 ] concludes that the SDGs constitute a system with a global perspective; because they consider the synergies and trade-offs between the different issues involved in sustainable development, and favour comprehensive thinking and policies.

1.2. Towards a categorization of the SDGs

There is an underlying lack of unanimity in the interpretation of the SDGs, which has given rise to alternative approaches that allow categorizing the issues involved in their achievement without losing sight of the integral vision of sustainable development [ 15 , 18 – 23 ]. However, such categorization of the SDGs makes it possible to approach them in a more holistic and integrated way, focusing on the issues that underlie sustainable development and on trying to elucidate their connections.

Among the many systematization proposals, and following the contributions of Hajer et al. [ 19 ], four connected perspectives can strengthen the universal relevance of the SDGs: a) ‘planetary boundaries’ that emphasize the urgency of addressing environmental concerns and calling on governments to take responsibility for global public goods; b) ‘The safe and just operating space’ to highlight the interconnectedness of social and environmental issues and their consequences for the redistribution of wealth and human well-being; c) ‘The energetic society’ that avoids the plundering of energy resources; and d) ‘green competition’ to stimulate innovation and new business practices that limit the consumption of resources.

Planetary boundaries demand international policies that coordinate efforts to avoid overexploitation of the planet [ 24 ]. Issues such as land degradation, deforestation, biodiversity loss and natural resource overexploitation exacerbate poverty and deepen inequalities [ 21 , 25 – 27 ]. These problems are further compounded by the increasing impacts of climate change with clear ramifications for natural systems and societies around the globe [ 21 , 28 ].

A safe and just operating space implies social inclusivity that ensures equity principles for sharing opportunities for development [ 15 , 29 ]. Furthermore, it requires providing equitable access to effective and high-quality preventive and curative care that reduces global health inequalities [ 30 , 31 ] and promotes human well-being. Studies such as that of Kruk et al. [ 32 ] analyse the reforms needed in health systems to reduce mortality and the systemic changes necessary for high-quality care.

An energetic society demands global, regional and local production and consumption patterns as demands for energy and natural resources continue to increase, providing challenges and opportunities for poverty reduction, economic development, sustainability and social cohesion [ 21 ].

Finally, green competition establishes limits to the consumption of resources, engaging both consumers and companies [ 22 ] and redefining the relationship between firms and their suppliers in the supply chain [ 33 ]. These limits must also be introduced into life in cities, fostering a new urban agenda [ 34 , 35 ]. Poor access to opportunities and services offered by urban centres (a function of distance, transport infrastructure and spatial distribution) is a major barrier to improved livelihoods and overall development [ 36 ].

The diversification of development issues has opened the door to a wide range of new realities that must be studied under the guiding principles of the SDGs, which involve scholars from all disciplines. As Saric et al. [ 37 ] claimed, a shift in academic research is needed to contribute to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda. The identification of critical pathways to success based on sound research is needed to inform a whole new set of policies and interventions aimed at rendering the SDGs both possible and feasible [ 38 ].

1.3. The relevance and impact of the SDGs on academic research

In the barely five years since their approval, the SDGs have proven the ability to mobilize the scientific community and offer an opportunity for researchers to bring interdisciplinary knowledge to facilitate the successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda [ 21 ]. The holistic vision of development considered in the SDGs has impacted very diverse fields of knowledge, such as land degradation processes [ 25 , 26 ], health [ 39 ], energy [ 40 ] and tourism [ 41 ], as well as a priori further disciplines such as earth observation [ 42 ] and neurosurgery [ 43 ]. However, more importantly, the inevitable interdependencies, conflicts and linkages between the different SDGs have also emerged in the analyses, highlighting ideas such as the need for systemic thinking that considers the spatial and temporal connectivity of the SDGs, which calls for multidisciplinary knowledge. According to Le Blanc [ 12 ], the identification of the systemic links between the objectives can be a valuable undertaking for the scientific community in the coming years and sustainable development.

Following this line, several scientific studies have tried to model the relationships between the SDGs in an attempt to clarify the synergies between the objectives, demonstrating their holistic nature [ 12 , 17 , 20 , 44 , 45 ]. This knowledge of interdependencies can bring out difficulties and risks, or conversely the drivers, in the implementation of the SDGs, which will facilitate their achievement [ 22 ]. In addition, it will allow proposing more transformative strategies to implement the SDG agenda, since it favours an overall vision that is opposed to the false illusion that global problems can be approached in isolation [ 19 ].

The lack of prioritisation of the SDGs has been one of the issues raised regarding their weakness, which should also be addressed by academics. For example, Gupta and Vegelin [ 15 ] analyse the dangers of inclusive development prioritising economic issues, relegating social or ecological inclusivity to the background, or the relational aspects of inclusivity that guarantee the existence of laws, policies and global rules that favour equal opportunities. Holden et al. [ 46 ] suggest that this prioritisation should be established according to three moral criteria: the satisfaction of human needs, social equity and respect for environmental limits. These principles must be based on ethical values that, according to Burford et al. [ 47 ], constitute the missing pillar of sustainability. In this way, the ethical imperatives of the SDGs and the values implicit in the discourses on sustainable development open up new possibilities for transdisciplinary research in the social sciences [ 46 , 47 ].

Research on SDG indicators has also been relevant in the academic world, as they offer an opportunity to replace conventional progress metrics such as gross domestic product (GDP) with other metrics more consistent with the current paradigm of development and social welfare that takes into account such aspects as gender equality, urban resilience and governance [ 20 , 48 ].

The study of the role of certain development agents, including companies, universities or supranational organisations, also opens up new areas of investigation for researchers. Some studies have shown the enthusiastic acceptance of the SDGs by companies [ 22 , 49 ]. For Bebbington and Unerman [ 50 ], the study of the role of organisations in achieving the SDGs should be centred around three issues: challenging definitions of entity boundaries to understand their full impacts, introducing new conceptual frameworks for analysis of the context within which organisations operate and re-examining the conceptual basis of justice, responsibility and accountability. On the other hand, the academic community has recognized that knowledge and education are two basic pillars for the transition towards sustainable development, so it may also be relevant to study the responsibility of higher education in achieving the SDGs [ 47 , 50 ]. Institutional sustainability and governance processes are issues that should be addressed in greater depth through research [ 47 ].

Finally, some authors have highlighted the role of information technologies (ICT) in achieving the SDGs [ 23 ] and their role in addressing inequality or vulnerability to processes such as financial exclusion [ 51 ], which opens up new avenues for research.

Despite this huge impact of the SDGs on academic research, to the best of our knowledge, an overall analysis of such an impact to understand its profoundness and capillarity is missing in the literature. To date, reviews have focused on the implementation of specific SDGs [ 52 – 61 ], on specific topics and collectives [ 62 – 70 ], on traditional fields of knowledge, now reconsidered in light of the SDGs [ 71 – 73 ] and on contributions from specific regions or countries [ 74 , 75 ]. By relying on scientometric techniques and data mining analyses, this paper collects and analyses the more than 5,000 papers published on the SDGs to pursue this challenging goal and fill this knowledge gap.

This article aims to provide a critical review of the scientific research on SDGs, a concept that has emerged based on multiple streams of thinking and has begun to be consolidated as of 2015. As such, global references on this topic are identified and highlighted to manage pre-existing knowledge to understand relationships among researchers and with SDG dimensions to enhance the presently dispersed understanding of this subject and its areas of further development. A scientometric meta-analysis of publications on SDGs is conducted to achieve this objective. Mainstream journals from the Web of Science (WoS) are used to identify current topics, the most involved journals, the most prolific authors, and the thematic areas around which the current academic SDG debate revolves.

Once Section 1 has revised on the related literature to accomplish the main objective, Section 2 presents the research methodology. Section 3 presents the main results obtained, and Section 4 critically discusses these results. The conclusion and the main limitations of the study are presented in Section 5.

2. Materials and methods

In methodological terms, this research applies scientometrics as a meta-analytical means to study the evolution of documented scientific knowledge on the Sustainable Development Goals [ 76 – 81 ], taking as a secondary source of information academic contributions (i.e. articles, reviews, editorials, etc.) indexed in the Web of Science (WoS). To ensure that only peer-reviewed contributions authored by individual researchers are retrieved and that such publications have a worldwide prestige assessment, all of them should be published on journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR), either as part of the Sciences Citation Index Expanded or the Social Sciences Citation Index [ 82 – 84 ].

Following the recommendations of previous studies [ 85 ], it was decided to apply the next search vector from 2015 to 2020 to achieve the research objectives TS = (Sustainable NEAR/0 Development NEAR/0 Goals), which allows the extraction of data with 67 fields for each article registered in WoS.

As the first step, to give meaning to subsequent analyses, we tested the presence of exponential growth in the production of documented knowledge that allows a continuous renewal of knowledge [ 76 , 86 ].

As a second action, given the recent nature of the subject studied, it is of interest to map the playing field [ 87 ] using VOSviewer software version 1.6.16 [ 88 ], to know which topics are most addressed in the matter of SDGs. This analysis seeks an approach, both through the concentration of Keyword Plus® [ 89 ] and by analysing the references used as input in the production of knowledge, which can be treated as cocitations, coupling-citations and cross-citations [ 90 ], using the h-index, in citation terms, as discriminant criteria in the selection of articles [ 91 – 93 ]. This methodology will allow us to establish production, impact and relationship metrics [ 80 , 85 , 87 , 94 , 95 ].

Finally, it is of interest to explore the possible concentrations that may arise. Using Lotka’s Law, we estimated the possible prolific authors and their areas of work in SDGs, and using Bradford’s Law, we conducted a search of a possible adjustment to a geometric series of the concentration zones of journals and therefore a potential nucleus where a profuse discussion on SDGs is taking place [ 96 – 100 ].

3.1. Configuration of the academic production on SDGs

The results present a total of 5,281 articles for a period of six years (2015–2020) in 1,135 journals, with over 60% of these documents published in the last two years. The total of articles is distributed among authors affiliated with 7,418 organisations from 181 countries/regions, giving thematic coverage to 183 categories of the Journal Citation Report-Web of Science (JCR-WoS). Table 1 shows the distribution among the top ten JCR-WoS categories, highlighting the prevalence of journals indexed in green and environmental sciences and, thus, in the Science Index-Expanded.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t001

3.2. Existence of research critical mass

Fig 1 shows the regression model for the period 2015–2020, the last year with complete records consolidated in the Web of Science. The results obtained show significant growth in the number of studies on SDGs, with an R 2 adjustment greater than 96%. The exponential nature of the model shows that a ‘critical mass’ is consolidating around the research on this topic, as proposed by the Law of Exponential Growth of Science over Time [ 76 ], which in some way gives meaning to this research and to obtaining derived results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.g001

3.3. Establishment of concentrations

In accordance with Lotka’s Law, 22,336 authors were identified of the 5,281 articles under study. From this author set, 136 (≈sqrt (22,336)) are considered prolific authors with a contribution to nine or more works. However, a second restriction, even more demanding, is to identify those prolific authors who are also prolific in contemporary terms. Although SDG studies are recent, the growth production rates are extremely high. As previously shown, for the period 2015–2020, 64% of the publications are concentrated between 2019–2020. Based on this second restriction, for 3,400 articles of the 5,281 articles published in 2019 and 2020, and a total of 15,120 authors, only eight prolific authors manage to sustain a publication number that equals or exceeds nine articles. These authors are listed and characterized in Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t002

The analysis shown in Table 2 highlights the University of Washington’s participation in health issues with Murray and Hay (coauthors of eight articles in the period 2019–2020), who are also important in the area of health for the prolific authors Yaya and Bhutta. The environmental SDGs mark a strong presence with Abhilash, Leal-Filho and Kalin. The affiliation of Abhilsash (Banaras Hindu University) is novel, as it is not part of the classic world core in knowledge production that is largely concentrated in the United States and Europe. It is worth noting that other prolific authors belong to nonmainstream knowledge production world areas, such as Russia or Pakistan. Professor Alola also deserves mention; not only is he the only contemporary prolific author producing in the area of economics, but he is also producing knowledge in Turkey.

In the same way, at the journal level, the potential establishment of concentration areas and determination of a deep discussion nucleus are analysed using Bradford’s law.

With a percentage error of 0.6%, between the total journal number and the total journal number estimated by the Bradford series, the database shows a core of 18 journals (2%) where one in three articles published are concentrated (see Table 3 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t003

Regarding the number of contributions by journal, Sustainability has the largest number of studies on SDGs, in which 689 (13%) of the 5,281 articles studied are concentrated. The Journal of Cleaner Production, indexed to WoS categories related to Environmental SDGs, is the second most prominent journal, with 2.7% participation of the articles (147). Both journals are followed by the multidisciplinary journal Plos One, with 2.2% of the total dataset. In terms of impact factor, the 60 points of the health journal The Lancet are superlative in the whole, which in the other cases ranges between 2.000 and 7.246. As shown in Table 4 , we have developed a “Prominence ranking” by weighting article production by impact factor. This metric shows The Lancet, with only 40 articles on SDGs, as the most relevant journal, followed by Sustainability, which becomes relevant due to the high number of publications (689) despite an impact factor of 2.576. These journals are followed by the Journal of Cleaner Production with 147 articles and an impact factor of 7.246.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t004

3.4. Thematic coverage

Concerning the thematic coverage, Fig 2A and 2B show a diversity of 7,003 Keyword Plus® (KWP), consistently connected to a total of 7,141 KWP assigned by Clarivate as metadata to the set of 5,281 articles studied, which presents a strong concentration in a small number of terms (red colour in the heat map generated with VOSviewer version 1.6.16).

a) Keywords Plus® heatmap and b) heat map zoom to highlight the highest concentration words, data source WoS, 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.g002

Based on this result, a concentration sphere with 85 KWP (= sqrt (7,141)) is established according to Zipf’s Law, which is presented in 50 or more articles out of the total of 5,281. Moreover, a central concentration sphere of 9 KWPs (= sqrt (85)) can be found, with keywords present in a range of 178 to 346 articles out of a total of 5,281. These nine pivotal keywords are all connected in terms of co-occurrence (associated by Clarivate two or more to the same article) and within papers with an average number of citations in WoS that vary from 9.27 to 16.69, as shown in Table 5 . The nine most prominent key words in relation to the study of the SDGs are health, climate change, management, impact, challenges, governance, systems, policy and framework. These terms already suggest some of the themes around which the debate and research in this area revolves.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t005

The prominence of these keywords is obtained by combining the level of occurrence and average citations (see Table 5 ): on the one hand, the occurrence or number of articles with which the KWP is associated (e.g., Management, 346) and, on the other hand, the average citations presented by the articles associated with these words (e.g., Framework. 9.27). The final score (prominence) mixes both concepts, given the product of the occurrences and the average citations of each KWP in proportion to the mean values (e.g., (330 * 16.69)/(246 * 11.96) = 1.9).

3.5. Relations within the academic contributions

The coupling-citation analysis using VOSviewer identifies the 5,281 articles under study, of which only those found in the h-index as a whole have been considered (the h-index in the database is 81, as there are 81 articles cited 81 or more times). The bibliographic coupling analysis found consistent connections in only 73 of these articles, gathered in seven clusters. Such clusters and unconnected articles are represented in Fig 3 .

Data source WoS. 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.g003

In simple terms, discrimination belonging to one cluster or another depends on the total link number that an article has with the other 80 articles based on the use of the common references. Table 6 specifies the articles belonging to the same publication cluster in relation to Fig 3 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t006

Bibliographic coupling analysis can also be used to link the seven clusters that use common references with the field document title (TI), publication name (SO), Keyword Plus-KWP (ID), and research areas (SC). This allows the identification of the main topics of each cluster. As shown in Table 7 , cluster 1 (red) concerns environmental and public affairs; cluster 2 (green), health; cluster 3 (blue), economics; cluster 4 (yellow), health–the burden of disease; cluster 5 (violet), economics–Kuznets curve; cluster 6 (light blue), energy; and cluster 7 (orange), soil—land.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t007

3.6. Outstanding contributions in the field

The cocitation analysis identified a total of 232,081 references cited by the 5,281 articles under study. It suggests taking as references to review those that present 44 or more occurrences in the database (232,081/5,281). This method results in 34 articles that have been used as main inputs for the scientific production under analysis, cited between 44 and 504 times. A result worth highlighting is that one in three of these documents corresponds to reports from international organisations, such as the United Nations (UN), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), World Bank Group (WB) or World Health Organization (WHO). However, it is also possible to identify 21 peer-reviewed scientific contributions. These papers are identified in detail in Table 8 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t008

The cocitation analysis yields the degree of relationship of these 21 most cited research articles. It is how such references have been used simultaneously in the same article. Fig 4 displays this information (to help readers, it has also been included in Table 8 , centrality in 21 column).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.g004

According to the relationship level in the most cited article’s selection, the graph ( Fig 3 ) has been clustered in three colours: cluster 1 in red colour groups the highest articles proportion (9) published between 2013 and 2017 in 7 journals. These journals present an impact factor (IF) quite heterogeneous, with values ranging from 2.576 (Sustainability) to 60.39 (Lancet) and indexed in one or more of the following WoS categories: Environmental Sciences (4 journals), Green & Sustainable Science & Technology (4), Environmental Studies (2), Development Studies (1), Medicine, General & Internal (1), Multidisciplinary Sciences (1) and Regional & Urban Planning (1). Three of these articles are cited 130–150 times in the 5,281-article dataset and, at the same time, show a connection centrality of 95–100% with the other 20 articles in the graph, implying a high level of cocitation. The other two clusters group six articles each. The articles of cluster 2 (green colour) are included in a widespread WoS category set: Environmental Sciences (3 journals), Geosciences, Multidisciplinary (2), Ecology (1), Economics (1), Energy & Fuels (1), Environmental Studies (1), Green & Sustainable Science & Technology (1), Materials Science, Multidisciplinary (1), Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences (1) and Multidisciplinary Sciences (1). The research of Nilsson [ 101 ] was used as a reference in 176 of the 5,281 articles under study, showing a centrality of 100%. This great connection level is also featured in another less cited article [ 17 ] published in Earth’s Future. Finally, cluster 3 (blue) highlights six articles concentrated in three highly cited journals in the WoS categories: Medicine, General & Internal (Lancet) and Multidisciplinary Sciences (Nature and Science), whose IFs range from 41.9 to 60.4. In general, they are articles less connected (cocited) to the set of 21, with centralities of 30–90%. Two of these articles were referenced 140 times or more, although one was published in 2009. Thus, cluster 3 concentrates the references mainly in journals on environmental issues with scientific-technological orientation, as well as classic and high-impact WoS journals (The Lancet, Nature and Science). It is worth noting that some of these top journals may not be listed in Table 4 as they are not included in the Bradford’s nucleus, due to their comparatively low number of contributions published.

Finally, continuing with the thematic study, a cross-citation analysis was developed. Considering only the 81 articles that are part of the h-index of the total set of 5,821 articles under study, the citations that are presented among this elite article set are explored using VosViewer. The cross-citation analysis detects existing relationships between 37 of these 81 articles. Once the directionality of the citations has been analysed, a directed temporal graph is generated using Pajek 64 version 5.09, which is presented in Fig 5 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.g005

Fig 5 shows how these 37 highly cited articles are related to each other (the number after the name is the publication year), considering that some of these articles are cited as references in other articles in this set. The relationships between the articles in Fig 5 are complex and should be understood under a temporal sequence logic in the citation between two articles. However, some trends can be highlighted.

On the one hand, some contributions stand out for their centrality. Lim et al. [ 102 ] is connected with eight of the 37 articles (21.6%) on citing relationships, as is Fullman et al. [ 27 ], which relates to seven of the 37 articles (18.9%). Both authors researched health issues and are also coauthors of nine articles of the dataset under study. On the other hand, according to the SDG segmentation proposed, Hajer et al. [ 19 ] and Le Blanc [ 12 ] are recognized as seminal articles in social SDGs, since they contribute to the production of other subsequent articles in the set of 37. On the other hand, in health matters, seminal articles are Norheim et al. [ 103 ] and You et al. [ 104 ], two articles published in The Lancet whose citations also contribute to the production of the set introduced as Fig 5 .

4. Discussion

The main purpose of this paper was to develop a critical and comprehensive scientometric analysis of the global academic literature on the SDGs from 2015 to 2020, conducted using the WoS database. The attained results have made it possible to comprehend and communicate to the scientific community the current state of the debate on the SDGs, thus offering insights for future lines of research.

To achieve the objectives, the present study analysed a broad spectrum of 5,281 articles published in 1,135 WoS journals. A first aspect that is striking is the great diversity of topics addressed in these studies, which reflects the multidimensionality of the SDGs. Despite this, more than half of the articles are concentrated in two JCR-WoS categories (Environmental Sciences and Green Sustainable Science Technology), a percentage that exceeds 80% if the categories Environmental Studies and Public Environmental Occupational Health are added. Thus, on the one hand, the size of the body of literature and the broad spectrum of topics more than covers the four perspectives of analysis that are relevant in research on the SDGs, according to Hajer et al. [ 19 ]: planetary boundaries, the safe and just operating space, the energetic society and, last, green competition. However, on the other hand, results also highlight a strong focus on the environmental aspects of the SDGs, which undoubtedly concentrate the most contributions.

The Sustainable Development Goals constitute an area of research that has experienced exponential scientific growth, a tendency already suggested by previous studies [ 81 , 105 ], thus complying with the fundamental principles of Price’s law [ 76 ], which suggests the need for this exponential growth to manifest a continuous renewal of knowledge on the subject under study. The results of this study highlight a significant increase in the number of articles published in the last two years, given that six out of ten articles were published in 2019 or 2020. This tendency confirms how the SDGs continue to arouse great interest in the scientific community and that the debate on the interpretation of sustainable development is still open and very present in academia.

The variety of knowledge areas from which science can approach the SDGs demonstrates the different avenues that exist to address different research questions and their multidimensional nature, as anticipated by Pradhan et al. [ 17 ], a dispersion not far from the traditional fields of knowledge or the conventional dimensions of sustainability. Investigating the reasons for this dispersion in academic research on the SDGs may be a topic of great interest, as anticipated by Burford et al. [ 47 ] and Le Blanc [ 12 ], since understanding the phenomenon of development can only be achieved if the main challenges, both current and future, can be viewed holistically and comprehensively. Along these lines, Imaz and Eizagirre [ 106 ] state that the complexity of the study of the SDGs is undoubtedly marked by their aspiration for universality, by their broad scope encompassing the three basic pillars of sustainable development (economic development, environmental sustainability and social inclusion) and by their desire for integration, motivated by the complexity of the challenges and by the countless interlinkages and interdependencies.

This natural multidimensionality of the SDGs calls for strong cooperation and collaboration between researchers, universities, and countries. In this sense, the scientometric analysis provides good news, as more than a hundred prolific authors (defined as those authors who have published nine or more articles on this topic) have been identified, although these are reduced to eight in contemporary terms (2019 or 2020). This select group of eight authors who lead research and publishing on the SDGs (sometimes with dual or triple affiliations) produce knowledge for universities and research centres both in the global north and the global south: Canada, the U.S., the UK, Germany, Pakistan, Turkey, India, Benin, Russia and Cyprus. The protagonist role played by research institutes in countries in the north has already been acknowledged by previous studies [ 81 , 105 ]. However, the emergence of top scholars producing academic knowledge from developing countries is a more recent tendency, which underscores the pertinence of this analysis.

A closer look at the academic and research curricula of these authors leads to the conclusion that the study of the SDGs does not constitute a final field of research at present. These researchers come from very heterogeneous disciplines, so their approach to the SDGs is also multidisciplinary. To illustrate it with an example, the most cited article by Professor Abhilash of Banaras Hindu University (the most published contemporary prolific author along with Christopher Murray of the University of Washington), with 363 WoS citations in February 2021 alone, is on the use and application of pesticides in India.

In more concrete terms, following Wu et al.’s [ 23 ] classification as a frame of reference, the eight most prolific contemporary authors approach the SDG research problem from two main domains, one of an environmental nature (Abhilash, Leal-Filho, Alola and Kalin) and the other related to health (Murray, Yaya, Bhutta, and Hay). The most common journals where these authors publish on environmental issues are the Journal of Cleaner Production, Higher Education, Water and Science of the Total Environment. Health researchers, on the other hand, tend to publish mainly in the journals of the BMC group, The Lancet and Nature.

This wide diversity of academic fora can be clarified with the application of Bradford’s laws, which identified a core of 18 journals that bring together the debates and academic discussions about the SDGs. It is worth noting that the 18 journals that form the core are distributed in 16 different thematic areas or WoS categories: Development Studies; Ecology; Economics; Education & Educational Research; Engineering, Environmental; Environmental Sciences; Environmental Studies; Green & Sustainable Science & Technology; Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism; International Relations; Medicine, General & Internal; Multidisciplinary Sciences; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Regional & Urban Planning; and Water Resources. On the one hand, this wide dispersion in terms of areas of knowledge suggests that research on the SDGs can be studied from different approaches and disciplines, which opens up a wide range of possibilities for researchers from different branches of scientific knowledge, as well as an opportunity for multidisciplinary collaborations. On the other hand, this heterogeneity might also hinder the communication and dissemination of learning from one field to another. The cross-citation analysis provided in Fig 5 suggests this possibility, as seminal works are related to thematic disciplines more than to the seminal contributions identified in Table 8 .

In this sense, it is interesting to analyse the top-cited articles in the database, as they provide a clear picture of the field of knowledge. One-third of these contributions are provided by international institutions, such as the United Nations Development Program or the World Bank, which provide analyses of a normative nature. This prevalence reflects some weaknesses in the academic basis of the analysis of the SDGs as a whole from a scientific approach, an idea reinforced when the most cited papers are analysed. In fact, only six papers have reached more than 100 citations by contributions included in the database [ 4 , 12 , 24 , 29 , 101 , 107 ]. Not only were these papers largely published before the approval of the SDGs themselves, but half of them are editorial material, inviting contributions but are not evidence-based research papers. Highlighting the nature of the most cited contributions does not diminish their value but does speak to the normative approach that underlies the analysis of the SDGs when addressed not individually but as an overall field of research.

Regarding topics and themes of interest, the scientometric analysis carried out in this research identified a strong concentration around a small number of terms, as represented in a heat map ( Fig 2A and 2B ). All these topics constitute a potential source of inspiration for future research on the subject.

Through an analysis of the main keywords, it can be seen that the studies focused on the traditional areas of health and climate change. However, these keywords also provide new elements for discussion, as they uncover some other areas of study that have been highlighted by the literature. First, the appearance of the term Management as one of the main keywords reveals the importance that researchers give to the role of business in achieving the SDGs, as already suggested by Scheyvens et al. [ 49 ] and Spangenber [ 22 ]. Second, the need to address new governance processes and to seek global solutions, as suggested by authors such as Sachs [ 4 ], underscore the keywords Governance, Policy and Framework, all aspects deemed crucial for the achievement of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda [ 108 ]. Finally, other keywords such as Impact, Challenges or Systems are a clear example of the complexity and interdependencies that exist in research on the SDGs, considered an essential aspect by Griggs et al. [ 13 ] or Le Blanc [ 12 ]. The attained results highlight some of the connections between different domains of sustainable development by identifying categories and themes that are highly related in the groupings that emerge from the bibliographic coupling analysis.

In general terms, the holistic vision of development embodied by the SDGs has drawn the attention of very different disciplines, fields and areas of scientific knowledge. However, seven major areas of research have emerged: environmental and public affairs, health, economics, health-burden of disease, economics-Kuznets curve, energy and soil-land. These areas are not far removed from the current paradigm of sustainable development, where poverty or inequality are problems that are not exclusive to developing countries [ 5 , 6 ]. Thus, emerging issues that mainly affect first world countries, including urban planning, the impact of activities such as hospitality, sport or tourism, or education for development, are starting to stand out with increasing intensity, which continues to open new avenues for future research.

In short, the results of the scientometric analysis have provided a systematized overview of the research conducted in relation to the SDGs since the approval of the 2030 Agenda. Among other things, the critical analysis has identified the main trends with respect to the number of publications, the most relevant journals, the most prolific authors, institutions and countries, and the collaborative networks between authors and the research areas at the epicentre of the debate on the SDGs. As Olawumi and Chan [ 105 ] already acknowledged, the power research networks applied to the study of the SDGs offer valuable insights and in-depth understandings not only of key scholars and institutions but also about the state of research fields, emerging trends and salient topics.

Consequently, the results of this work contribute to the systematic analysis of scientific research on the SDGs, which can be of great interest for decision-making at the governmental level (e.g., which research to fund and which not to fund), at the corporate level and at the level of research centres, both public and private. Furthermore, the scientometric analysis carried out may provide clues for academics regarding future lines of research and topics of interest where the debate on the SDGs is currently situated.

5. Conclusions, limitations and future research lines

As could not be otherwise, all research in the field of social sciences has a series of limitations that must be clearly and transparently explained. The two most relevant in this study are the following.

First, although the study of the SDGs is a recent object of research, the rate of publication is growing exponentially, such that scientific knowledge is renewed practically in its entirety every two years. The only articles that escape this scientometric obsolescence are those with a high number of citations (h-index). This circumstance generates a temporal limitation in terms of the conclusions obtained in the present investigation, conclusions that should be revised periodically until the growth of publications stabilizes by adopting a logistic form, as recommended by Sun and Lin [ 109 ].

Second, the articles used as the basis for this research were restricted to those published in the JCR-WoS. This decision was made for two main reasons. On the one hand, the limitation was to eliminate potential distortions that could occur as a result of the constant growth of journals that are incorporated annually into other databases, such as ESCI-WoS (Emerging Sources Citation Index). On the other hand, it is impossible to compare impact indices if integrating other databases such as Scopus.

We are aware of these limitations, which for developing a more selective analysis imply assuming the cost of less coverage in exchange.

Regarding future lines of research, the analysis highlights how the study of the SDGs is failing to balance their economic, social and sustainability components, as it still maintains an overall focus on environmental studies.

This suggests the urgency of increasing studies on social SDGs, key topics on the 2030 Agenda including equity (SDGs 4, 5 and 10), social development (SDGs 11 and 16) and governance (SDG 17). These topics are part of the public discourse and currently a source of social pressure in many latitudes, but they are still research areas that are necessary to deepen.

Economic sustainability studies are more present, but highly concentrated, in health economics, as previously acknowledged by Meschede [ 81 ]. Academic research on the SDGs against poverty (SDG 1) and hunger (SDG 2) has not achieved such a prominent place as health. Even less so, the economics of technological development (SDGs 8 and 9), which are recognized as crucial for economic development.

Finally, the environmental SDGs do not achieve a balance among themselves either. Academic research has prioritized action for climate (SDG 13) and industrial and human consumption, mainly water (SDG 6) and energy (SDG 7). New research should be developed in the area of land (SDG 15), life under the sea (SDG 14) and sustainable production (SDG 12).

Supporting information

S1 dataset..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.s001

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 9. Nations United. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York, NY, USA: United Nations; 2015.

Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 03 September 2018
• Volume 14 , pages 681–695, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Ben Purvis   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8883-5472 1 ,
• Yong Mao 1 , 2 &
• Darren Robinson 1 , 3  

470k Accesses

1336 Citations

76 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The three-pillar conception of (social, economic and environmental) sustainability, commonly represented by three intersecting circles with overall sustainability at the centre, has become ubiquitous. With a view of identifying the genesis and theoretical foundations of this conception, this paper reviews and discusses relevant historical sustainability literature. From this we find that there is no single point of origin of this three-pillar conception, but rather a gradual emergence from various critiques in the early academic literature of the economic status quo from both social and ecological perspectives on the one hand, and the quest to reconcile economic growth as a solution to social and ecological problems on the part of the United Nations on the other. The popular three circles diagram appears to have been first presented by Barbier (Environ Conserv 14:101, doi: 10.1017/s0376892900011449, 1987 ), albeit purposed towards developing nations with foci which differ from modern interpretations. The conceptualisation of three pillars seems to predate this, however. Nowhere have we found a theoretically rigorous description of the three pillars. This is thought to be in part due to the nature of the sustainability discourse arising from broadly different schools of thought historically. The absence of such a theoretically solid conception frustrates approaches towards a theoretically rigorous operationalisation of ‘sustainability’.

Similar content being viewed by others

Sustainability Definitions, Historical Context, and Frameworks

Introduction: The Anthropology of Sustainability: Beyond Development and Progress

A global view on sustainability: a review of the book “Sustainability perspectives: science, policy and practice” by Peter A. Khaiter and Marina G. Erechtchoukova (eds.), Springer Nature Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 1st ed. 2020, 362 pp., ISBN: 978-3-030-19552-6 (Softcover), US$ 109.99

Christian T. K.-H. Stadtländer

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The last 20 years have witnessed a surge in publications on ‘sustainability’, to the extent where ‘sustainability science’ is often seen as a distinct field (Kates et al. 2001 ; Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006 ; Schoolman et al. 2012 ; Kajikawa et al. 2014 ). Yet despite this, ‘sustainability’ remains an open concept with myriad interpretations and context-specific understanding.

One particularly prevalent description of ‘sustainability’ employs three interconnected ‘pillars’ (Basiago 1999 ; Pope et al. 2004 ; Gibson 2006 ; Waas et al. 2011 ; Moldan et al. 2012 ; Schoolman et al. 2012 ; Boyer et al. 2016 ), ‘dimensions’ (Stirling 1999 ; Lehtonen 2004 ; Carter and Moir 2012 ; Mori and Christodoulou 2012 ), ‘components’ (Du Pisani 2006 ; Zijp et al. 2015 ), ‘stool legs’ (Dawe and Ryan 2003 ; Vos 2007 ), ‘aspects’ (Goodland 1995 ; Lozano 2008 ; Tanguay et al. 2010 ), ‘perspectives’ (Brown et al. 1987 ; Arushanyan et al. 2017 ), etc. encompassing economic, social, and environmental (or ecological) factors or ‘goals’. It should be noted here that these competing terms are primarily used interchangeably, and our preference for ‘pillars’ is largely arbitrary. This tripartite description is often, but not always, presented in the form of three intersecting circles of society, environment, and economy, with sustainability being placed at the intersection, as shown in Fig.  1 . This graphic is found in various forms as a descriptor of ‘sustainability’ within academic literature, policy documentation, business literature, and online, and whilst often described as a ‘Venn diagram’, it commonly lacks the strict logical properties associated with such a construction. Alternative manifestations include the three depicted visually as nested concentric circles or literal ‘pillars’, or independent of visual aids as distinct categories for sustainability goals or indicators. Whilst attractive for their simplicity, the meaning conveyed by these diagrams and the wider ‘pillar’ conception itself is often unclear, hampering its ability to be coherently operationalised. If we are prepared to overlook the lack of semantic clarity and confusion of competing terms, it can be argued that the ‘three-pillar’ conception of ‘sustainability’ (or ‘sustainable development’ Footnote 1 ) is a dominant interpretation within the literature. Yet the conceptual origins of this description, and the point at which it emerged into the mainstream, are far from clear, and its exact meaning is a matter of contention. As Thompson puts it, “much of the…discourse around sustainability…is organized around…the three-circle rubric without much disciplined thought about how it does and does not translate into a more comprehensive understanding of sustainability” (Thompson 2017 ).

Left, typical representation of sustainability as three intersecting circles. Right, alternative depictions: literal ‘pillars’ and a concentric circles approach

Whilst much contemporary sustainability literature may centre around the UN’s more diverse set of sustainable development goals (SDGs), the three pillars themselves were explicitly embedded in their formulation (UN 2012a ). This paper aims to shed light on the origins of the ‘three pillars’, taking the structure of an initial review of the historical emergence of the concept of ‘sustainability’ from its disparate early roots to the genesis of ‘sustainable development’ in the 1970s and 1980s. This is followed by a literature survey tracking the early development of these concepts with an aim to probe the origins of the three pillars, prior to 2001, when the three circles diagram is first described as a ‘common view’ (Giddings et al. 2002 ). In the final discussion, we argue that the emergence of the three-pillar paradigm, with little theoretical foundation, is primarily the product of the specific origins of ‘sustainability’ as a concept, aided in part by the agenda of the various actors that helped to shape its early history.

Historical origins of ‘sustainability’

To understand the emergence of ‘sustainability’ into the mainstream in the 1980s, it is important to examine the broad roots from which the concept emerged. This is confounded by the fact that much of the work whose concepts feed into the narrative predate the language of ‘sustainability’.

Authors such as Grober, Caradonna, and Du Pisani have contributed much to shedding light on a wide range of early roots (Du Pisani 2006 ; Grober 2012 ; Caradonna 2014 ). Of particular note are the forestry experts of the 17th and 18th centuries such as Evelyn, and Carlowitz, who introduced the concept of sustainable yield in response to dwindling forest resources across Europe (Warde 2011 ; Grober 2012 ). Of relevance too are the early political economists such as Smith, Mill, Ricardo, and Malthus who, in the shadow of the industrial revolution, questioned the limits of both economic and demographic growth, and recognised the inherent trade-offs between wealth generation and social justice (Lumley and Armstrong 2004 ; Caradonna 2014 ). The natural scientists and ecologists of the 19th century and early 20th century too help precipitate the schism between the anthropocentric conservationists on one hand, prescribing conservation of natural resources for sustainable consumption, and the biocentric preservationists, who call for preservation of nature due to its inherent worth (Callicott and Mumford 1997 ).

The modern concept, along with the language of sustainability in a global sense did not emerge, however, until the late 20th century. The Club of Rome’s ‘ Limits to Growth ’ argues for a “world system … that is sustainable” (Meadows et al. 1972 ); this, claims Grober ( 2012 , p155), marks the first modern appearance of the term in its broad global context. The same year, in ‘A Blueprint for Survival’ , which draws on the unpublished manuscript for ‘Limits to Growth’ , the editors of The Ecologist present their proposals for the creation of a ‘sustainable society’ (The Ecologist 1972 ). Whatever the exact origins of the language, it is from the early 1970s that the concept snowballs; the World Council of Churches’ commission on ‘The Future of Man and Society’ in 1974 deem the notion of a ‘sustainable society’ more palatable than the language of limits (Grober 2012 , p167). The Ecology Party (later to become the British Green Party) adopted their ‘Manifesto for a Sustainable Society’ in 1975 (The Ecology Party 1975 ), and a series of books were published prominently featuring the language of sustainability (Stivers 1976 ; Meadows 1977 ; Pirages 1977 ; Cleveland 1979 ; Coomer 1979 ).

In the interests of brevity, we leave much of the earlier discussion to authors already mentioned. Instead we pick up the narrative at the cusp of the 1960s environmental movements, choosing to focus on the strand of ‘development’ and how its critique contributed to the rise of ‘sustainable development’ in the 1980s.

A twin critique of ‘economic development’

Soon after the Second World War, there emerged a consensus in the Western world that there was an urgent need for international efforts to aid the ‘development’ of ‘less advanced countries’ (Arndt 1987 , p49). It was during this time that the notion of ‘economic development’, outside of Marxist discourse, evolved from specifically denoting the exploitation of natural resources in a colonial context, to refer to a rise in material well-being indicated by an increase in the flow of goods and services, and growth in per capita income (Arndt 1981 ). Thus from the 1950s, ‘economic development’ became almost synonymous with ‘economic growth’, which in turn had become a major goal of Western economic policy, although the application of the former term was primarily reserved for poorer countries (Arndt 1987 , p51). Truman’s 1949 ‘Point Four’ marked the first large-scale technical assistance development programme, notions of building up capital followed, and by 1961 the United Nations declared “International Trade as the primary instrument for economic development” (ibid. p72).

The late 1960s and early 1970s witnessed the rise of the modern environmental movement in the West (Rome 2003 ; Du Pisani 2006 ; Tulloch 2013 ). Popular publications such as Carson’s ‘ Silent Spring ’ (1962), Ehrlich’s ‘ The Population Bomb ’ (1968), and The Ecologist’s ‘ A Blueprint for Survival’ (1972), coupled with widespread media coverage of environmental disasters, such as the Santa Barbra oil spill (1969), acted to increase awareness of the magnitude of the widespread environmental destruction caused by humans. It has also been argued that the environment and quality of life issues came to the fore in the West at this point because ‘basic economic needs’ had been met following the economic growth of the post-war period (Dunlap and Mertig 1991 ; Martínez-Alier 1995 ).

The questioning of economic growth began to re-emerge, with the prominent works of ‘ Limits to Growth ’ (1972) and Schumacher’s ‘ Small is Beautiful ’ (1973) both arguing that the modern growth-based economy was unsustainable on a finite planet. The 1973 Oil Crisis, however, and the worldwide recession that followed, helped to crystallise the idea of the limitations of growth into both the mainstream and the academic discourse (Du Pisani 2006 ). This early discourse was radical and argued that the capitalist economic growth of the Western world was fundamentally incompatible with ecological and social sustainability and called for structural reform (Van Der Heijden 1999 ; Tulloch 2013 ; Tulloch and Neilson 2014 ).

Coupled with an environmental critique of the economic growth paradigm in the West was a broad criticism of economic development programmes being implemented in the developing world for their lack of environmental considerations. Caldwell details several of numerous cases of failed development projects presented at the 1968 Airlie House Conference on Ecological Aspects of International Development (Caldwell 1984 ). The recurring theme of these projects was a tendency to prioritise short-term gains over serious considerations of ecological impacts, either to biodiversity or ecosystem services. This forms part of a broader critique of the seeming hubristic belief inherent in the mainstream development discourse of man’s ability to dominate and control natural ecological processes (Woodhouse 1972 ).

At the same time it was becoming apparent to many that the ‘progress’ that had been promised by the early economic growth-based development programmes was in many ways failing to materialise. Whilst the post-war economic boom had seen a broad rise in living standards in the West, the focus began to shift to the gross inequalities and poverties that still existed in many of these societies (Hicks and Streeten 1979 ). This led to a second prominent counter-discourse in the development literature, critiquing the focus on economic growth, with calls for a shift from a focus of means to ends, to better consider social problems, and a ‘basic needs’ approach. Arndt suggests that the first prominent example of this was Seers’ ‘ The Meaning of Development’ (1969), which argued that economic growth not only failed as a solution to social difficulties, but often was the cause of them. Seers argued that indicators of poverty, unemployment, and inequality provided a truer depiction of the state of ‘development’ or ‘progress’ (Seers 1969 ; Arndt 1987 , p91). Notable too is Hirsch’s ‘Social Limits to Growth’ (1976), which probes the pursuit of growth and its fetishisation at the societal level, arguing that it acts to perpetuate inequalities, and that in fact the social limits to e.g. productivity gains are more prescient than distant physical limits (Hirsch 1995 ). This broad social critique of growth-focused development received attention from both the International Labour Office (ILO) and the World Bank (see e.g. Hicks and Streeten 1979 ; ILO 1976 ; Streeten and Burki 1978 ), to the extent that it was considered by some to be the “current consensus” (Arndt 1987 , p92).

The 1972 UN Conference on the Human–Environment in Stockholm marked the first global summit to consider human impacts on the environment, and the first major attempt to reconcile economic development with environmental integrity which were commonly regarded as incompatible (Caldwell 1984 ). Emergent from the conference was the concept of ‘environmentally sound development’, which by 1973 had been coined as ‘eco-development’ (Clinton 1977 ; Mebratu 1998 ). ‘Eco-development’ was defined by Ignacy Sachs in 1978 as “an approach to development aimed at harmonising social and economic objectives with ecologically sound management, in a spirit of solidarity with future generations”, further calling for “another kind of qualitative growth” (Glaeser 1984 , p25). Credited as one of the earliest ecological economists, Sachs, as an adviser to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), was influential in promoting this growth-sceptic concept in policy circles during the 1970s (Gómez-Baggethun and Naredo 2015 ; Martinez-Alier 2015 ).

The core elements of ‘eco-development’ are described as the meeting of ‘essential human needs’, participation, environmental considerations, and the unifying principle of ‘self-reliance’, understood as not just freedom from the structural dependence on other nations, but freedom for the individual from the pressures of political powers or transnational corporations (Glaeser 1984 , pp25–28). Important was the discussion of both local and international power structures and how eco-development faced an uphill battle in challenging them. In this body of literature, economic growth plays something of a neutral role. Sachs downplays the notion of ‘trade-offs’ between environmental management and economic growth, instead arguing for “a different, environmentally prudent, sustainable, and socially responsible growth”, bearing remarkable similarities with later United Nations rhetoric (Glaeser 1984 , p216; Berr 2015 ). This approach seems to differ from that of other early ecological economists such as Daly and Mishan who suggested no-growth, and slow-growth economies (Daly 1973 ; Mishan 1977 ).

Whilst the environment was being reconciled with economic development, the ‘basic needs’ approach was being rejected by governments in the developing world; following the global economic slump of the late 1970s, there arose a tendency to see the aspirations of ‘modernisation’, and the creation of a ‘new international economic order’, as more important than, and incompatible with, a basic needs approach (Arndt 1987 , pp104–111). Coupled with this, Sachs claims the basic needs-focused ‘eco-development’ was vetoed as a term in international policy forms by the US administration (Gómez-Baggethun and Naredo 2015 ). With social critique somewhat pushed aside, McNamara, President of the World Bank, called for the need to “recapture the momentum of economic growth” (Arndt 1987 ).

By the 1980s, the early environmental movements had lost momentum, as the wave of the radical social movements broke and rolled back (Van Der Heijden 1999 ). Having been somewhat subdued, throughout the 1980s, the twin ecological and social critiques of economic development began to interweave with economic development under what was to be termed ‘sustainable development’ (O’Riordan 1985 ; Barbier 1987 ; Brown et al. 1987 ). Thus, in 1987 when the UN World Commission on Environment and Development published its report ‘ Our Common Future ’ (the Brundtland Report), calling for “a new era of economic growth—growth that is forceful and at the same time socially and environmentally sustainable”, the debate had come full circle: economic growth was no longer the problem, but it was the solution (UN 1987 ). Co-opting the eco-development argument of a ‘different quality’ of economic growth, a new ‘win–win’ scenario emerged by recasting the same old economic growth in “socially and environmentally sustainable” colours.

Assimilation into the mainstream: the institutionalising of ‘sustainable development’

Although the term had been in use for some time (e.g. IUCN, UNEP, WWF 1980 ), the Brundtland commission is widely credited with popularising the concept of ‘sustainable development’ by introducing it into international policy discourse (Basiago 1999 ; Castro 2004 ; Johnston et al. 2007 ; Pope et al. 2004 ; Redclift 2005 ; etc.). It defined ‘sustainable development’ as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. In the years following the publication of the Brundtland Report, ‘sustainable development’ became the dominant paradigm of the environmental movement, and the literature considering it grew exponentially.

The institutionalising of ‘sustainable development’ would continue with the ‘Rio Process’, initiated at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, where the world’s political leaders pledged their support to the principle of sustainable development (Jordan and Voisey 1998 ). Central to this was the publication of the ‘Rio Declaration’ consisting of 27 principles intending to guide future ‘sustainable development’, and ‘Agenda 21’ which articulates a plan for putting these principles into practice. Agenda 21 built upon the Brundtland Report, emphasising the problems of the North–South development divide, championing economic growth and free trade, and emphasised the need to link social and economic development with environmental protection (UN 1992 ). Subsequent summits occurred in 1997, 2002, and 2012.

Despite the importance of global efforts such as the Rio Declaration and Brundtland Report in bringing ‘sustainability’ into the mainstream policy discourse, the consensus building through compromise approach taken has been criticised. Tulloch argues these documents were responsible for transforming what was a “marginal counter-hegemonic radical movement” into a platform for legitimising and obscuring globalised neoliberal policy (Tulloch 2013 ). Indeed, the approach taken by the UN follows the assumptions that poverty causes environmental degradation; this environmental degradation can be reduced by reducing poverty; to reduce poverty, developing countries need economic growth, which requires freer markets (Castro 2004 ). This logic is at best simplistic (Lélé 1991 ), and at worst smuggling an inherently ideological agenda under the guise of benign necessity (Tulloch 2013 ), clearly running in direct opposition to the earlier growth-critical works. Indeed Dryzek, in his categorisation of environmental discourses, describes sustainability as ‘reformist’, in opposition to the ‘radical’ discourses advocating systemic change, such as the limits discourse (Dryzek 2005 , pp13–16).

Criticism of the almost ‘business-as-usual’ approach of ‘sustainable development’, which has been promoted to the mainstream by bodies such as the UN, has led to a heterogeneous counter-discourse. A common critique is of the ‘sufficiently vague’ (Daly 1996 ) definition promoted by the international mainstream, ambiguous enough to allow for consensus building, but devoid of much substance. By the mid-1990s, the concept of ‘sustainable development’ and the notion of ‘sustainability’ were in vogue (Gatto 1995 ), finding their way into academic literature and policy agendas around the globe.

Environment, economics, and the society: three pillars of sustainability emerge?

Despite the relative dearth of literature probing ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ conceptually, one conceptualisation, that of ‘three pillars’, environmental, economic, and social, has gained widespread traction. This is typically realised as the balancing of trade-offs between seemingly equally desirable goals within these three categorisations, although uses vary. One problematic facet of this conceptualisation, however, is its lack of theoretical development; there appears to be no original urtext from which it derives, seemingly just appearing in the literature and commonly taken at face value. As early as 2001, this approach has been presented as a ‘common view’ of sustainable development (Giddings et al. 2002 ), so commonplace it seems not to require a reference.

Although the ‘three pillars’ have become commonplace throughout the literature, they are not universal. Some works consider additional pillars such as institutional (Spangenberg et al. 2002 ; Turcu 2012 ), cultural (Soini and Birkeland 2014 ), and technical (Hill and Bowen 1997 ). Other frameworks bypass the compartmentalisation of sustainability completely. Milbrath for example presents a vision of a ‘sustainable society’ based on a set of defined values (Milbrath 1989 ), the ‘Natural Step’ framework is based upon four guiding criteria (Upham 2000 ), and Giddings et al.’s conceptualisation involves principles of equity (Giddings et al. 2002 ). More recently too, the SDGs developed by the UN have evolved an ‘integrated’ approach adopting 17 broad goals over a smaller number of categorisations.

The origins of the ‘three-pillar’ paradigm have been variously attributed to the Brundtland Report, Agenda 21, and the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (Moldan et al. 2012 ), yet in none of these documents is a clear framework or theoretical background made explicit. In what follows, in an attempt to uncover the origins of the ‘three pillars’, we analyse the documents of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which present the first widely cited conceptualisation of ‘sustainable development’ (Pezzey 1992 ; Sneddon 2000 ), and those of the United Nations, whose 1987 report is widely credited with bringing sustainable development to the mainstream. We then turn to the academic literature of the 1980s and 1990s which considers sustainability conceptually, prior to its 2001 description as a ‘common view’.

The first prominent occurrence of the phrase ‘sustainable development’ in published literature appeared in 1980 when the IUCN, in collaboration with the UNEP and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), published their ‘ World Conservation Strategy ’, subtitled ‘ Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development ’ (IUCN, UNEP, WWF 1980 ). This early conception of sustainable development is motivated by the need for economic development, with its social and economic objectives, to take conservation into account by considering resource limitations and ecosystem carrying capacity. Whilst there is no explicit mention of the three pillars, their roots can clearly be seen, and sustainable development is briefly defined as that which “must take account of social and ecological factors, as well as economic ones” (ibid. pI). It should be emphasised that these three aspects are not held up as a framework and no judgement is made upon them. The implication appears to be that the current development policy primarily focuses on economic objectives, when it is imperative to integrate conservation objectives into policy. There is no discussion of ‘trade-offs’, or the relative importance of the three objectives.

The IUCN Conference on Conservation and Development in Ottawa 1986 was convened to evaluate progress in implementing the World Conservation Strategy. It concluded with a definition: “The emerging paradigm of sustainable development… seeks … to respond to five broad requirements: integration of conservation and development; satisfaction of basic human needs; achievement of equity & social justice; provision for social self-determination and cultural diversity; and maintenance of ecological integrity” (Jacobs et al. 1987 ). These requirements cohere well with social and environmental aspects, but there is nothing to suggest a predecessor of anything approaching an economic pillar.

This appears to be a consistent narrative throughout the work of the IUCN. The successor to the World Conservation Strategy, ‘ Caring for the Earth ’, calls for development that is “both people-centered … and conservation-based” (IUCN, UNEP, WWF 1991 ). The strategy is based upon nine “interrelated and mutually supporting” principles of a “sustainable society”, including changing attitudes, conservation of Earth’s vitality and diversity, and a global alliance for attaining sustainability (ibid. pp8–12), and indicators for sustainability are presented under just two themes, “quality of life”, and “ecological sustainability” (ibid. p198). In 1996, an “increased emphasis given to people” was seen as an emerging issue, as well as the need to expand use of “legal and economic tools for conservation” (IUCN 1997 , pp43–45). At the same time, the models of sustainability being considered by the IUCN included the ‘Egg of Sustainability’ and the ‘Barometer of Sustainability’ both of which considered the dual goals of improving ecosystem wellbeing and human wellbeing as the essence of sustainability (IUCN 1996 ).

Apart from a short-lived consideration in the early 2000s, when intersecting circles are presented as the “conventional model of sustainable development” (IUCN 2004 , pp9–11), the IUCN thus largely avoids the use of the three pillars, preferring instead a model of sustainability that focuses on the goals of improving the ecosystem and human well-being. Discussion of the economy is generally focused on mitigating the negative impacts on the planet’s ecosystems of current practices and the need for a ‘greener’ economy.

The United Nations

The articulation of distinct social, economic, and environmental aspects of ‘sustainable development’ can be seen in Agenda 21 (1992) and are arguably implicit in the Brundtland Report (1987), although cultural and political/institutional aspects are also present. Indeed, Agenda 21 mentions “economic, social and environmental dimensions” of sustainable development (8.4.1), but there is no conceptual justification or framework presented (UN 1992 ).

Following the 1992 Rio Summit, the UN established the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) for the provision of guidance and monitoring of progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration. In 1995, a workshop involving policy makers, members of international organisations, and scientists was held with the intention of reviewing indicators of the “three principal aspects of sustainability” (environmental, social and economic) (UN 1995 , p3). The conclusions were that the CSD should work towards a core set of indicators which equally emphasise the “economic, social, environmental and institutional aspects of sustainable development”, with the extra inclusion of the institutional aspect being left unelaborated (ibid. p5). It has been argued that this inclusion was due to the institutional aspect being integral to addressing the problems of unsustainable development practice (Spangenberg et al. 2002 ).

The following year, the CSD published a testbed selection of 130 indicators, with the aim of having a “good set of indicators” by 2000. These indicators were categorised under the four aspects presented in the 1995 workshop (UN 1996 ). Despite this, the CSD does not use these four dimensions universally. A 1997 report on progress achieved since Rio is structured on the basis of three “mutually reinforcing components” of sustainable development, “economic growth, social development and environmental sustainability” with the aim of achieving “balanced achievement of sustained economic development, improved social equity and environmental sustainability” (UN 1997 , pp4–5), but with no discussion of the tensions between these objectives. The existence of “three components—economic and social development and environmental protection” is again emphasised in the sixth session report of the CSD (UN 1998 , p3).

In 2001 the CSD published the second edition of their indicator framework which maintains the categorisation of economic, social, institutional and environmental ‘dimensions’ of sustainable development (UN 2001a ). The goals of “advancement of social and institutional development, to maintain ecological integrity, and to ensure economic prosperity” are also mentioned (ibid. p21). By the third edition, however, the four dimensions were no longer elaborated explicitly to emphasise the “multi-dimensional nature” of sustainable development (UN 2007 ).

In parallel to the work of the CSD, the UN launched 8 millennium development goals (MDGs), to be achieved by the global community by 2015 (UN 2001b ). Interestingly, Goal 7 was to “ensure environmental sustainability”, although the concepts of social or economic sustainability are not explicitly explored. The report of the 2002 Earth Summit prescribes the need to “promote the integration of the three components of sustainable development—economic development, social development and environmental protection—as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars” (UN 2002 , p8). The need for “integration” of these pillars, and a “balanced and holistic approach” is emphasised (ibid. p128).

The narrative of “integrating economic, social and environmental aspects” of sustainable development continues throughout the report of the next World Summit 10 years later (UN 2012b ). Following the 2012 summit, an ‘Open Working Group’ was established to develop the SDGs for the UN’s ‘post-2015 process’, with part of the brief being to “incorporate in a balanced way all three dimensions of sustainable development and their linkages” (ibid. p47). Indeed, when the General Assembly adopted the finalised SDGs in 2015, it is stated how the goals are “integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental” (UN 2015 , p1). However, these three dimensions do not explicitly form any part of the framework of the 17 goals.

The academic literature

Whilst the IUCN introduced the term ‘sustainable development’ into the mainstream in 1980, it received little conceptualisation in the academic literature prior to the 1987 publication of the Brundtland Report. Within this period, there existed notably Caldwell’s consideration of the history of ‘ecologically sustainable development’ as the “uneasy union” of ecological and economic values; in the absence of three explicit pillars, the need for holistic thinking was emphasised, as well as “social, legal, religious, and demographic” factors (Caldwell 1984 ). O’Riordan too proposes “two main kinds of sustainable utilization: ecological and sociocultural [later ‘socioeconomic’]” (O’Riordan 1985 , p1443).

In 1987, Brown et al. identified three “perspectives, or contexts, in which the term [sustainability] is used” emerging from their review of the literature (Brown et al. 1987 ). The ‘social’ perspective concerns itself with the “continued satisfaction of basic human needs” of individuals, the ‘ecological’ focuses on the “continued productivity and functioning of ecosystems” as well as the “protection of genetic resources and the conservation of biological diversity”, and the “elusive” ‘economic’ definition entails resolving “the limitations that a sustainable society must place on economic growth” (pp716–717). To Brown et al., these are different perspectives on the same concept which have emerged from the literature, closer to observation than anything approaching a conceptual framework.

The same year, Barbier articulates the development process as “an interaction among three systems: the biological (and other resource) system, the economic system, and the social system”, presenting an early antecedent of the intersecting circles diagram (Barbier 1987 ). Each system is ascribed goals: “genetic diversity, resilience, biological productivity”; “satisfying basic needs (reducing poverty), equity-enhancing, increasing useful goods and services”; and “cultural diversity, institutional sustainability, social justice, participation”, respectively. The objective of sustainable development then is to “maximise the goals across all these systems through an adaptive process of trade-offs” (p104). This work marks what seems to be the first explicit conceptualisation of the pillars, complete with diagram, and discussion of inherent ‘trade-offs’. Indeed, it is claimed that Barbier first presented this as a result of a 1986 meeting within the IIED, where he was working as an economist, proposing a more analytical approach to understanding sustainable development (Holmberg 1992 , p23). Barbier too identifies himself as the progenitor of the ‘Venn diagram’ in a later work (Barbier and Burgess 2017 ), at one point referring to it as “infamous” (Barbier 2011 ).

Cocklin draws on Barbier, conceptualising ‘sustainability’ in terms of a set of goals relating to social, economic, and environmental subsystems. The relation of sustainability to other management goals such as resilience and economic efficiency is considered to be ultimately ideological in nature, and thus trade-offs occur both internally and externally (Cocklin 1989 ).

Dixon and Fallon differentiate between purely ‘biological/physical’, and ‘socioeconomic’ definitions of sustainability which revolve around “social and economic wellbeing”, hinting at necessary structural changes to current economic activity (Dixon and Fallon 1989 ). Lélé distinguishes between two competing understandings of sustainable development: sustained growth, which he deems a contradiction; and ecologically sound development with implicit social objectives (Lélé 1991 ). Lélé holds that the concept of sustainable development requires strong clarification, arguing for the need to reject attempts to focus on economic growth and to recognise the inadequacies of neoclassical economics.

Hancock ( 1993 ) approaches a three-pillar model in efforts to consider issues of ‘health’ alongside sustainable communities (Hancock 1993 ). Hancock argues for a shift in focus from economic development to a “system of economic activity that enhances human development while being environmentally and socially sustainable” (p43). A ‘Venn diagram’ model is presented of health, or ‘human development’, being the confluence of three systems which meet several requirements: a ‘community’ which is ‘convivial’, an ‘environment’ which is ‘viable’, and ‘livable’ with respect to the community, and an economy which is ‘adequately prosperous’, ‘equitable’ with respect to the community, and ‘sustainable’ with respect to the environment. Superficially, this model is remarkably similar to contemporary models of the three pillars, but it presents the economy as ‘subservient’ to the community and environment, rather than as an entity with which trade-offs must be made.

Munasinghe claims ‘sustainable development’ encompasses “three major points of view: economic, social, and ecological”, whereby progress is best made via integration of their competing “non-comparable” objectives. Further, three differing approaches to ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development’ are articulated: the economic which maximises income whilst maintaining capital stock, the ecological which seeks to preserve biological and physical systems, and the sociocultural which encompasses equity and participation (Munasinghe 1993 ).

Yunlong and Smit develop Brown et al’s three general definitions in reference to ‘sustainable agriculture’. They stress the need for integration, but do not elaborate on how this might be achieved (Yunlong and Smit 1994 ). Altieri presents a version of the ‘Venn diagram’ in his discussion of sustainable agriculture; here, specific economic, social, and environmental goals are detailed, with the confluence representing ‘agroecology’ (Altieri 1995 , p376). It has been suggested by Thompson ( 2017 ) that Altieri draws on Douglass ( 1984 ) in his articulation of these three domains; however, it should be noted that this diagram is absent in the first edition of Altieri’s book (Altieri 1987 ). Derived from a 1982 conference on “Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order” , Douglass divides his contributors’ perspectives along “economic, biological, and cultural” lines of thinking, later reiterated with the subtitles “Food Sufficiency: Resources, Technology, and Economics”, “Stewardship: Biology, Ecology, and Population”, and “Community: Justice, Participation, and Development”. Despite the focus on agriculture, these categorisations bear many similarities with perspectives drawn in the wider sustainability literature; however like Brown et al., these are separate perspectives as observed in the literature rather than having theoretical basis. Altieri’s work is placed here within the ‘stewardship’ camp, yet his concluding chapter emphasises the inherent linkages between the biological and socioeconomic problems of agricultural systems. He concludes, “The requirements to develop sustainable agriculture clearly are not just biological or technical, but also social, economic, and political, and illustrate the requirements needed to create a sustainable society” (Altieri 1987 , p199; 1995, p379).

Basiago describes sustainability as a “methodology designed to maximize the vitality of social and environmental systems” (Basiago 1995 , p119). Economic methods of defining sustainability are described (along with biological, sociological, planning, and ethical methods), although Basiago argues that “a major restructuring of the economy is implied by economic methods”.

The work of Goodland and Daly (Goodland 1995 ; Goodland and Daly 1996 ) seeks to distinguish the concept of ‘environmental sustainability’ from social and economic sustainability. They take a largely systems-based approach to the environmental pillar, defining it in terms of input–output laws. They are critical of what they perceive as the term ‘sustainability’ becoming a “landfill dump for everyone’s environmental and social wishlists” (Goodland and Daly 1996 , p1002). Contrasting to a holistic integrated approach, they argue that the three ‘types’ of sustainability are “clearest when kept separate”, and that “the disciplines best able to analyse each type of sustainability are different” (ibid.).

In contrast, Milne suggests that it is “generally accepted that ‘sustainability’ is about integrating social, economic, and ecological values” (p137), but cautions a lack of agreement in interpretation, distinguishing between authors who call for ‘balancing’, and those who prioritise the biological aspect (Milne 1996 ). Milne leans towards the latter, concluding that “sustainability requires the subordination of traditional economic criteria to criteria based on social and ecological values”. The World Resources Institute, attempting to produce environmental indicators for ‘sustainable development’ argue that “sustainability involves—at a minimum—interacting economic, social, and environmental factors” arguing that inadequate attention has been given to the latter (pp2–3). They too argue that sustainable development is that which attempts to “reconcile or establish a balance” (p31) between these factors (Hammond et al. 1995 ).

Macnaghten and Jacobs ( 1997 ) argue that the ‘general model’ of sustainable development, which emerges from the literature, emphasises trade-offs between economic growth, deteriorating environmental conditions, and a decline in the quality of life (Macnaghten and Jacobs 1997 ). The authors argue for a model whereby ‘economic welfare’ is a component of the quality of life, which in turn is ultimately constrained by ‘environmental limits’. Such a nested model, as presented to the right of Fig.  1 , has been viewed as preferable to a ‘Venn diagram’ of trade-offs by numerous authors for its emphasis that the three systems represented by the pillars cannot be separated and are in fact subsystems of each other (Mebratu 1998 ; Giddings et al. 2002 ). Striking similarities can be seen between this nested model and a much earlier one by Renè Passet, a contemporary of Ignacy Sachs (Passet 1979 ). Passet’s systems approach emphasises that the sphere of economy is situated within the sphere of human activities, where social welfare is not reduced to the mere accumulation of goods and services, which in turn is situated within the biosphere (pp9–12). The diffusion of this model into the sustainability literature is uncertain; Passet’s work was likely familiar to Sachs, yet the model appeared to receive little attention as a primary source in the English language until much later.

Custance and Hillier ( 1998 ) detail their work in developing a set of sustainable development indicators for the UK government (Custance and Hillier 1998 ). Here, sustainable development is again understood as the “balance between three broad objectives—maintenance of economic growth, protection of the environment … and social progress”. They build upon a set of indicators developed in 1996 which focused primarily on the economic–environmental interaction, acknowledge the importance of including a social dimension, but question whose role it is to define sustainable development. This work reflects a broader body of literature considering ‘indicators’ of sustainable development utilising the three pillars which appears to arise around this time (Bradley Guy and Kibert 1998 ; Fricker 1998 ; Stirling 1999 ; Azapagic and Perdan 2000 ; Valentin and Spangenberg 2000 ).

Parallels to the three pillars can be seen in Campbell’s ‘planning triangle’. Campbell produced a model of what he perceived as three major goals or priorities of urban planning: social justice, economic growth, and environmental protection (Campbell 1996 ). Campbell argues that these goals introduce three fundamental conflicts, yet at the elusive centre of the three lies ‘sustainable development’, the balance of these goals. Campbell acknowledges the difficulty of finding this balance, emphasises the need to think holistically and move towards shared language, and urges collaboration between development planners and environmental planners. Campbell’s discussion explicitly highlights the notion of conflict or competition between these goals and of the need for interdisciplinary approaches in elaborating upon them towards a more comprehensive and rigorous conceptual framework.

Of final note is the treatment of sustainability within the business literature. From the late 1990s, Elkington’s ‘triple bottom line’ (TBL) accounting method gained traction with the publication of his popular book ‘Cannibals With Forks’ (Elkington 1997 ). Drawing strong parallels with three pillars, the traditional financial ‘bottom line’ of a corporation is complimented by bottom lines for social and environmental performance, termed ‘people, planet, profit’, encouraging firms to consider longer-term perspectives in their decision making. Corporate usage of the TBL has been met with scepticism in academic circles, however, with little evidence of effective use among the bodies that claim to advocate it. It has been argued that the TBL jargon is inherently empty, vague, and misleading (Norman and Macdonald 2004 ), paradoxically perpetuating business-as-usual approaches (Milne and Gray 2013 ). Whilst ‘corporate sustainability’ may trace its roots to ‘corporate social responsibility’ which arose in the 1950s, it was not until the 1990s that larger companies started publishing reports emphasising environmental issues, and later certain health issues, although the language of sustainability was rarely used (Milne and Gray 2013 ). Numerous ‘sustainability accounting’ methods predate the TBL, yet Elkington’s work appears to mark the first use of a three-pillar conceptualisation here (Lamberton 2005 ). Whilst this body of literature does not appear to be the origin of the three-pillar framework, it seems that the TBL, which is presented in many cases as synonymous with sustainability, may have been influential in cementing its position in the mainstream into the 21st century.

Having reviewed much of the early literature, with the motivation of probing the genesis of the ‘three-pillar’ paradigm, it is of some concern to find no clear answers. Whilst the work of Barbier ( 1987 ) appears to provide the origin of the widespread circles diagram and provides a framework to encourage maximisation of the goals of three systems, subject to implied trade-offs, it differs from later uses, most notably in its treatment of the economic system. The ‘three-pillar’ formulation itself, however, predates Barbier, at least implicitly, appearing in the IUCN’s 1980 ‘World Conservation Strategy’, O’Riordan ( 1985 ), the contemporaneous Brown et al. ( 1987 ), as well as in works preceding the language of sustainability, such as the discussions of ‘eco-development’ by Sachs and Passet’s 1979 work.

Of the various works discussed here, it is possible to broadly distinguish between two ways in which the pillars have been conceptualised. The first approach follows that of Barbier in presenting the individual dimensions as distinct, yet interacting systems , as taken by e.g. Cocklin ( 1989 ), Hancock ( 1993 ), and Basiago ( 1995 ). Secondly, there are those who follow from Brown et al. in seeing three distinct, yet interrelated perspectives or schools of thought such as Lélé ( 1991 ), Munasinghe ( 1993 ), and Goodland and Daly ( 1996 ).

Competing realities

The systems approach had been used earlier by Passet, who may have indirectly contributed to its use. This approach typically presents three distinct systems with their own ‘goals’, and the interactions of these systems must be managed to meet these goals and the emergent goal of sustainability or sustainable development. The clearest example of this is given by Barbier ( 1987 ) and Cocklin ( 1989 ) who both emphasise integration of the systems and management of trade-offs between them. Hancock ( 1993 ) and Basiago ( 1995 ) also take a systems approach, but the implication is that the individual systems strengthen and enhance each other. Campbell ( 1996 ) also emphasises reconciliation. Here, we would place the approaches taken by the UN and IUCN who, whilst generally avoiding the language of systems, talk about these individual dimensions having specific goals. In a similar vein then too, Munasinghe ( 1993 ), Altieri ( 1995 ), Milne ( 1996 ), and Custance and Hillier ( 1998 ) all discuss the integration and balancing of goals, whereas Macnaghten and Jacobs ( 1997 ) use the language of trade-offs. The language involved here frequently invokes the need to “integrate”, “balance”, and “reconcile” the pillars without necessarily articulating what this means in practice; whether this requires uncomfortable ‘trade-offs’ or not appears to depend on the level of optimism the work in question is pitching for. This missing link between theory and application is problematised by Barbier and others in a later work (Barbier and Markandya 2013 , p38; Barbier and Burgess 2017 ); it is difficult to make decisions about trade-offs without knowing the implications of such choices and, whilst they offer a utility maximisation approach, it remains value laden. There thus appears an uncomfortable gap between undertheorisation, on the one hand and making necessary political value judgements to allow for application, on the other.

Alternative to a systems interpretation are the authors who talk about the three pillars as distinct perspectives of sustainability. These discussions range from calls for clarity of competing definitions: Brown et al. ( 1987 ), Dixon and Fallon ( 1989 ), Lélé ( 1991 ); further undertheorised calls for integration of these perspectives: Douglass ( 1984 ), Yunlong and Smit ( 1994 ); and Goodland and Daly ( 1996 )’s argument to retain disciplinary distinctions: “social scientists are best able to define social sustainability” (p1002). Blurring the lines of systems/perspectives distinctions come later descriptions such as the ‘3Ps’ of Elkington, or the ‘3Es’ (environment, economy, equity) (Caradonna 2014 ), which embody broad values further removed from explicit conceptualisation.

Further to these distinctions, the meaning of the economic pillar remains a central point from which much of the early literature diverges. A prominent strand is heavily critical of the dominant global economic paradigm and sees the economic pillar as a means of producing systemic change, both by erring away from the growth narrative and thinking of the ‘economy’ as subordinate to social well-being and environmental health. This can be seen in Brown et al.’s ( 1987 ) considerations of placing limitations on growth, Basiago’s call for economic ‘restructuring’, and Milne’s call for “subordination of traditional economic criteria”. Barbier and Altieri both reject economic growth as their economic goals, and the IUCN too remains wary of the economic system throughout their literature, instead focusing on the balancing of environmental and social goals.

This contrasts heavily with the understanding pushed by the UN, where growth is imperative. Rather than being met with scepticism, a growth-focused economic pillar is central to their sustainable development narrative; here, growth is key to meeting the social and environmental goals through trickle-down effects. The presentation of an economic pillar centred on growth, equal in importance to social and environmental pillars of sustainability, as an unquestioned, unprobed necessity cements this framing of the pillars as common sense. A lack of a clear conceptual basis acts further to hide this framing from critique, allowing for broad consensus from institutional actors that would otherwise have conflicting priorities. This highlights the problems of undertheorised calls for ‘integration’ and ‘balancing’ of the pillars without the acknowledgement that any attempt to do so in practice is value driven.

Historical emergence?

It can be argued that many of the conflicting conceptualisations of the three pillars, and sustainability itself, can be attributed to the historical origins of this body of literature. As has been suggested above, the historical roots and emergence of ‘sustainability’ is far from a straightforward narrative; indeed, Kidd identifies six distinct but related strains of thought feeding in (Kidd 1992 ), and there are arguably more. It is here that we can begin to see the origins of why the sustainability literature is so broad and confusing; as Kidd argues, it is deeply embedded in fundamentally different concepts. From the development specialists to the ecological economists, and systems ecologists, various broadly distinct schools co-opt the language of ‘sustainability’ around the same time, leading to what has become such a heterogeneous discourse. As Dryzek has argued, we then see a wide range of actors who see the emergence of ‘sustainability’ as a dominant discourse and recognise it as ripe for shaping in terms that are favourable to them (Dryzek 2005 , p146). What arguably unites these disparate roots is criticism of the economic status quo, be that realised by blind pursuit of economic growth, short-sighted profit-driven agriculture, or industrialism with little regard to the fragility of complex ecosystems.

Thus, focusing on the economic development strand as explored previously, we argue that ‘sustainable development’ arose here from a twin critique of the previously popular notion of ‘economic development’, from both a ‘quality of life’ or social perspective, and an ecological perspective. Caldwell goes into some depth discussing the ecological critique, arguing that the 1972 Stockholm Conference succeeded in placing the need to reconcile economic development and environmental protection on the global agenda, and precipitated the notion of ‘eco-development’ (Caldwell 1984 ). The early social critique is explored by Arndt ( 1987 ) and is picked up by the Brundtland Report which holds that poverty and environmental problems are inherently linked, and that “meeting essential needs” is a key requirement of development (UN 1987 , p16).

Thus, we see the three pillars are fundamentally rooted here in ‘sustainable development’ from its conception. Further, we argue that this narrative of environmental and social critiques of the economic status quo is replayed over various other strands that adopt the language of sustainability. This can be seen in the work of the IUCN, which approaches ‘sustainable development’ from the concept of conservation, in the limits discourse, considerations of sustainable agriculture as articulated by Douglass, as well as in Elkington’s TBL. We now begin to see why the economic pillar is so fundamental—what unites these disparate discourses is the perceived inadequacy of the ‘economic’, be it from environmental or social perspectives. The confusion of competing conceptualisations and different interpretations of the economic pillar within this early literature can then be understood if we view sustainability not as a coherent singular concept, but as a common language of broad schools of thought with the commonality of this ‘economic’ critique.

The depiction of the economic pillar in terms of an economic growth goal, placed on equal footing with social and environmental factors, despite the wealth of critical literature, can be seen as an embodiment of the ideological win–win scenario of ‘sustainable growth’ pushed in the 1987 Brundtland Report. This was further reinforced by the 1992 Rio summit and publication Agenda 21 which brought this particular interpretation of ‘sustainable development’ to global attention. It has been argued by some that this neutralisation of the radical economic critique via institutionalisation was an inevitable consequence of the UN’s consensus building approach to addressing ‘sustainability’ (Huckle 1991 ; Carruthers 2001 ).

This ‘emergence’ of the three-pillar model thus leads to it being in many cases presented, with little to no theoretical foundation or justification, as the norm, or a ‘common sense’ understanding of sustainability. This is mirrored in the documents of the UN and may be seen too within organisations such as the OECD, which, in a 2000 report on indicators, heavily emphasise the need to better understand the “complex synergies and trade-offs” between the “three dimensions” of sustainable development (OECD 2000 , p19).

‘Sustainability’ vs. ‘sustainable development’

So far, we have sidestepped focusing on the competing language of ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’, as the two are often so intertwined in the literature that they remain difficult to tease apart. It is through this conflation though that economic growth-centred ‘development’ becomes an implicit part of ‘sustainability’, skipping over the questions: Development of what? Development for whom? Such strategic ambiguity allows this fuzzy concept to be utilised by any actor for their own means. In the earlier literature such as Caldwell, and Barbier, ‘sustainable development’ is understood as a necessity for developing nations and is often decoupled from growth. But this distinction is lost when the UN equates development with growth, and the OECD calls for sustainable development for their member countries, i.e. developed nations (OECD 2004 , p3).

This issue has been addressed by numerous authors who hold the term ‘sustainable development’, like that of ‘sustainable growth’, to be an oxymoron (Redclift 2005 ; Johnston et al. 2007 ; Brand 2012 ). Notably Redclift argues the notion of ‘development’, rooted in Western colonial capitalist narratives, presents numerous barriers to sustainability, and without interrogation and political change, sustainability itself is jeopardised (Redclift 1987 ). Sneddon proclaims that ‘sustainable development’ has “reached a conceptual dead-end”, and that for clarity it is necessary to decouple the notion of ‘sustainability’ from its counterpart (Sneddon 2000 ). He problematises the recasting of ‘development’ as sustainable, citing the numerous socio-ecological abuses enacted throughout its history and its blindness to deep-set structural issues. ‘Sustainability’ on the other hand, despite having perhaps a reputation as a buzzword, carries far less historical baggage and its necessity for a specific context prompts conceptual questions, such as for whom and of what. Looking at the more contemporary literature, however, it seems little has changed and the recent articulation of the SDGs has further entrenched the notion of ‘sustainable development’.

Conclusions

In seeking to clarify the origins of the notion of the ‘three pillars of sustainability’, we have shown that the conceptual foundations of this model are far from clear and there appears to be no singular source from which it derives. Whilst a diagram with explicit economic, social, and biological system goals is presented as a model of sustainable development by Barbier in 1987, the goals elaborated differ from those of the UN and the meaning is limited to developing nations. Further, an implicit notion of these three pillars predates this, appearing in work by the IUCN and in consideration of ‘eco-development’.

We have argued that the early literature considering the pillars may be split broadly between those who view the three as distinct perspectives, and those who take a systems approach. Within these formulations, there lacks a commonality in how interactions are treated, whether trade-offs occur or mutual reinforcements are made. The implications of ‘integration’ here are often undertheorised leading to the value judgements necessary for application often slipping by unnoticed and depoliticised. This is seen most clearly as the major source of disagreement stemming from the treatment of the economic pillar.

By drawing on Kidd’s argument that the discourse is fundamentally rooted in different schools of thought who have all adopted the common language of ‘sustainability’, we suggest that this presents itself as the source of much confusion and competing conceptualisation. Central to these distinct schools, however, can be seen a broad critique of the economic status quo, both from ecological and social perspectives. Focusing on the development literature has allowed us to present an example of twin ecological and ‘basic needs’ critiques of ‘economic development’ from the 1960s, crystallising into three pillars of ‘sustainable development’ in the 1980s. We have then argued that this narrative is replayed across various other schools of thought under the language of ‘sustainability’, such as those considering agriculture or conservation.

As these conflicts play out, ‘sustainable development’ is institutionalised by the UN in the 1987 Brundtland Report, and during the subsequent Rio process, which pushes an understanding placing economic growth as the solution to ecological and social problems. This ‘win–win’ approach reflects the biases inspired by their intergovernmental consensus building remit, and effectively neutralises much radical critique by depoliticising sustainability and presenting three sets of equally important economic, social, and environmental goals as benign necessity. This notion is further entrenched by the blurring of the language of ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ such that economic development remained an implicit, but inadequately formulated, part of sustainability.

A consequence of the lack of rigour in the theoretical underpinnings of sustainability and the three-pillar paradigm is the difficulty in producing operational frameworks for the characterisation of sustainability which remain rooted in theory. Such applications would necessarily be context specific, requiring careful consideration of both spatial and functional boundaries. Although the targets and indicators associated with the UN SDGs are encouraging, a lack of detail is given to a transparent rigorous theoretical foundation in which to ground them and the value judgements that have been made along the way.

Despite this paper being mostly retrospective, focusing upon historical literature, it brings to light important issues that are still relevant today. There remains an urgent need to critically examine the models we employ for understanding. The inherently political nature of sustainability can often be forgotten, and we should be careful to avoid reproducing models without carefully considering their theoretical basis and the embedded ideology within them. Finally, it should be remembered that sustainability, through its complex and disparate historical origins, remains both context specific and ontologically open, and thus any rigorous operationalisation requires explicit description of how it is understood.

Whilst there exists an obvious semantic difference, and implicit focus in meaning, this distinction is not always present in the literature, especially in reference to the pillars formulation (Pope et al. 2004 ; Johnston et al. 2007 ; Waas et al. 2011 ; Carter and Moir 2012 ). We revisit this distinction in Sect.  4 .

Altieri MA (1987) Agroecology: the scientific basis of alternative agriculture, 1st edn. Westview, Boulder

Google Scholar  

Altieri MA (1995) Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture, 2nd edn. Westview Press, Boulder

Arndt HW (1981) Economic development: a semantic history. Econ Dev Cult Change 29:457–466

Article   Google Scholar  

Arndt HW (1987) Economic development: the history of an idea. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Book   Google Scholar  

Arushanyan Y, Ekener E, Moberg Å (2017) Sustainability assessment framework for scenarios—SAFS. Environ Impact Assess Rev 63:23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.001

Azapagic A, Perdan S (2000) Indicators of sustainable development for industry: a general framework. Trans IChemE 78:243–261. https://doi.org/10.1205/095758200530763

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Barbier EB (1987) The concept of sustainable economic development. Environ Conserv 14:101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900011449

Barbier E (2011) The policy challenges for green economy and sustainable economic development. Nat Resour Forum 35:233–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2011.01397.x

Barbier EB, Burgess JC (2017) The sustainable development goals and the systems approach to sustainability. Econ Discuss Pap 28:1–24. https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2017-28

Barbier EB, Markandya A (2013) A new blueprint for a green economy. Routledge, Abingdon

Basiago AD (1995) Methods of defining “sustainability”. Sustain Dev 3:109–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3460030302

Basiago AD (1999) Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist 19:145–161. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006697118620

Berr E (2015) Sustainable development in a post Keynesian perspective: why eco-development is relevant to post Keynesian economics. J Post Keynes Econ 37:459–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2015.1000173

Boyer R, Peterson N, Arora P, Caldwell K (2016) Five approaches to social sustainability and an integrated way forward. Sustainability 8:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090878

Bradley Guy G, Kibert CJ (1998) Developing indicators of sustainability: US experience. Build Res Inf 26:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/096132198370092

Brand U (2012) Green economy—The next oxymoron? GAIA Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 21:5

Brown BJ, Hanson ME, Liverman DM, Merideth RW (1987) Global sustainability: toward definition. Environ Manage 11:713–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01867238

Caldwell LK (1984) Political aspects of ecologically sustainable development. Environ Conserv 11:299–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689290001465X

Callicott JB, Mumford K (1997) Ecological sustainability as a conservation concept. Conserv Biol 11:32–40. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.95468.x

Campbell S (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. J Am Plan Assoc 62:296–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975696

Caradonna JL (2014) Sustainability: a history. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Carruthers D (2001) From opposition to orthodoxy: the remaking of sustainable development. J Third World Stud 18:93–112

Carter K, Moir S (2012) Diagrammatic representations of sustainability—a review and synthesis. In: Smith SD (ed) Proceedings of the 28th annual ARCOM conference, 3–5 September 2012. UK, Edinburgh, pp 1479–1489

Castro CJ (2004) Sustainable development: mainstream and critical perspectives. Organ Environ 17:195–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026604264910

Cleveland H (1979) The management of sustainable growth. Pergamon Press, New York

Clinton RL (1977) Ecodevelopment. World Aff 140:111–126

Cocklin CR (1989) Methodological problems in evaluating sustainability. Environ Conserv 16:343–351. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900009772

Coomer JC (1979) Quest for a sustainable society. Pergamon Press, New York

Custance J, Hillier H (1998) Statistical issues in developing indicators of sustainable development. J R Stat Soc 161:281–290

Daly HE (1973) Toward a steady-state economy. W. H Freeman, New York

Daly HE (1996) Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development. Beacon Press, Boston

Dawe NK, Ryan KL (2003) The faulty three-legged-stool of sustainable development. Conserv Biol 17:1458–1460. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02471.x

Dixon JA, Fallon LA (1989) The concept of sustainability: origins, extensions, and usefulness for policy. Soc Nat Resour An Int J 2:73–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941928909380675

Douglass GK (1984) Agricultural sustainability in a changing world order. Westview Press, Boulder

Dryzek JS (2005) The politics of the earth: environmental discourses, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Du Pisani JA (2006) Sustainable development—historical roots of the concept. Environ Sci 3:83–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/15693430600688831

Dunlap RE, Mertig AG (1991) The evolution of the US environmental movement from 1970 to 1990: an overview. Soc Nat Resour 4:209–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929109380755

Ecologist The (1972) A blueprint for survival. Penguin, Harmondsworth

Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone, Oxford

Fricker A (1998) Measuring up to sustainability. Futures 30:367–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(98)00041-X

Gatto M (1995) Sustainability: Is it a well defined concept? Ecol Appl 5:1181–1183

Gibson RB (2006) Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-making. J Environ Assess Policy Manag 8:259–280

Giddings B, Hopwood B, O’Brien G (2002) Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustain Dev 10:187–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.199

Glaeser B (1984) Ecodevelopment: concepts, projects, strategies. Pergamon Press, New York

Gómez-Baggethun E, Naredo JM (2015) In search of lost time: the rise and fall of limits to growth in international sustainability policy. Sustain Sci 10:385–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0308-6

Goodland R (1995) The concept of environmental sustainability. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 26:1–24

Goodland R, Daly H (1996) Environmental sustainability: universal and non-negotiable. Ecol Appl 6:1002–1017

Grober U (2012) Sustainability: a cultural history, translated. Green Books, Totnes

Hammond A, Adriaanse A, Rodenburg E et al (1995) Environmental Indicators: a systematic approach to measuring and reporting on environmental policy performance in the context of sustainable development. World Resources Institute, Washington

Hancock T (1993) Health, human development and the community ecosystem: three ecological models. Health Promot Int 8:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/8.1.41

Hicks N, Streeten P (1979) Indicators of development: the search for a basic needs yardstick. World Dev 7:567–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(79)90093-7

Hill RC, Bowen PA (1997) Sustainable construction: principles and a framework for attainment. Constr Manag Econ 15:223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461997372971

Hirsch F (1995) Social limits to growth, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

Holmberg J (1992) Policies for a small planet: from the international institute for environment and development. Earthscan, London

Huckle J (1991) Education for sustainability: assessing pathways to the future. Aust J Environ Educ 7:43–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0814062600001853

ILO (1976) Employment, growth and basic needs: a one-world problem. Praeger, New York

IUCN (1996) Barometer of sustainability: what it’s for and how to use it. IUCN, Gland

IUCN (2004) The IUCN programme 2005-2008. many voices, one earth. IUCN, Gland

IUCN (1997) Proceedings. World conservation congress 13–23 October 1996 Montreal. IUCN, Gland

IUCN, UNEP, WWF (1980) World conservation strategy. Living resource conservation for sustainable development. IUCN, Gland

IUCN, UNEP, WWF (1991) Caring for the earth. a strategy for sustainable living. IUCN, Gland

Jacobs P, Gardner J, Munro DA (1987) Sustainable and equitable development: an emerging paradigm. Conservation with equity: strategies for sustainable development. IUCN, Gland, pp 17–29

Johnston P, Everard M, Santillo D, Robèrt K-H (2007) Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environ Sci Pollut Res 14:60–66. https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.01.375

Jordan A, Voisey H (1998) The “rio process”: the politics and substantive outcomes of “earth summit II”. Glob Environ Change 8:93–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(97)00024-1

Kajikawa Y, Tacoa F, Yamaguchi K (2014) Sustainability science: the changing landscape of sustainability research. Sustain Sci 9:431–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0244-x

Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292:641–642 (80-)

Kidd CV (1992) The evolution of sustainability. J Agric Environ Ethics 5:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01965413

Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-006-0007-4

Lamberton G (2005) Sustainability accounting - A brief history and conceptual framework. Account Forum 29:7–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2004.11.001

Lehtonen M (2004) The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecol Econ 49:199–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.03.019

Lélé SM (1991) Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev 19:607–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(91)90197-P

Lozano R (2008) Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J Clean Prod 16:1838–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008

Lumley S, Armstrong P (2004) Some of the nineteenth century origins of the sustainability concept. Environ Dev Sustain 6:367–378. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ENVI.0000029901.02470.a7

Macnaghten P, Jacobs M (1997) Public identification with sustainable development. Glob Environ Change 7:5–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(96)00023-4

Martinez-Alier J (2015) Ecological economics. In: Wright JD (ed) International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 851–864

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Martínez-Alier J (1995) The environment as a luxury good or “too poor to be green”? Ecol Econ 13:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(94)00062-Z

Meadows DL (1977) Alternatives to growth—I: a search for sustainable futures. Ballinger Publishing Company, Boston

Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens WW (1972) The limits to growth. Universe Books, New York

Mebratu D (1998) Sustainability and sustainable development: historical and conceptual review. Environ Impact Assess Rev 18:493–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(98)00019-5

Milbrath LW (1989) Envisioning a sustainable society: learning our way out. State University of New York Press, Albany

Milne MJ (1996) On sustainability; the environment and management accounting. Manag Account Res 7:135–161. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.1996.0007

Milne MJ, Gray R (2013) W(h)ither Ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. J Bus Ethics 118:13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8

Mishan EJ (1977) The economic growth debate: an assessment. Allen & Unwin, London

Moldan B, Janoušková S, Hák T (2012) How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecol Indic 17:4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.033

Mori K, Christodoulou A (2012) Review of sustainability indices and indicators: towards a new city sustainability index (CSI). Environ Impact Assess Rev 32:94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.06.001

Munasinghe M (1993) Environmental economics and sustainable development. The World Bank, Washington

Norman W, Macdonald C (2004) Getting to the bottom of “triple bottom line”. Bus Ethics Q 14:243–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.035

O’Riordan T (1985) Research policy and review 6. Future directions for environmental policy. Environ Plan A 17:1431–1446. https://doi.org/10.1068/a171431

OECD (2000) Towards sustainable development. Indicators to measure progress. OECD Publications, Paris

OECD (2004) Sustainable development in OECD countries. Getting the policies right. OECD Publications, Paris

Passet R (1979) L’économique et le vivant. Payot, Paris

Pezzey J (1992) Sustainable development concepts: an economic analysis. The World Bank, Washington

Pirages D (1977) The sustainable society: implications for limited growth. Praeger, New York

Pope J, Annandale D, Morrison-Saunders A (2004) Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24:595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.03.001

Redclift MR (1987) Sustainable development: exploring the contradictions. Routle, London

Redclift M (2005) Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of age. Sustain Dev 13:212–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.281

Rome A (2003) “Give earth a chance”: the environmental movement and the sixties. J Am Hist 90:525–554. https://doi.org/10.2307/3659443

Schoolman ED, Guest JS, Bush KF, Bell AR (2012) How interdisciplinary is sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustain Sci 7:67–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0139-z

Seers D (1969) The meaning of development. Inst Dev Stud Commun 44:1–26

Sneddon CS (2000) “Sustainability” in ecological economics, ecology and livelihoods: a review. Prog Hum Geogr 24:521–549. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200100189076

Soini K, Birkeland I (2014) Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability. Geoforum 51:213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.12.001

Spangenberg JH, Pfahl S, Deller K (2002) Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21. Ecol Indic 2:61–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00050-X

Stirling A (1999) The appraisal of sustainability: some problems and possible responses. Local Environ 4:111–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839908725588

Stivers RL (1976) The sustainable society: ethics and economic growth. Westminster Press, Philadelphia

Streeten P, Burki SJ (1978) Basic needs: some issues. World Dev 6:411–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(78)90116-X

Tanguay GA, Rajaonson J, Lefebvre J-F, Lanoie P (2010) Measuring the sustainability of cities: an analysis of the use of local indicators. Ecol Indic 10:407–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.07.013

The Ecology Party (1975) Manifesto for a sustainable society. The Ecology Party, Leeds

Thompson PB (2017) The spirit of the soil: agriculture and environmental ethics, 2nd edn. Routledge, New York

Tulloch L (2013) On science, ecology and environmentalism. Policy Future Educ 11:100–114. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2013.11.1.100

Tulloch L, Neilson D (2014) The neoliberalisation of sustainability. citizenship. Soc Econ Educ 13:26–38. https://doi.org/10.2304/csee.2014.13.1.26

Turcu C (2012) Re-thinking sustainability indicators: local perspectives of urban sustainability. J Environ Plan Manag 56:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.698984

UN (1987) Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

UN (1992) Agenda 21. United Nations, New York

UN (1995) Workshop on indicators of sustainable development for decision-making. Commission on sustainable development third session (E/CN.17/1995/32). United Nations, New York

UN (1996) Indicators of sustainable development framework and methodologies. United Nations, New York

UN (1997) Overall progress achieved since the United Nations conference on environment and development. Commission on sustainable development fifth session (E/CN.17/1997/2). United Nations, New York

UN (1998) Commission on sustainable development. Report on the sixth session (E/CN.17/1998/20). United Nations, New York

UN (2001a) Indicators of sustainable development: framework and methodologies. Commission on sustainable development ninth session (DESA/DSD/2001/3). United Nations, New York

UN (2001b) Road map towards the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration. Report of the Secretary-General (A/56/326). United Nations, New York

UN (2002) Report of the world summit on sustainable development (A/CONF.199/20). United Nations, New York

UN (2007) Indicators of sustainable development: guidelines and methodologies, 3rd edn. United Nations, New York

UN (2012a) The future we want. Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 27 July 2012 (A/RES/66/288). United Nations, New York

UN (2012b) Report of the United Nations conference on sustainable development (A/CONF.216/16). United Nations, New York

UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the general assembly on 25 September 2015 (A/RES/70/1). United Nations, New York

Upham P (2000) An assessment of the natural step theory of sustainability. J Clean Prod 8:445–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00012-3

Valentin A, Spangenberg JH (2000) A guide to community sustainability indicators. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:381–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00049-4

Van Der Heijden H-A (1999) Environmental movements, ecological modernisation and political opportunity structures. Env Polit 8:199–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644019908414444

Vos RO (2007) Defining sustainability: a conceptual orientation. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 82:334–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.1675

Waas T, Hugé J, Verbruggen A, Wright T (2011) Sustainable development: a bird’s eye view. Sustainability 3:1637–1661. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3101637

Warde P (2011) The invention of sustainability. Mod Intellect Hist 8:153–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479244311000096

Woodhouse EJ (1972) Re-visioning the future of the third world: an ecological perspective on development. World Polit 25:1–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2010429

Yunlong C, Smit B (1994) Sustainability in agriculture: a general review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 49:299–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(94)90059-0

Zijp MC, Heijungs R, van der Voet E et al (2015) An identification key for selecting methods for sustainability assessments. Sustainability 7:2490–2512. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7032490

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [grant number 1643433]; and the Leverhulme Trust research programme grant ‘Sustaining urban habitats: an interdisciplinary approach’.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Laboratory for Urban Complexity and Sustainability, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

Ben Purvis, Yong Mao & Darren Robinson

School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK

Darren Robinson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Purvis .

Additional information

Handled by Michael O’Rourke, Michigan State University, USA.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Purvis, B., Mao, Y. & Robinson, D. Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustain Sci 14 , 681–695 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5

Download citation

Received : 01 December 2017

Accepted : 23 August 2018

Published : 03 September 2018

Issue Date : 07 May 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainable development
• Conceptual review
• Historical origins
• Triple bottom line
• History of sustainability

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 3.4.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Authors’ Reply: Ambiguity in Statistical Analysis Methods and Nonconformity With Prespecified Commitment to Data Sharing in a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors of this article:

Letter to the Editor

• Diego Arguello, BA, MSc, PhD  

Human Performance and Exercise Science Lab, Department of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, United States

Corresponding Author:

Diego Arguello, BA, MSc, PhD

Human Performance and Exercise Science Lab

Department of Health Sciences

Northeastern University

360 Huntington Avenue

Boston, MA, 02115

United States

Phone: 1 6173734427

Email: [email protected]

We appreciate the thoughtful commentary [ 1 ] on our study [ 2 ] and address the raised concerns.

One pertains to perceived ambiguity in reporting statistical methodology, presumably prompting inquiry into whether analyses accounted for clustering and nesting. We clarify that our choice of a cluster randomized controlled trial design was driven by practical implications (eg, space modification and experimental contamination)—valid reasons for the study design. While this determined the study design, we were interested in the participant-average treatment effect. We feel this is affirmed in our aims and note the perceived ambiguity and level of detail requested by the letter writers were not raised during multiple reviews, and this response to the letter further clarifies our analytical approach.

We agree that type I error inflation is a concern if clustering is not addressed in the study design phase or during analyses. We also recognize that this is an active area of study, and work is ongoing to determine optimal approaches for small-sample study designs [ 3 ]. Importantly, the current recommendation is to develop the analytical plan based on goals of the analyses (ie, exploratory outcomes in this study) and various study-specific characteristics (selected examples for our study: random cluster size independent of other data and wide physical distribution of within-cluster participants) [ 3 ]. Due to such study-specific considerations, clusters were deemed to be noninformative [ 4 ], and our approach—“random-intercept mixed linear models that accounted for repeated measures and clustering effects” [ 2 ]—included a random effect for clusters to model any potential correlational structure and interparticipant dependency within clusters [ 5 ]. Additionally, we used the Kenward-Rogers method to preserve nominal type I error. The method adjusts for df to account for hierarchical complexity of data, including potential nesting and variable or small cluster sizes [ 3 ]. We also acknowledged uneven cluster size as a study limitation [ 2 ].

Second, while we clearly conveyed the exploratory nature of the analyses aimed at developing hypotheses, we were also conservative by avoiding confirmatory conclusions based on type I error rates [ 2 ]. While it is known that conservative analyses may be counterproductive for exploration [ 6 ], our careful approach—relying on sound, disparate methods sufficiently accounting for any potential within-cluster dependence and variable cluster size, along with a cautious interpretation strategy—was appropriate for the study objective.

Regarding data sharing, we have previously shared other data and received data from the community to advance multiple areas of inquiry. However, we primarily rejected this request and a competing industry request, given ongoing small business and financial interests leveraging this and the associated body of work; we communicated this to the journal (August 2023) after the request in question was made. Such considerations are necessary to avoid setting a precedent and in the context of any potential for these interests to be compromised. An example of such considerations includes federal funding agencies supporting small business innovation research, allowing awardees to withhold related data to protect endeavors similar to ours. Implying that findings are untrustworthy due to such considerations would incorrectly render a substantial body of such work as the same.

Conflicts of Interest

Since June 2023, DA has received financial compensation for consultations leveraging the published work.

• Jamshidi-Naeini Y, Golzarri-Arroyo L, Thapa DK, Brown AW, Kpormegbey DE, Allison DB. Ambiguity in statistical analysis methods and nonconformity with prespecified commitment to data sharing in a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2024.:e54090. [ CrossRef ]
• Arguello D, Cloutier G, Thorndike AN, Castaneda Sceppa C, Griffith J, John D. Impact of sit-to-stand and treadmill desks on patterns of daily waking physical behaviors among overweight and obese seated office workers: cluster randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. May 16, 2023;25:e43018. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Leyrat C, Morgan KE, Leurent B, Kahan BC. Cluster randomized trials with a small number of clusters: which analyses should be used? Int J Epidemiol. Feb 1, 2018;47(1):321-331. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wang B, Harhay MO, Tong J, Small DS, Morris TP, Li F. On the mixed-model analysis of covariance in cluster-randomized trials. arXiv. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Donner A, Klar N. Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research. London, England. Arnold Publishers; 2000.
• Kimmelman J, Mogil JS, Dirnagl U. Distinguishing between exploratory and confirmatory preclinical research will improve translation. PLoS Biol. May 20, 2014;12(5):e1001863. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]

Edited by T Leung; This is a non–peer-reviewed article. submitted 16.02.24; accepted 22.02.24; published 03.04.24.

©Diego Arguello. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 03.04.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

A systematic literature review on corporate sustainability: contributions, barriers, innovations and future possibilities

Ualison rébula de oliveira.

1 Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), 783 Desembargador Ellis Hermydio Figueira St. Volta Redonda, Rio de Janeiro, 27213-145 Brazil

Rodolfo Pombo Menezes

Vicente aprigliano fernandes.

2 Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Av. Brasil 2241, 2362807 Valparaiso, Chile

Associated Data

Not applicable for this research.

This paper aims to understand the current research scenario through published studies on corporate sustainability, emphasizing the environmental approach. Methodologically, this research develops a systematic literature review based on papers published in the Web of Science database in the last ten years. As a result, there was an upward evolution of research on the searched topic, with one hundred fifteen publications in the last three years compared to one hundred six documents published in the previous seven years. It is also observed that studies published at the beginning of the time frame between 2011 and 2020 were more concerned with the adoption of corporate sustainability, while the most recent research focuses on new approaches and methodologies for its implementation. And, with regard to its implementation, one of the main barriers is the incorrect perception of senior managers that the results from corporate sustainability must be more linked to the economic than to the environmental and social spheres. As relevant aspects, this study observed that new technologies, currently led by the 5th generation mobile network (5G) and Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0), can contribute to the insertion of corporate sustainability in the industrial context. It also noted that, despite being recent, COVID-19 was considered by several researchers as an event to be considered in terms of corporate sustainability.

Introduction

The term “sustainable” has been used since 1978 by the United Nations as a synonym for ecological development. However, with the popularization of other terms in this context, such as sustainability and sustainable development, there was a large number of definitions proposed for both (Johnston et al., 2007 ), reaching, for example, the number of 70 only for sustainable development (Lozano, 2008 ). Discussions continued with the dissemination of the term through the Brundtland Commission Report in 1985 and at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In the business context, some variations and definitions were used, among them are the “triple bottom line” (TBL) theory, suggested by Elkington ( 1998 ), which consists of the balance in equal harmony between the social, environmental and economic aspects of the companies.

As noted above, adoption by a culture concerned with the macroenvironment is not new. Corporate Social Responsibility has addressed the issue for more than 50 years (Bowen, 1953 ). This way of thinking also has several definitions, but there is an understanding regarding the responsibilities that corporations apply in addition to what the legislation requires them to practice (McWilliams et al., 2006a ; 2006b ). Besides, there are several points in common between Corporate Social Responsibility and corporate sustainability (CS), however CS can be defined as the application of sustainable development at the micro-level, that is, at the corporate level, through a short-term concern related to the economic and environmental aspects and long-term regarding the social performance of the company (Steurer et al., 2005 ).

Throughout our research, we observed the existence of several literature reviews on corporate sustainability that sought (and were able) to organize the state of the art of the topic, consolidating the individual efforts of several researchers in a single document. However, we also identified some gaps, namely: (i) the methodological characteristics of the publications, broken down into context, application area and research methods used; (ii) the main research clusters on corporate sustainability, which took into account current aspects, such as COVID-19; (iii) the main contributions of corporate sustainability to organizations, segmented into improving the organization's performance and reputation, partnerships between the organization and stakeholders, improving the organization's environmental management and, finally, improving the organization's human resources; (iv) the main barriers that organizations must overcome in order to adopt corporate sustainability; (v) the main guidelines that organizations must follow to overcome barriers and, thus, be able to implement corporate sustainability, and; (vi) the main innovative approaches in corporate sustainability.

In view of so many aspects, the main objective of this research is to identify, analyze and organize information on corporate sustainability that will help us fill the gaps presented. Through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), the intention is to analyze the evolution of CS within the scholar community in the last ten years, with particular attention on the contributions of the topic to organizations, the limitations and guidelines for the adoption of CS, besides the innovations implemented in the focused period analysis. With the proposed mapping of publications in the last ten years, it will also be possible to observe the main research clusters and recommendations of future research that have been completed, as well as the promising areas within this field of action and study.

The present research is relevant for at least three aspects: (i) corporate sustainability has become a matter of growing international concern (Zhang et al., 2020 ), being considered as a fundamental solution for the creation of a prosperous future (Ikram et al., 2020 ); (ii) eco-efficiency and society should be prioritized to improve corporate sustainability performance, with a focus on encouraging environmental innovation (Xia et al., 2020 )—our research addresses issues related to innovation in the area of corporate sustainability, including the COVID-19 pandemic as one of the research clusters to be considered; (iii) the progress of organizations towards sustainable development has been slow (Baumgartner & Rauter, 2017 ), indicating the need for more concrete guidelines that allow companies to achieve corporate sustainability—our research raises barriers that hinder the adoption of corporate sustainability and presents guidelines for the adoption of corporate sustainability by organizations. Several other justifications for carrying out this research could be included here, but we will end with the one we consider most relevant: filling each of the gaps pointed out in the previous paragraphs of this introduction.

Finally, it is observed that the theme of corporate sustainability can be approached from the social, environmental and economic perspectives; which, in turn, unfold into the most diverse categories, such as environment, management and business, ethics, finance, economics, engineering, among others. In this sense, due to the broadness of the theme, the research was delimited from the environmental perspective. More details on this delimitation can be found in Sect.  3 (materials and methods). Besides, in addition to this introduction, the present research is organized into five other sections, as follows: the next section will address a theoretical review on SC and the main findings in literature review works on this topic; Sect.  3 contemplates the research methodology; Sect.  4 addresses the SLR; Sect.  5 presents the agenda and directions for future research; Finally, Sect.  6 describes the conclusions of the study, followed by bibliographic references.

Review of corporate sustainability

CS can be defined as the adaptation of economic, environmental and social factors to the activities and mechanisms of corporate decision-making, together with principles of corporate governance and risk management applied to these issues (Vardari et al., 2020 ), seeking sustainable development while minimizing risk and increasing the value of a company, including shareholder value (Lee, 2019 ). It results from a complementary and connected relationship between the organizational capacities that affect its strategic dimension and the socio-environmental practices that contribute to its operational dimension (Mohammadi et al., 2018 ).

The application logic emphasizes the thinking of the TBL (Triple Bottom Line), which brings together people, planet and profit, within the scope of its business plan. The objective of CS is that a company can positively and simultaneously impact economic growth, social equity and human development, benefiting in terms of risk management and competitive advantage (Cho et al., 2018 ). It is an approach that creates long-term value through the integration of financial and non-financial indicators (Rustam et al., 2019 ).

For its implementation, it is of fundamental importance that organizations incorporate sustainability strategies in their business models, from changes in their governance, in the short term related to the economic and environmental aspects and, in the long term related to the social performance of the company, having focus on results that contribute to a continuous improvement (Ashrafi et al., 2018 ).

In addition to internal issues, CS is seen as paramount to comply with government regulations in the pursuit of economic benefits and improve the company's image, thus restricting external pressures from suppliers, customers, investors and NGOs (Ashrafi et al., 2018 ), being developed from economic development policies and government approaches, through the adoption of policies and regulations in support of sustainable development (Mishra et al., 2020 ).

It is possible to create social value by contributing to the development and well-being of society by carrying out and supporting social initiatives and projects for poverty alleviation, human and child development, equity and social and gender justice (Ray & Chaudhuri, 2018 ). In an analysis of the 20 main materials published in the area Vildasen et al. ( 2017 ) observed that 3 explicitly dealt with the economic-environmental context, 7 with the social-economic and 10 with the socio-environmental-economic context, confirming the link between the areas in the definition described above.

Corporate sustainability approach

Although corporate performance can be evaluated separately, from the social, environmental, economic and responsibility perspectives, it is interesting that Montiel ( 2008 ) and Bansal and Song ( 2017 ) observed a tendency to converge these elements into an integrated evaluation from the corporate sustainability approach. Also, it is noticed that academic research still diverges from the practice of firms in terms of corporate sustainability (Montiel & Delgado-Ceballos, 2014 ), possibly because of the complexity that corporate sustainability measurements have gained over time from the scholars' perspective. This can be evidenced, for example, in Wagner ( 2010 ), in which the author shows that innovation does not necessarily relate to corporate sustainability in the presented case study. However, it is important to highlight that as higher requirements are expected from clients and firms that operate at different geographical scales, the academic community is highlighting the need to improve corporate sustainability in theoretical, methodologic and operational terms, in order for companies to deliver more integrated results on corporate performance from a sustainable perspective (Baumgartner, 2014 ; Wagner, 2005 ), and therefore be aligned with the global 21st-century challenges in terms of corporate performance and sustainability.

Endiana et al. ( 2020 ) affirm that the accounting sector of a company can promote environmental conservation through environmental costs, and at the same time, improve performance when implementing a Corporate Sustainability Management System (CSMS). Mainly, Endiana et al. ( 2020 ) evidence that allocating appropriate environmental costs through CSMS can effectively improve the company's financial performance. Besides, it is believed that a proper application of CSMS, with the disclosure of environmental activities and costs (e.g., of a land, materials, energy, etc.), can enhance customer loyalty. From the employees’ perspective, Chang et al. ( 2020 ) analyzes the effect of green product psychological ownership on their behavior and performance. Specifically, Chang et al. ( 2020 ) evidence that it is important to establish a solid Green Shared Vision to avoid green confusion, related to the environmental characteristics of a company's products or services, and improve employees' economic performance. From a methodological concern Kafa et al. ( 2020 ) evidences the need for companies to build supply chain management processes that consider the adequate criteria to achieve corporate sustainability.

In a similar approach to Chang et al. ( 2020 ), Mazur and Walczyna ( 2020 ) indicate that it is relevant that the sustainable management of human resources (SMHR) is adequately implemented when the company has a solid view of its corporate sustainability perspective, with particular attention on meeting the firm´s needs without compromising the ability to meet future stakeholders´ needs. Also, Mazur and Walczyna ( 2020 ) indicate that the SMHR should support the company's sustainable development strategy, promote fair treatment and well-being of employees, support environmentally-friendly practices within the organization, and other functions.

From a broader perspective, Kantabutra and Punnakitikashem ( 2020 ) believe that a sum of practices, such as long-term orientation, gradual expansion, risk management, employee priority, innovation within others, leads to an improvement in corporate sustainability performance, because they will impact on the rational use of resources, better working conditions for employees, the longevity of the company and its operations.

Xia et al ( 2020 ) highlight practices that can improve the corporate sustainability performance of a company, in terms of socio-environmental, socio-economical, and eco-efficiency aspects. Specifically, these practices are related to encouraging environmental innovation, redesigning consumers' offer, raising support for institutions and policy measures, and organizing synergetic involvement among stakeholders. In this same direction, Crisóstomo et al. ( 2020 ) identify determinants for corporate sustainability performance. Within these determinants, there are: ownership concentration; companies from environmentally risky sectors; profitability; the firm's size; growth opportunities; and dept.

Considering the global concern that companies should align their corporate sustainability goals to international requirements, Zhang et al. ( 2020 ) propose using indicators from the global reporting initiative (GRI) for the corporate sustainability disclosure of firms. However, Zhang et al. ( 2020 ) assure that there are still challenges because firms in different countries may have a different understanding of corporate sustainability compared to international guidelines, such as those established in the GRI.

Also, Weber and Chowdury ( 2020 ) point out the relevance of evaluating corporate sustainability by separating indicators into four groups: social sustainability, environmental sustainability, green products; and services. With a more in-depth approach, Ikram et al. ( 2020 ) believe that more categories are needed in order to value specific aspects of the firms, such as social sustainability. In specific, Ikram et al. ( 2020 ) proposes nine categories: Corporate Governance; Product Responsibility; Transparency and Communication; Economic; Environmental; Social; Natural Environment and Climate Vulnerability; Energy Consumption; and Pandemic COVID-19 impact. The proposed diverse categories to evaluate corporate sustainability is aligned with the current needs of companies to achieve “real” sustainability, because the traditional triple bottom line of sustainability is not sufficient and may even lead to a business-as-usual perspective, as mentioned by Milne and Gray ( 2013 ).

In complement to this, it is relevant to issue how different perspectives on sustainability by managers can influence on decision-making, whether they are more radical or moderate. About this, Hahn et al. ( 2014 ) assure that the team setting of a company should be diverse in terms of views on problem–solution and sustainability issues. Authors affirm that if teams are dominated by business case-minded (more focused on economic objectives) or paradoxical types (with higher awareness on environmental and social issues), they may be less successful in achieving a significant corporate sustainability performace, while a mixed team may be better in these terms.

Interestingly, Baumgartner and Rauter ( 2017 ) argue that to achieve expected corporate sustainability standards, it is important to explore how management can contribute to creating value for businesses, society and nature. Mainly, the authors defend that performance could be improved through strategic management, specifically looking at its three dimensions: strategy process, strategy content, and strategy context. Thus, this may strengthen the relationship between strategic management and the sustainable development of a company.

Main findings in literature review papers on corporate sustainability

In terms of literature review papers on corporate sustainability, there are more than a dozen relevant articles, each with its own focus. Precisely for this reason, it is worth giving a brief description of some of them, as follows.

Goyal et al. ( 2013 ) developed a descriptive analysis of papers published between 1992 and 2011 on corporate sustainability performance. The data collected is from the following database: Emerald Full Text; EBSCOS; Elsevier’s Science Direct; JSTOR; Taylor & Francis; and Springer-Verlag. The search keywords used by Goyal et al. ( 2013 ) were “corporate sustainability performance”, “green”, “triple bottom line”, “environment performance”, and “CSR”. In total, 101 papers were selected for the quantitative descriptive analysis. In this literature review, the authors identify that there is a trend toward evaluating corporate sustainability from an integrated perspective, in which social, environmental and economic issues are jointly considered.

With a focus on integrating corporate sustainability and strategic management, Engert et al. ( 2016 ) reviewed 114 articles through descriptive and content analysis methods published until 2014. As key search terms, authors used: strategic; strategy; strategies; management; corporate sustainability; sustainability; environmental; green; eco; ecological; social; socially; ethical; responsible; and responsibility. The databases for this review were Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. This review shows that there has been an increasing number of publications on the explored research field over the years, that more interdisciplinary work on corporate sustainability is appearing and that there is still a need for more empirical research.

From a conflictive perspective, Van der Byl and Slawinski ( 2015 ) undertake an extensive literature and content review to assess tensions of corporate sustainability regarding achieving a balance between economic, social, and environmental aspects. Authors selected 149 papers from 2003 to 2014 from top-tier management and strategy journals that focused on corporate sustainability and tensions related to four approaches: win–win; trade-off; integrative; and paradox. This review identified that while the win–win approach seeks to reconcile social or environmental issues with economic goals, the trade-off puts these issues into conflict. On the other hand, the integrative approach aims to achieve solutions that balance the dimensions of sustainability and the paradox approach seeks to understand the nature of tensions in regard to achieving corporate sustainability, besides looking into innovative and creative solutions.

Under the argument that there is not much application of theories of firm on corporate sustainability, Lozano ( 2015 ) review the most used theories and how they can contribute to corporate sustainability. Authors do not undertake a specific process to choose literature, and focus on what they believe is the adequate literature to be reviewed on this topic under an interpretative perspective. Results show that each theory is limited to addressing a particular dimension of corporate sustainability, however it is also argued that there could be a sustainability oriented theory of firm that could gather elements of each theory in order to be aligned with and contribute to corporate sustainability.

Diez-Cañamero et al. ( 2020 ) argue that there are no specific instruments that can support an alignment of companies to achieve similarly corporate sustainability. Therefore, the authors identify common indexes, ranking and ratings of corporate sustainability systems to organize a common proposition that could support corporate sustainability development on a larger scale. The documents reviewed in this study were articles and reports that specially applied corporate sustainability systems within 2010 and 2019. The authors did not specify particular keywords or database systems to search documents but focused on specific websites and reports. The authors conclude that the different approaches to measuring corporate sustainability cause a biased view of sustainability, leading to a diminished importance of sustainable development.

With a focus on corporate sustainability and organizational capabilities, da Cunha Bezerra et al. ( 2020 ) proposes a framework based on a systematic literature review under a descriptive approach. The papers reviewed by the authors were found in the web of science database, considering those that were published until February of 2019. The keywords used for the search are related to capabilities, sustainability social performance and social responsibility. Papers were filtered based on the literature review's focus, which led to the consideration of 88 articles. The results of da Cunha Bezerra et al. ( 2020 ) indicate that corporate sustainability is closely related to business strategy and the development of specific organizational capabilities.

Arguing that there is a gap between policy and implementation regarding corporate sustainability, Ahmed et al. ( 2021 ), through a systematic literature review, explores factors that make implementing corporate sustainability policies difficult. With this aim, Ahmed et al. ( 2021 ) selected 107 papers published between 1950 and 2020 in six major editorial groups: Wiley; Taylor and Francis; Emeral; Springer; Sage; and Elsevier. The keywords for the search were: policy; small and medium enterprise; sustainability; Corporate Social Responsibility; corporate sustainability; corporate ethics; corporate philanthropy; corporate citizenship; and corporate sustainability responsibility. Results of this review show that adequate policymaking on corporate sustainability is closely related to several business approaches such as the grassroots approach, environmental impact assessment, integrated sustainability assessment, evidence-based practice approach, and systematic approach.

Schaltegger et al. ( 2022 ) highlight the importance of understanding the role of management accounting on corporate sustainability. Within this context, the authors undertake a systematic literature review on sustainability management accounting, based on content analysis. In this review, the 62 papers selected were articles published until 2019 focusing on environmental, social and sustainability accounting found in five databases: EBSCO Host-Business Source Premier (BSP); JSTOR; ScienceDirect; Scopus and Web of Science. This study identifies that the literature shows a timid relationship between the micro-level of sustainable management accounting with a company’s meso and macro organizational levels, which means that there are still challenges with regard to extending sustainable management accounting beyond organizational barriers.

Based on the diverse existing challenges for companies to balance economic, social and environmental goals, Luo et al. ( 2020 ) conducted a systematic literature review on corporate sustainability paradox management. The 141 papers selected were published in high ranking journals dedicated to management and sustainability until December 2019. The authors undertaken a content analysis of the selected papers and concluded that environmental and cognitive factors create tensions to adopt sustainable solutions; proactive strategies are more present in studies related to corporate sustainability and result more effective in the short- and long-term sustainable goals of a company; and strategies to manage corporate sustainability paradoxes deals with complex business scenarios, on the multi-level and multi-stage approach.

From a human resources perspective, Kainzbauer et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a bibliometric analysis to understand how sustainable human resource management contributes to corporate sustainability. This review selected 807 Scopus-indexed papers from 1982 and 2021 on sustainability in human resource management. The review identified three research development areas: green human resource management; Corporate Social Responsibility; and sustainable human resource management. However, the authors highlight that recently, more importance has been given to environmental issues, leading to the need to generate more contributions to human and social aspects of sustainability.

Analyzing the findings of the research in this subsection, it is observed that they are complementary and have different focuses, despite all of them being methodologically guided by a literature review. In this perspective of complementarity, our work will address the following issues on corporate sustainability: (i) historical evolution over the years; (ii) methodological features; (iii) citation networks and research clusters; (iv) contributions to organizations; (v) Barriers to the adoption by organizations; (vi) guidelines for the adoption by organizations; (vii) innovations; (viii) agenda and future research directions. To this end, we will continue with the methodological approach described and detailed in the next section.

Materials and methods

Methodologically, this research was supported by a SLR. Its function is to organize the knowledge disseminated over the last ten years (between 2011 and 2020) on the topic of corporate sustainability, thus increasing the visibility of this subject (Meredith, 1993 ) and contributing to the topic's investigative process (Easterby-Smith et al., 2002 ), in addition to providing a historical perspective and the consolidation efforts in this area of knowledge.

According to Gough et al. ( 2012 ), SLR is a structured, transparent and reproducible method, characterized by being an objective, replicable approach that, according to Badi and Murtagh ( 2019 ), can provide a comprehensive knowledge of scientific research published in a given field of study. The aim of a literature review is to identify gaps in the literature (Tranfield et al., 2003 ), as well as to address existing limitations on a given topic (De Oliveira et al., 2018 ). For Wee and Banister ( 2016 ), a literature review should gather the research material in a structured way, adding value by discussing relevant aspects and raising promising paths for future research, based on key and emerging topics (Seuring et al., 2005 ).

In general, SLR begins with clarifying the scope of the research (Agi et al., 2020 ), followed by the objective of the review (Agi et al., 2020 ; Tranfield et al., 2003 ), with a well-defined strategy for data search (Agi et al., 2020 ; De Oliveira et al., 2018 ; Tranfield et al., 2003 ), and collection of research material (Agi et al., 2020 ; De Oliveira et al., 2018 ; Tranfield et al., 2003 ). For Tseng et al. ( 2019 ), SLR has four stages, which, in short, involve the identification of data, the screening of initial data, the determination of eligibility and, finally, the inclusion of data.

Taking into account the notes covered in the previous paragraphs, this SLR followed the steps presented in Fig.  1 , as a structured research protocol.

Structured research protocol for the SLR

In order to focus on the research, the first step started from clarifying its scope and also its objective, which are duly pointed out in the introduction section of this research.

The second step consisted in choosing the database for the research, which in this case was the Web of Science (WoS). Considered one of the main databases in terms of content volume (Abrizah et al., 2013 ), the platform had more than 38 million publications in its collection for more than a decade (Vieira & Gomes, 2009 ). Such information reinforces the reach (De Oliveira et al., 2021 ) and, mainly, the amount of content (Machado & De Oliveira, 2021 ) in this database. Another important point is the quality and numbers of scientific journals published in the WoS (Chadegani et al., 2013 ).

The third stage of the research identified all articles published from January 1, 2011 until December 31, 2020, and the search was carried out through the "advanced research" tool on WoS. As a search argument, the term “Corporate Sustainability” was used in the title and the term “Environmental” was used in the topic section, simultaneously, using the Boolean logic “AND”. As a limitation of this step, it is found that the papers that did not use any of the research arguments in the title, abstract or keywords at least once, did not have their work related to the present study. The number of manuscripts found in this stage was two hundred twenty-one.

The fourth step involved downloading all papers that met the research conditions outlined in the previous step. This material was stored in a folder for later reading of their titles and abstracts. In the fifth and sixth stages, the titles and abstracts were read so that a sorting of the materials could be made, thus discarding papers not related to the topic and inserting in a spreadsheet relevant data from the remaining papers for future reading. Of the 221 initially downloaded articles, 48 were discarded at this stage because they were not directly related to the topic.

Following the technical procedures, the seventh stage addressed the organization of the material eligible for the SRL on CS, and, in the eighth and final stage, the eligible material was read in its entirety, from which the understanding about the CS topic was elaborated over the last 10 years, providing a view of the current scenario, its evolution in the period, as well as opportunities for future research and developments in the field. At this stage, another 17 articles were discarded, leaving 156 articles that were duly cited and referenced in the present research. Figure  2 summarizes this section, segmenting the steps into two macro processes, one for data collection and the other for data analysis.

Summarized methodological scheme for performing the SLR

Results of the systematic literature review

In this section, the main results will be presented, starting with the details of the definition found in the collected materials.

Historical evolution of corporate sustainability over the years

There was a quantitative evolution in relation to the papers published over the last 10 years on CS. From Fig.  3 , it is possible to observe an increasing number of publications in this topic, particularly in English-language journals.

Historical evolution of the quantity of materials published on CS

There has been a growing increase in published content, especially over the past four years. It is important to note that the number of materials collected for 2020 covers the entire year, i.e., until December 31, 2020.

Research on CS has undergone variations in terms of objectives, contexts and areas studied. Table ​ Table1 1 shows the historical evolution of the research objectives over the years.

Year-over-year objectives of the studies analyzed

Even with variations over the researched decade, it is noted that the adoption and evaluation of sustainable practices in companies, as well as issues related to the management of CS linked to human resources, received greater attention when compared to other objectives, as shown in Fig.  4 .

Main objectives and themes related to the researched materials

Complementing this analysis of the historical evolution of CS, one could not fail to address the journals that contributed most to research advances in the area of CS. From the data tabulation, it was possible to perform the mapping shown in Table ​ Table2 2 .

Main journals with content on Corporate Sustainability environment-focused

From its analysis, it is important to highlight that the journals mentioned in Table ​ Table2 2 have become a reference for obtaining materials on this topic.

Methodological features on corporate sustainability

In the reading phase of the selected material, it was found that the research could be divided into 8 contexts, as shown in Table ​ Table3 3 .

Context of the analyzed studies

From the definition of the context, the grouping of materials began according to their main application area. Table ​ Table4 4 organizes these areas.

Areas of application of the analyzed studies

Concluding the segmentation, it was found that the research methods used have 3 predominant divisions: (i) empirical studies (Gomez-Bezares et al., 2019 ; Jones et al., 2015 ; Mishra et al., 2020 ; Baumgartner & Rauter, 2017 ; Ahern, 2015 ); (ii) mathematical modeling using diverse techniques (Yang et al., 2017a , 2017b ; Aras et al., 2018 ; Weber, 2017 ; Kucukbay & Surucu, 2019 ; Hu et al., 2011 ; Zillur et al., 2015 ) and; (iii) literature review (Amini & Bienstock, 2014 ; Goyal et al., 2013 ; Kourula et al., 2017 ; Vildasen et al., 2017 ).

Based on these three characteristics (context, area and method), publications on CS were stratified according to Fig.  5 .

Map of the SLR (2011–2020)

Citation networks and research clusters on corporate sustainability

For the purpose of visualizing and analyzing citation networks in the papers that comprised the study material of this research, we used the CitNetExplorer software, which focuses on the topic of field‐normalized citation impact indicators.

The CitNetExplorer software analyzed 1756 citation links, derived from references cited by papers on CS published on WoS, in the period from 2011 to 2020. Figures  6 and ​ and7, 7 , which were generated from this software, have the following parameters:

• Each circle represents a publication;
• Publications are labeled by the last name of the first author;
• To avoid overlapping labels, some labels may not be displayed;
• The horizontal location of a publication is determined by its citations relations with other publications;
• The vertical location of a publication is determined by its publication year;
• The curved lines represent citation relations;
• Citations point in upward direction;
• The cited publication is always located above the citing publication.

Network of citations for publications on CS and their connections—extracted from CitNetExplorer

Publications on CS originated from Dyllick and Hockerts ( 2002 )—extracted from CitNetExplorer

Figure  6 allows the visualization of most frequently cited publications (select based on their Citation Score) and their connections (links). It is interesting to note that countless publications from past decades have been used to compose the theoretical framework of the publications of the last ten years on CS, with a significant part of these publications maintaining a citation relationship (see curved lines) with current publications.

In the center of Fig.  6 , we can see the Dyllick’s seminal paper publication, “Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability”, that among the publications that directly address the topic CS is the one with the highest Citation Score index. From Fig.  7 , we can see the unfolding of the work of Dyllick and Hockerts ( 2002 ) in several other publications, expanding the visual information of the previous figure.

Although Figs. ​ Figs.6 6 and ​ and7 7 allow the visualization of the most relevant citation networks and their relationship with other citations over time, it is not possible to extract from these figures what are the main areas of investigation, how these areas are related, or even what are the most active research areas. Thus, in order to answer these questions, the CiteSpace software was used. According to Chen ( 2006 ), CiteSpace is software designed to generate an “X-ray” of an area of knowledge represented by a set of bibliographic records from relevant publications. Figure  8 , which illustrates the most active areas of research on CS in the past ten years, was developed by CiteSpace.

Main research clusters on CS in the period from 2011 to 2020

Clusters are numbered in descending order of cluster size, starting with the largest cluster #0, the second largest #1, and so on. In this case, the largest area (#0 sustainability governance characteristics) has the largest number of members' references, being, therefore, the subject that has had the most activity in the last decade.

Of these clusters, one that draws attention is the seventh (#6 including covid-19 insight), which is understandable because the world has reached a critical point of volatility due to the emergence of COVID-19 (Karnama & Vinuesa, 2020 ), which would thus justify the growing interest of the scientific community in research that includes aspects of the 2020 Pandemic.

In Fig.  8 , the total time span is from 2011 to 2020 and the clusters show the most important traces of related research activities. Each dot represents a node in the network, which are the citations. And the lines that connect the nodes are co-citations links. The colors of these lines are designed to show when a connection was made for the first time. Color coding makes it easy to identify which part of the network is old (lilac shade) and which is recent (yellow shade).

Contributions of corporate sustainability to organizations

A large part of the CS contributions are linked to the improvement in environmental management related to areas close to the organizations, where the increments may be related to cultivation and preservation in high standard environments, continuous control of environmental pollution, protection for threatened plants and animals, implementation of successful environmental protection programs, optimal use of resources and anticipation of possible problems related to the environment (Vardari et al., 2020 ). CS improves business performance and reputation, reducing or eliminating risks and linking operations to results that can improve the common good (Wilshusen & MacDonald, 2017 ).

However, its implementation only has the power to become a rich source of competitiveness if the opportunities related to sustainable development are properly identified (Baumgartner, 2014 ). Integrating CS into the company's strategy is more than a responsibility, being essential that each business recognizes the need to be socially, environmentally and financially sustainable in order to survive over time (Ashrafi et al., 2018 ).

The adoption of CS contributes to eco-innovation, responsible leadership, sustainable and organizational culture (Paraschiv et al., 2012 ), as well as the need to adopt certifications such as ISO 14001 to accelerate the company's commitment to sustainable issues (Maletic et al., 2015 ; Ramos et al., 2013 ). It was also observed the establishment of partnerships between companies and NGOs that defend the environmental cause, generating improvements, legitimacy and value for both parties (Daddi et al., 2019 ; Joensuu et al., 2015 ).

In addition to the environmental context, there were several contents regarding the financial aspect triggered by sustainable practices, such as the improvement in the relationship with investors (Garcia-Sanchez et al., 2019 ; Serafeim, 2020 ), long-term returns in times of financial crisis (Gomez-Bezares et al., 2016 ), creating long-term value for business owners through the exploitation of opportunities and risk management (Kocmanova et al., 2017 ), environmental and social governance activities positively affecting economic performance (Budsaratragoon & Jitmaneeroj, 2019 ) and image improvement before the entire market (Schrobback & Meath, 2020 ).

It was found that both early adopters of CS and late adopters benefit greatly. The pioneer receives all payment from stakeholders in the sustainability market, since it is the only operator. In contrast, late adopters gain an advantage as they benefit from cumulative side effects in an explored and expanded market (Usar et al., 2019 ). Foreign ownership positively impacts the level of adoption of CS, as the pressure exerted ends up being greater culminating in a need for constant training of the workforce (Pechancova et al., 2019 ).

In the internal environment, experiences with CS encourage managers to devote more attention to environmental and social problems (Grewatsch & Kleindienst, 2018 ), as well as the leading role of leadership in their application (Tomsic et al., 2015 ), in addition to promote employee involvement (Horisch et al., 2019 ; Pellegrini et al., 2018 ). The establishment of gender diversity on the company's board, for example, has a significant positive impact on the financial performance of the business (Zahid et al., 2020 ).

The public sector realized the importance of such knowledge and drives progress in sustainability through state-led projects with the development of concepts and legislation, as in the case of China (Liu & Yan, 2018 ). More specifically related to that country's financial sector, green credit policies have increased the CS of banks and/or helped to create a more stable and successful sector (Weber, 2017 ).

Figure  9 presents, in a summarized form, the main contributions of CS, divided into 4 axes:

Contributions of CS to organizations

Barriers to the adoption of corporate sustainability by organizations

As presented in the previous section, the application of CS is seen as fundamental in organizations of all types and sectors, but there are several obstacles to its implementation.

Among the difficulties imposed, barriers related to the adoption of sustainable practices by employees were mentioned in several studies. Some examples are, the inability to motivate managers with highschool education level (Henry et al., 2019 ), the internal difficulty with managers and other employees (Ashrafi et al., 2019 ; Pechancova et al., 2019 ), the lack of internal understanding (Stahl et al., 2020 ), the lack of human resources management (Sadatsafavi & Walewski, 2013 ) and the wage gap (Gomez-Bezares et al., 2019 ).

The lack of guidance on CS is another barrier in its implementation (Ahern, 2015 ; Baumgartner & Rauter, 2017 ; Deng et al., 2017 ), as well as the different internal perceptions about this topic that can cause difficulty in its dissemination (Nyuur et al., 2020 ). The lack of understanding on the subject also occurs in the process of selecting appropriate economic, environmental and social indicators for measuring sustainability, which has several methodological structures and a wide range of assumptions (Nikolaou et al., 2019 ).

CS needs to be anchored in the economic, environmental and social sphere, but the sources and indicators used, normally, focus only on economic factors, resulting in the mistaken recognition that sustainability is an optional contribution, rather than something present in the company's culture. (Schneider & Meins, 2012 ). Another important point is that just “institutional pressure” is not enough to improve the sustainable performance. The allocation of financial and human resources is also necessary for the practices to be effectively completed (Mishra et al., 2020 ).

Another relevant aspect refers to the communication of the companies' sustainable activities, which usually occurs through the sustainability report. As there is no specific standard for the dissemination of results, erroneous or incomplete disclosure of data to specialists, partners and investors becomes common (Barkemeyer et al., 2015 ; Garcia-Sanchez et al., 2019 ; Klettner et al., 2014 ; Lee, 2019 ).

According to Bae et al. ( 2018 ), another barrier involves difficulties related to the family management mode, very common in different parts of the world, in which the family benefit is seen as superior to the negative effects generated for society and other interested parties. Modifying traditional issues and balancing business performance with sustainable issues is seen as a paradox (Daddi et al., 2019 ).

The outsourcing of supply chains in various sectors, which occurred mainly in the last two decades, to developing countries and with considerable cultural differences in relation to the matrix, are attempts to react due to increased competition and shorter product cycles. This decentralization makes it difficult to control operations, in which they may contain slave labor and the use of products that are degrading to the environment (Lueg et al., 2015 ). The fashion industry clearly illustrates the barriers presented. In addition to being one of the most polluting globally, it has professionals with low level of qualification, education and easily replaceable, also causing labor barriers (Feng & Ngai, 2020 ).

In different sectors and businesses, there are tensions between the various stakeholders (Vildasen & Havenvid, 2018 ) with respect to searching for a joint sustainability perspective. When it comes to suppliers and sub-suppliers, there is a considerable range of factors critical to the success of sustainable actions: trust between the focal company, direct supplier and sub-supplier; buyer power of the focal company and the supplier; the long-term committed relationship between direct supplier and sub-supplier; direct supplier involvement; value perceived by the direct supplier and sub-supplier; subcontractor's ability to meet requested sustainability standards; and cultural and geographical distance between supply chain partners (Grimm et al., 2018 ). Figure  10 illustrates barriers that hinder the adoption of CS:

Barriers faced for the adoption of corporate sustainability

Guidelines for the adoption of corporate sustainability by organizations

It was found that the search for certifications is a relevant path for the adoption of CS, as they contain basic guidelines for obtaining the titles (Ramos et al., 2013 ), mainly in sectors with high environmental impact (Ashrafi et al., 2019 ). However, organizations need to see it beyond a mere certification with an environmental focus and clearly address the social aspect (Maletic et al., 2015 ). NGOs are important actors for implementing CS in an effective, planned and positive way (Lee, 2019 , Joensuu et al., 2015 ).

The dissemination of sustainable culture from the creation of the position of "Chief Sustainability Officer" (CSO) within organizations is a viable way for its implementation to occur (Henry et al., 2019 ). If the manager has extensive previous experience in sustainability issues, the results tend to be positive in the long term (Peters et al., 2019 ).

As an alternative or complement to the creation of a specific position, investment in training for the existing workforce, the use of local labor, and the improvement of internal processes are factors that assist performance, in addition to promoting a broad and sustainable philosophy (Lloret, 2016 ). Companies can use the leadership of their team members to create a favorable and collaborative environment for the innovation process linked to sustainability, offering employees training, rewards and a system for monitoring innovation performance (Lampikoski et al., 2014 ; Pellegrini et al., 2018 ; Tomsic et al., 2015 ; Yang et al., 2017a , 2017b ). The emphasis on human development and training in the workplace should focus on environmental practices and the exercise of power to transform pollution prevention thinking to promote sustainable actions (Feng & Ngai, 2020 ).

Investment in the Research & Development sector also plays an important role, as it promotes innovative products and modern technologies that improve the efficiency of the entire organization, including the sustainable aspect (Zillur et al., 2015 ). In the same vein, a better and adequate design of the facilities contributes to the internal development of resources and the extension of organizational capacities (Sadatsafavi & Walewski, 2013 ).

The Sustainability Report is one of the most used tools for communicating sustainable practices, which can go unnoticed internally and externally. Its range of information can attract attention from the market and investors (Garcia-Sanchez et al., 2019 ). In this type of document, companies can publish their corporate responsibility policy with strategic drivers, structure for monitoring and implementation, methods for receiving contributions from interested parties and requirements in which executives present true views (Klettner et al., 2014 ). Communication can incorporate other aspects of innovation, economic competitiveness, third-party involvement and education initiatives (Ramos et al., 2013 ).

The design of an open and low-barrier system encourages stakeholder to have confidence in resolving conflicting interests. From this understanding, it is possible to reach a common and beneficial point for those involved (Afreen & Kumar, 2016 ). According to Sukitsch et al. ( 2015 ) its practical implementation can be carried out respecting several factors such as: sustainability drivers; sustainability strategies; sustainability issues; integration into the main business; organizational areas in question; motivators for a sustainable business scenario; stakeholder involvement; and methods for sustainability management and measurement/evaluation.

Involving direct suppliers in building sustainable policies is paramount, as they are points of contact with sub-suppliers that will impact the construction of a final product (Grimm et al., 2016 ). Considering relationships and assessing suppliers' commitment to subcontractors is essential for the success of focus companies, as alignment of perceptions about sustainability among the various supply chain partners is necessary (Grimm et al., 2018 ), even if it generates costs for the final company (Smith, 2013 ).

Finally, Lozano ( 2015 ) highlights that, internally, leadership and the business case are the most important motivators to catalyze CS, while the most relevant external drivers are related to the reputation, demands and expectations of customers and regulation/legislation.

Innovations on corporate sustainability

In addition to the guidelines, the analyzed documents detailed innovative approaches to review the adoption and measurement of this topic. Table ​ Table5 5 highlights the main ones:

Innovative approaches to CS

Innovations in segmented markets were also observed, such as exploring the sustainability performance of Chinese banks (Weber, 2017 ), creating an index to measure CS in the cruise industry (Bonilla-Priego et al., 2014 ), the proposition of 5 radical models to examine the sustainability rate of Japanese industrial sectors (Sueyoshi & Goto, 2014 ), identification of 87 sustainability-related indicators for the fashion industry (Kozlowski et al., 2015 ), a tool for analyzing the dimensions of sustainability in Ecuadorian cooperatives (Alcivar et al., 2020 ), sustainable innovation model for energy companies (de Almeida & de Melo, 2017 ), an analytical scheme for the generation and capture of the value of Mexican companies (Lloret, 2016 ), analysis of materiality for companies related to water technology (Calabrese et al., 2019 ) and its adoption by Italian companies in the wine sector (Annunziata et al., 2018 ).

Adding to the list of the previous paragraph, other topics were found, among them the addition of social media to the decision-making analysis process (Tseng, 2017 ), the use of innovation games as a roadmap for the development of value creation strategies (Lampikoski et al., 2014 ), the configuration of behaviors with the provision of incentives to employees in conjunction with human resource management tools (Sadatsafavi & Walewski, 2013 ) and the classification of the types of trade-offs found through a hierarchical structure (Haffar & Searcy, 2017 ).

To conclude this section, the most recent innovation observed on CS refers to the inclusion of COVID-19 as a new attribute of sustainable business practices. Ikram et al. ( 2020 ), believing that after the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations will be sensitized to achieve a more sustainable business environment, developed an indicator structure that has 45 sustainability subcriteria, classified according to the nine main categories (Corporate Governance, Transparency and Communication, Product Responsibility, Environment, Social, Economy, Natural Environment and Climate Change, Energy Consumption and Economy and Pandemic). COVID-19 is even included as one of the research clusters on CS, as shown in Fig.  8 (see Sect.  4.3 ).

Agenda and future research directions

This section will discuss the recommendations of future research that were observed in the papers included in the SLR, emphasizing CS pathways that remain open.

Recommendations for future research that remain open

In the field of Human Resources, the possible connection between sustainability and wage disparity, recommended by Gomez-Bezares et al. ( 2019 ), remains without new materials. Zahid et al. ( 2020 ) studied about gender diversity in business boards in Malaysia, but found the need for a broader discussion and in different realities. In the case of Lozano et al. ( 2017 ), the study happened by segmenting managers' understanding of the complexities and multidimensional issue of CS in Japan, where the authors recommended the development of research to analyze experiences on this topic in the West and East, verifying what can be translated into other territories and cultures.

Liu and Yan ( 2018 ) argued about the need to focus on sustainability projects and failed attempts, so that complementary theoretical views can be confronted with those that were successful in their implementation. New studies are suggested to understand where and when to spend on more sustainable policies, especially in the context of bringing more benefits to shareholders. Tarquinio et al. ( 2018 ) propose the future creation of a system of indicators to summarize the overall performance of the businesses, with the aim of providing a valuable view of the information in sustainability reports.

The macro-environmental issue also has open studies, mainly in climate change and global warming, topics suggested by Linnenluecke and Griffiths ( 2013 ), as well as the use of Smart Technologies to assist CS (Hack & Berg, 2014 ; Saunila et al., 2019 ). Table ​ Table6 6 includes the main recommendations found in the analyzed materials:

Highlighted future research recommendations

Recommendations of relevant future research

Through the insertion of new technologies in the industrial context, at a time led by 5G together with Industry 4.0, there are several possibilities for their insertion in the context of CS. According to Seele ( 2017 ), it will be possible to predict most of the problems related to sustainability and not just analyze what has already been published. The opportunity for studies in this area is relevant, as the use of Big Data as a complementary element to traditional approaches has gained relevance in recent years (Bala et al., 2015 ; Weber, 2017 ; Serafeim, 2020 ).

Studies related to consumer perception regarding CS are lacking, since the analyzed materials contribute to internal understanding, whether with employees or suppliers. The study by Stolz and Bautista ( 2015 ) addresses the external perception, but related to audiences belonging to a segmented age group and location, as well as the material by Tomsic et al. ( 2015 ), which also analyzes the economic issues of small and medium-sized companies. With the growing concern about sustainable development, it is an opportunity to understand what consumers see of value when choosing certain brands, checking if the sustainable issue is taken into account, as suggested by Jones et al. ( 2017 ).

It was found in the review that issues related to Human Resources are predominant for the application of CS (Gomez-Bezares et al., 2019 ; Lueg et al., 2015 ; Zahid et al., 2020 ). Therefore studies that help better forms of engagement, diversity, perception, reward and leadership of employees will bring valuable information for the adoption of sustainable practices, inserting them into the organization's culture. People must understand the new business values clearly, with respect to the sustainable concerns, so that, based on their interpretation, they practice in their daily lives.

There are also difficulties reported in the analysis of Sustainability Reports, many of them incompatible with what was expected by partners and investors, which demonstrate the gaps and the possibility of improving this essential instrument of communication and accountability of sustainable practices (Barkemeyer et al., 2015 ; Jones et al., 2017 ; Manning et al., 2019 ; Mishra et al., 2020 ; Mohammadi et al., 2018 ). Its total or partial standardization can generate an even greater contribution to the company's value and, consequently, brand positioning in highly competitive markets.

Another critical gap to be investigated is related to the circular economy suggested by Daddi et al. ( 2019 ) in other sectors besides the production of paper, fashion and leather because such a topic becomes increasingly relevant not only in relation to suppliers but also to the society in general and to NGOs linked to the environment, as the authors themselves cite.

To achieve the objectives of the present research, 221 articles were selected, downloaded and analyzed. These articles have corporate sustainability as their central theme, with a significant part of the material focused on environmental issues. As a time frame, we worked with articles published in the last ten years, where it was possible to observe a growth in researchers' interest in this topic year after year. In 2011, for example, we had only five articles published (see Fig.  3 ), while in 2020 we had 43 articles. Analyzing year by year, there is an average annual growth rate of publications around 27%.

Although a large part of the research contributions on CS is linked to improvement in environmental management (cultivation and preservation in high-standard environments, continuous control of environmental pollution, protection for threatened plants and animals, implementation of successful environmental protection programs, optimal use of resources and anticipation of possible problems related to the environment), many other relevant approaches were observed, such as improving performance and business reputation, interaction with producers and stakeholders, financial performance, bioeconomics, improvement in the human resources with content related to gender diversity, employee involvement and leadership and, finally, the implementation of CS in sectors that are still unexplored. Specifically, regarding the improvement in business performance and reputation, there is a search for certifications, improvement in risk management, foreign ownership and relations with investors and partnerships with interested parties, of which NGOs, suppliers and the government are present.

Regarding the sector (business segment/type of business) where these papers were applied, the diversity of application areas is impressive, of which stand out those of agri-food, banks, consumers, ocean cruises, aquaculture, oil, energy, manufacturing, fashion, ports, technology, among many others. Concerning methodological procedures, these surveys were, in the vast majority of times, conducted by case studies, interviews, structured and semi-structured surveys and mathematical modeling.

As opportunities on this topic, it was possible to understand the main barriers faced for the adoption of CS linked to the management area, whether in the allocation of financial resources or flawed indicators; the human resources area, with difficulties in its adoption by employees, lack of management or lack of internal understanding; to the topic itself, in the absence of its understanding or lack of guidance. As a counterpoint, to overcome these barriers, numerous recommendations were observed, of which the investment in the Research & Development sector stands out, the implementation of an efficient communication process through the Sustainability Report and the dissemination of sustainable culture from the creation of the position of “Chief Sustainability Officer” (CSO). Alternatively, to creating the CSO role, companies can use the leadership of their team members to create a favorable and collaborative environment for the innovation process linked to sustainability.

With regard to innovations on CS, it was observed, in these ten years of research, the creation of an index for the cruise industry, the identification of 87 indicators for the fashion industry and the inclusion of COVID-19 as a new attribute of sustainable business practices. Even though COVID-19 is a very recent event, there is scientific research involving CS, and is even one of the main research clusters in the analyzed period (seventh cluster, as shown in Fig.  8 ). The first cluster is “sustainability governance characteristics”, with a greater number of references, being, consequently, the subject that had more activity in the last decade.

We suggest that all opportunities on CS reported in Sect.  5.2 of this paper are taken into account concerning future research possibilities. But, if we had to select only one, we would suggest further research on problems related to Sustainability Reports. Many studies have pointed out the lack of standardization of these documents, communication failures in accountability for sustainable practices and information incompatible with what was expected by partners and investors. In this direction, instigating questions on this topic could be: what would be the measurable gain that “adequate” Sustainability Reports could bring to CS? Or, in percentage terms (or any other measure that is more appropriate), how much would a Sustainability Report inspire stakeholders to make positive decisions on this matter? Or, yet, what would be an “adequate” Sustainability Report?

As a limitation, the present research considered only articles published on the Web of Science database. In addition, the search arguments used (“Corporate Sustainability” in the title field, “Environmental” in the topic field and the Boolean logic “AND”) directed the systematic review of the literature to the environmental bias. This direction is likely to be a limitation for other researchers interested in other approaches, such as financial and economic ones. Thus, for future works of a systematic review of the literature on corporate sustainability, it is recommended to work with other databases, such as SCOPUS and with other directions than the environmental one.

To conclude, it is emphasized that this article is recommended for researchers and academics who intend to start or update their knowledge in CS, since the SLR developed here can provide a comprehensive view of the studies on this topic.

Author contributions

URDO: conceptualization, methodology, writing—review & editing, visualization, supervision, project administration. RPM: investigation, resources, formal analysis, writing—original draft. VAF: writing—review & editing.

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Data availability

Code availability, declarations.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose and have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Ualison Rébula de Oliveira, Email: [email protected] .

Rodolfo Pombo Menezes, Email: rb.ffu.di@obmopoflodor .

Vicente Aprigliano Fernandes, Email: [email protected] .

• Abrizah A, Zainab AN, Kiran K, Raj RG. LIS journals scientific impact and subject categorization: A comparison between Web of Science and Scopus. Scientometrics. 2013; 94 :721–740. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0813-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Afreen S, Kumar S. Between a rock and a hard place: The dynamics of stakeholder interactions influencing corporate sustainability practices. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal. 2016; 7 (3):350–375. doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2015-0020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agi MAN, Faramarzi-Oghani S, Hazır Ö. Game theory-based models in green supply chain management: A review of the literature. International Journal of Production Research. 2020 doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1770893. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahern GM. Imagining what underlies corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Development. 2015; 34 (4):494–504. doi: 10.1108/JMD-06-2014-0064. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahmed M, Mubarik MS, Shahbaz M. Factors affecting the outcome of corporate sustainability policy: A review paper. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2021; 28 (9):10335–10356. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-12143-7. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alcivar IL, Cruz FGS, Mero NM, Hidalgo-Fernandez A. Study of corporate sustainability dimensions in the cooperatives of Ecuador. Sustainability. 2020 doi: 10.3390/su12020462. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alda M. Corporate sustainability and institutional shareholders: The pressure of social responsible pension funds on environmental firm practices. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2019; 28 (6):1060–1071. doi: 10.1002/bse.2301. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amini M, Bienstock CC. Corporate sustainability: An integrative definition and framework to evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014; 76 :12–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.02.016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amini M, Bienstock CC, Narcum JA. Status of corporate sustainability: A content analysis of Fortune 500 companies. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2018; 27 (8):1450–1461. doi: 10.1002/bse.2195. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Annunziata E, Pucci T, Frey M, Zanni L. The role of organizational capabilities in attaining corporate sustainability practices and economic performance: Evidence from Italian wine industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018; 171 :1300–1311. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.035. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aquilani B, Silvestri C, Ioppolo G, Ruggieri A. The challenging transition to bio-economies: Towards a new framework integrating corporate sustainability and value co-creation. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018; 172 :4001–4009. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.153. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aras G, Tezcan N, Furtuna OK. Multidimensional comprehensive corporate sustainability performance evaluation model: Evidence from an emerging market banking sector. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018; 185 :600–609. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.175. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aras G, Tezcan N, Furtuna OK, Kazak EH. Corporate sustainability measurement based on entropy weight and TOPSIS A Turkish banking case study. Meditari Accountancy Research. 2017; 25 (3):391–413. doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-11-2016-0100. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashrafi M, Acciaro M, Walker TR, Magnan GM, Adams M. Corporate sustainability in Canadian and US maritime ports. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 220 :386–397. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.098. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashrafi M, Adams M, Walker TR, Magnan G. How corporate social responsibility can be integrated into corporate sustainability: a theoretical review of their relationships. International Journey of Sustainable Development and World Ecology. 2018; 25 (8):672–682. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2018.1471628. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Badi S, Murtagh N. Green supply chain management in construction: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 223 :312–322. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.132. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bae SM, Masud MAK, Kim JD. A cross-country investigation of corporate governance and corporate sustainability disclosure: A signaling theory perspective. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (8):2611. doi: 10.3390/su10082611. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bala G, Bartel H, Hawley JP, Lee YJ. Tracking "real-time" corporate sustainability signals using cognitive computing. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance. 2015; 25 (2):95. doi: 10.1111/jacf.12122. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bansal P, Song HC. Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals. 2017; 11 (1):105–149. doi: 10.5465/annals.2015.0095. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barkemeyer R, Preuss L, Lee L. On the effectiveness of private transnational governance regimes—Evaluating corporate sustainability reporting according to the Global Reporting Initiative. Journal of World Business. 2015; 50 (2):312–325. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2014.10.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumgartner RJ. Managing Corporate Sustainability and CSR: A conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2014; 21 (5):258–271. doi: 10.1002/csr.1336. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumgartner RJ, Rauter R. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017; 140 :81–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.146. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergman M, Bergman Z, Berger L. An empirical exploration, typology, and definition of corporate sustainability. Sustainability. 2017; 9 :753. doi: 10.3390/su9050753. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bodhanwala S, Bodhanwala R. Does corporate sustainability impact firm profitability? Evidence from India. Management Decision. 2018; 56 :1734–1747. doi: 10.1108/MD-04-2017-0381. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonilla-Priego MJ, Font X, Pacheco-Olivares MD. Corporate sustainability reporting index and baseline data for the cruise industry. Tourism Management. 2014; 44 :149–160. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2014.03.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borgert T, Donovan JD, Topple C, Masli EK. Impact analysis in the assessment of corporate sustainability by foreign multinationals operating in emerging markets: Evidence from manufacturing in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020; 260 :120714. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120714. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bottani E, Gentilotti MC, Rinaldi M. A Fuzzy logic-based tool for the assessment of corporate sustainability: A case study in the food machinery industry. Sustainability. 2017; 9 (4):583. doi: 10.3390/su9040583. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowen HR. Social responsibitities of the businessman. Harper & Row; 1953. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradford M, Earp JB, Showalter DS, Williams PF. Corporate sustainability reporting and stakeholder concerns: Is there a disconnect? Accounting Horizons. 2017; 31 (1):83–102. doi: 10.2308/acch-51639. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Budsaratragoon P, Jitmaneeroj B. Measuring causal relations and identifying critical drivers for corporate sustainability: The quadruple bottom line approach. Measuring Business Excellence. 2019; 23 (3):292–316. doi: 10.1108/MBE-10-2017-0080. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Calabrese A, Costa R, Ghiron NL, Menichini T. Materiality analysis in sustainability reporting: a tool for directing corporate sustainability towards emerging economic, environmental and social opportunities. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. 2019; 25 (5):1016–1038. doi: 10.3846/tede.2019.10550. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cancela BL, Neves MED, Rodrigues LL, Dias ACG. The influence of corporate governance on corporate sustainability: New evidence using panel data in the Iberian macroeconomic environment. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management. 2020 doi: 10.1108/IJAIM-05-2020-0068. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chadegani AA, Salehi H, Yunus M, Farhadi H, Fooladi M, Farhadi M, Ebrahim NA. A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science. 2013; 9 (5):1911–2025. doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n5p18. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang TW, Wang KH, Lin YH. Corporate sustainability: It’s mine! effect of green product psychological ownership on the environmental behavior and performance of employees. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (24):10514. doi: 10.3390/su122410514. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2006; 57 (3):359–377. doi: 10.1002/asi.20317. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cho CH, Laine M, Roberts RW, Rodrigue M. The frontstage and backstage of corporate sustainability reporting: evidence from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Bill. Journal of Business Ethics. 2018; 152 (3):865–886. doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3375-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crifo P, Escrig-Olmedo E, Mottis N. Corporate governance as a key driver of corporate sustainability in France: The role of board members and investor relations. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 159 (4):1127–1146. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3866-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crisóstomo VL, Freire FDS, Freitas MRDO. Determinants of corporate sustainability performance—Evidence from Brazilian panel data. Social Responsibility Journal. 2020; 16 (8):1053–1072. doi: 10.1108/SRJ-04-2018-0102. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• da Cunha Bezerra MC, Gohr CF, Morioka SN. Organizational capabilities towards corporate sustainability benefits: A systematic literature review and an integrative framework proposal. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020; 247 :119114. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119114. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Daddi T, Ceglia D, Bianchi G, de Barcellos MD. Paradoxical tensions and corporate sustainability: A focus on circular economy business cases. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2019; 26 (4):770–780. doi: 10.1002/csr.1719. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Almeida MFL, De Melo MAC. Sociotechnical regimes, technological innovation and corporate sustainability: From principles to action. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 2017; 29 (4):395–413. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2016.1215419. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Oliveira UR, Espindola LS, Silva Da, Da Silva IN, Rocha HM. A systematic literature review on green supply chain management: Research implications and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018; 187 :537–561. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.083. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Oliveira UR, Neto LA, Abreu PAF, Fernandes VA. Risk management applied to the reverse logistics of solid waste. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021; 296 :126517. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126517. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deng Q, Ji SB, Wang Y. Green IT practice disclosure an examination of corporate sustainability reporting in IT sector. Journal of Information Communication & Ethics in Society. 2017; 15 (2):145–164. doi: 10.1108/JICES-12-2016-0046. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diez-Cañamero B, Bishara T, Otegi-Olaso JR, Minguez R, Fernández JM. Measurement of corporate social responsibility: A review of corporate sustainability indexes, rankings and ratings. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (5):2153. doi: 10.3390/su12052153. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Docekalova MP, Kocmanova A. Composite indicator for measuring corporate sustainability. Ecological Indicators. 2016; 61 :612–623. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dragomir VD. The disclosure of industrial greenhouse gas emissions: A critical assessment of corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2012; 29–30 :222–237. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.01.024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dyllick T, Hockerts K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2002; 11 (2):130–141. doi: 10.1002/bse.323. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Lowe A. Management research—An introduction. Sage; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elkington J. Cannibals with Forks. New Society Publishers; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Endiana I, Dicriyani NLGM, Adiyadnya MSP, Putra IPMJS. The effect of green accounting on corporate sustainability and financial performance. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business. 2020; 7 (12):731–738. doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no12.731. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Engert S, Rauter R, Baumgartner RJ. Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016; 112 :2833–2850. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.031. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feng PL, Ngai CSB. Doing more on the corporate sustainability front: A longitudinal analysis of CSR reporting of global fashion companies. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (6):2466. doi: 10.3390/su12062477. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuisz-Kehrbach SK. A three-dimensional framework to explore corporate sustainability activities in the mining industry: Current status and challenges ahead. Resources Policy. 2015; 46 :101–115. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.10.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia-Sanchez IM, Hussain N, Martinez-Ferrero J, Ruiz-Barbadillo E. Impact of disclosure and assurance quality of corporate sustainability reports on access to finance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2019; 26 (4):832–848. doi: 10.1002/csr.1724. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gomez-Bezares F, Przychodzen W, Przychodzen J. Corporate sustainability and shareholder wealth-evidence from British companies and lessons from the crisis. Sustainability. 2016; 8 (3):276. doi: 10.3390/su8030276. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gomez-Bezares F, Przychodzen W, Przychodzen J. Corporate sustainability and CEO-Employee pay gap-buster or booster? Sustainability. 2019; 11 (21):6023. doi: 10.3390/su11216023. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goyal P, Rahman Z, Kazmi AA. Corporate sustainability performance and firm performance research literature review and future research agenda. Management Decision. 2013; 51 (1–2):361–379. doi: 10.1108/00251741311301867. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grewatsch S, Kleindienst I. How organizational cognitive frames affect organizational capabilities: The context of corporate sustainability. Long Range Planning. 2018; 51 (4):607–624. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2017.03.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grimm JH, Hofstetter JS, Sarkis J. Exploring sub-suppliers' compliance with corporate sustainability standards. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2016; 112 :1971–1984. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.036. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grimm JH, Hofstetter JS, Sarkis J. Interrelationships amongst factors for sub-supplier corporate sustainability standards compliance: An exploratory field study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018; 203 :240–259. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.074. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hack S, Berg C. The potential of IT for corporate sustainability. Sustainability. 2014; 6 (7):4161–4180. doi: 10.3390/su6074163. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haffar M, Searcy C. Classification of trade-offs encountered in the practice of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics. 2017; 140 (3):495–522. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2678-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hahn T, Figge F. Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics. 2011; 104 (3):325–345. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0911-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hahn T, Pinkse J, Preuss L, Figge F. Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics. 2015; 127 (2):297–316. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hahn T, Preuss L, Pinkse J, Figge F. Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review. 2014; 39 :463–487. doi: 10.5465/amr.2012.0341. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henry LA, Buyl T, Jansen RJG. Leading corporate sustainability: The role of top management team composition for triple bottom line performance. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2019; 28 (1):173–184. doi: 10.1002/bse.2247. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horisch J, Wulfsberg I, Schaltegger S. The influence of feedback and awareness of consequences on the development of corporate sustainability action over time. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2019; 29 (2):638–650. doi: 10.1002/bse.2394. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu AH, Chen LT, Hsu CW, Ao JG. An evaluation framework for scoring corporate sustainability reports in Taiwan. Environmental Engineering Science. 2011; 28 (12):843–858. doi: 10.1089/ees.2010.0282. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ikram M, Zhang Q, Sroufe R, Ferasso M. The social dimensions of corporate sustainability: An integrative framework including COVID-19 insights. Sustainability. 2020; 12 :8747. doi: 10.3390/su12208747. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jitmaneeroj B. Reform priorities for corporate sustainability. Management Decision. 2016; 54 :1497–1521. doi: 10.1108/md-11-2015-0505. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joensuu K, Koskela M, Onkila T. Social proximity and environmental NGO relationships in corporate sustainability reports. Sustainable Development. 2015; 23 (1):26–40. doi: 10.1065/10.1002/sd.1569. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnston P, Everard M, Santillo D, Robért KH. Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environmetal Science and Pollution Research. 2007; 14 (1):60–66. doi: 10.1065/espr2007.01.375. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones P, Hillier D, Comfort D. Water stewardship and corporate sustainability: A case study of reputation management in the food and drinks industry. Journal of Public Affairs. 2015; 15 (1):116–126. doi: 10.1002/pa.1534. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones P, Hillier D, Comfort D. The two market leaders in ocean cruising and corporate sustainability. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 2017; 29 (1):288–306. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2016-0191. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Journeault M. The Integrated Scorecard in support of corporate sustainability strategies. Journal of Environmental Management. 2016; 182 :214–229. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.074. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jung S, Ha-Brookshire J. Perfect or imperfect duties? Developing a moral responsibility framework for corporate sustainability from the consumer perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2017; 24 (4):326–340. doi: 10.1002/csr.141. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kafa N, Jaegler A, Sarkis J. Harnessing corporate sustainability decision-making complexity: A field study of complementary approaches. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (24):10584. doi: 10.3390/su122410584. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kainzbauer A, Rungruang P, Hallinger P. How does research on sustainable human resource management contribute to corporate sustainability: A document co-citation analysis, 1982–2021. Sustainability. 2021; 13 (21):11745. doi: 10.3390/su132111745. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kantabutra S, Punnakitikashem P. Exploring the process toward corporate sustainability at a Thai SME. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (21):9204. doi: 10.3390/su12219204. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karnama A, Vinuesa R. Organic growth theory for corporate sustainability. Sustainability. 2020; 12 :8523. doi: 10.3390/su12208523. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim EH, Lyon TP. Greenwash vs. brownwash: Exaggeration and undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure. Organization Science. 2015; 26 (3):705–723. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0949. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klettner A, Clarke T, Boersma M. The governance of corporate sustainability: Empirical insights into the development, leadership and implementation of responsible business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics. 2014; 122 (1):145–165. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1750-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kocmanova A, Docekalova MP, Simanaviciene Z. Corporate sustainability measurement and assessment of czech manufacturing companies using a composite indicator. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics. 2017; 28 (1):88–100. doi: 10.5755/j01.ee.28.1.15323. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kourula A, Pisani N, Kolk A. Corporate sustainability and inclusive development: Highlights from international business and management research. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2017; 24 :14–18. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozlowski A, Searcy C, Bardecki M. Corporate sustainability reporting in the apparel industry: An analysis of indicators disclosed. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2015; 64 (3):377–397. doi: 10.1108/IJPPM-10-2014-0152. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kucukbay F, Surucu E. Corporate sustainability performance measurement based on a new multicriteria sorting method. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2019; 26 (3):664–680. doi: 10.1002/csr.1711. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lampikoski T, Westerlund M, Rajala R, Moller K. Green Innovation games: Value-creation strategies for corporate sustainability. California Management Review. 2014; 57 (1):88–116. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2014.57.1.88. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Landrum NE. Stages of corporate sustainability: Integrating the strong sustainability worldview. Organization & Environment. 2018; 31 (4):287–313. doi: 10.1177/1086026617717456. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee MKK. Effective green alliances: An analysis of how environmental nongovernmental organizations affect corporate sustainability programs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2019; 26 (1):227–237. doi: 10.1002/csr.1674. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Linnenluecke MK, Griffiths A. Firms and sustainability: Mapping the intellectual origins and structure of the corporate sustainability field. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions. 2013; 23 (1):382–391. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu SB, Yan MR. Corporate sustainability and green innovation in an emerging economy—An empirical study in China. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (11):3998. doi: 10.3390/su10113998. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lloret A. Modeling corporate sustainability strategy. Journal of Business Research. 2016; 69 (2):418–425. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lozano R. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2008; 16 :1838–1846. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lozano R. A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2015 doi: 10.1002/csr.1325. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lozano R, Suzuki M, Carpenter A, Tyunina O. An analysis of the contribution of Japanese business terms to corporate sustainability: Learnings from the "looking-glass" of the East. Sustainability. 2017; 9 (2):188. doi: 10.3390/su9020188. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu YJ, Zhang XL. Corporate sustainability for architecture engineering and construction (AEC) organizations: Framework, transition and implication strategies. Ecological Indicators. 2016; 61 :911–922. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.10.046. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lueg R, Pedersen MM, Clemmensen SN. The role of corporate sustainability in a low-cost business model—A case study in the Scandinavian fashion industry. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2015; 24 (5):344–359. doi: 10.1002/bse.1825. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luo BN, Tang Y, Chen EW, Li S, Luo D. Corporate sustainability paradox management: A systematic review and future agenda. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.579272. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Machado LV, De Oliveira UR. Analysis of failures in the accessibility of university buildings. Journal of Building Engineering. 2021; 33 :101654. doi: 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101654. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maletic M, Podpecan M, Maletic D. ISO 14001 in a corporate sustainability context: A multiple case study approach. Management of Environmental Quality. 2015; 26 (6):872–890. doi: 10.1108/MEQ-08-2014-0129. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mangla SK, Sharma YK, Patil PP, Yadav G, Xu JJ. Logistics and distribution challenges to managing operations for corporate sustainability: Study on leading Indian diary organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117620. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Manning B, Braam G, Reimsbach D. Corporate governance and sustainable business conduct—Effects of board monitoring effectiveness and stakeholder engagement on corporate sustainability performance and disclosure choices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2019; 26 (2):351–366. doi: 10.1002/csr.1687. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mazur B, Walczyna A. Bridging sustainable human resource management and corporate sustainability. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (21):8987. doi: 10.3390/su12218987. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McWilliams A, Siegel DS, Wright PM. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies. 2006; 43 :1. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McWilliams A, Siegel DS, Wright PM. Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. Journal Management Studies. 2006; 43 (1):1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mdolo MP, Naghavi N, Fah BCY, Jin TC. Corporate sustainability adoption amongst public listed companies in Malaysia. Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication. 2018; 8 :509–517. doi: 10.7456/1080MSE/160. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meredith J. Theory building through conceptual methods. International Journal of Operations & Production Management. 1993; 13 :3–11. doi: 10.1108/01443579310028120. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Milne MJ, Gray R. W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics. 2013; 118 (1):13–29. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishra PS, Kumar A, Das N. Corporate sustainability practices in polluting industries: Evidence from India China and USA. Problemy Ekorozwoju. 2020; 15 (1):161–168. doi: 10.35784/pe.2020.1.17. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mohammadi MAD, Mardani A, Khan MNAA, Streimikiene D. Corporate sustainability disclosure and market valuation in a Middle Eastern Nation: Evidence from listed firms on the Tehran Stock Exchange: Sensitive industries versus non-sensitive industries. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja. 2018; 31 :1488–1511. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2018.1486722. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Montiel I. Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organization & Environment. 2008; 21 (3):245–269. doi: 10.1177/1086026608321329. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Montiel I, Delgado-Ceballos J. Defining and measuring corporate sustainability: Are we there yet? Organization & Environment. 2014; 27 (2):113–139. doi: 10.1177/1086026614526413. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nikolaou, I. E., Tsalis, T. A., & Evangelinos, K. I. (2019). A framework to measure corporate sustainability performance: A strong sustainability-based view of firm. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 18 , 1–18. 10.1016/j.spc.2018.10.004
• Nyuur R, Brecic R, Murphy P. Managerial perceptions of firms' corporate sustainability strategies: Insights from Croatia. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (1):251. doi: 10.3390/su12010251. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oh HM, Park SB, Ma HY. Corporate sustainability management, earnings transparency, and chaebols. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (10):4222. doi: 10.3390/su12104222. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Orsato RJ, Garcia A, Mendes-Da-Silva W, Simonetti R, Monzoni M. Sustainability indexes: Why join in? A study of the ‘Corporate Sustainability Index (ISE)’ in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015; 96 :161–170. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.071. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paraschiv DM, Nemoianu EL, Langa CA, Szabo T. Eco-innovation, responsible leadership and organizational change for corporate sustainability. Amfiteatru Economic. 2012; 14 (2):404–419. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pechancova V, Hrbackova L, Dvorsky J, Chromjakova F, Stojanovic A. Environmental management systems: an effective tool of corporate sustainability. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues. 2019; 7 (2):825–841. doi: 10.9770/jesi.2019.7.2(3). [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pellegrini C, Rizzi F, Frey M. The role of sustainable human resource practices in influencing employee behavior for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2018; 27 (8):1221–1232. doi: 10.1002/bse.2064. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters GF, Romi AM. The association between sustainability governance characteristics and the assurance of corporate sustainability reports. Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory. 2015; 34 (1):163–198. doi: 10.2308/ajpt-50849. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters GF, Romi AM, Sanchez JM. The influence of corporate sustainability officers on performance. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 159 (4):1065–1087. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3818-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pogutz S, Winn MI. Cultivating ecological knowledge for corporate sustainability: Barilla's innovative approach to sustainable farming. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2016; 25 :435–448. doi: 10.1002/bse.1916. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pryshlakivsky J, Searcy C. A heuristic model for establishing trade-offs in corporate sustainability performance measurement systems. Journal of Business Ethics. 2017; 144 (2):323–342. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2806-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Przychodzen J, Przychodzen W. Corporate sustainability and shareholder wealth. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 2013; 56 :474–493. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2012.685927. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raghupathi V, Ren J, Raghupathi W. Identifying corporate sustainability issues by analyzing shareholder resolutions: A machine-learning text analytics approach. Sustainability. 2020 doi: 10.3390/su12114753. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ramos TB, Cecilio T, Douglas CH, Caeiro S. Corporate sustainability reporting and the relations with evaluation and management frameworks: The Portuguese case. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013; 52 :317–328. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ray S, Chaudhuri BR. Business group affiliation and Corporate Sustainability strategies of firms: An investigation of firms in India. Journal of Business Ethics. 2018; 153 (4):955–976. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3917-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reale R, Magro TC, Ribar LC. Measurement and analyses of biodiversity conservation actions of corporations listed in the Brazilian stock exchange's corporate sustainability index. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018; 170 :14–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.123. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rustam A, Wang Y, Zameer H. Does foreign ownership affect corporate sustainability disclosure in Pakistan? A sequential mixed methods approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2019; 26 (30):31178–31197. doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-06250-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sadatsafavi H, Walewski J. Corporate sustainability: The environmental design and human resource management interface in healthcare settings. Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal. 2013; 6 (2):98–118. doi: 10.1177/193758671300600209. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saeli H. An English-for-specific-purposes motivated analysis of corporate sustainability reports an analysis of text and context. Corporate Communications. 2019; 24 (3):456–470. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-10-2018-0111. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sasse-Werhahn LF, Bachmann C, Habisch A. Managing tensions in corporate sustainability through a practical wisdom lens. Journal of Business Ethics. 2020; 163 (1):53–66. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3994-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saunila M, Nasiri M, Ukko J, Rantala T. Smart technologies and corporate sustainability: The mediation effect of corporate sustainability strategy. Computers in Industry. 2019; 108 :178–185. doi: 10.1016/j.compind.2019.03.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaltegger S, Christ KL, Wenzig J, Burritt RL. Corporate sustainability management accounting and multi-level links for sustainability—A systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2022 doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12288. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider A, Meins E. Two dimensions of corporate sustainability assessment: Towards a comprehensive framework. Business Strategy and the Environment. 2012; 21 (4):211–222. doi: 10.1002/bse.726. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schrobback P, Meath C. Corporate sustainability governance: Insight from the Australian and New Zealand port industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120280. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seele P. Predictive sustainability control: A review assessing the potential to transfer big data driven 'predictive policing' to corporate sustainability management. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017; 153 (1):673–686. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.175. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Serafeim G. Public sentiment and the price of corporate sustainability. Financial Analysts Journal. 2020; 76 (2):26–46. doi: 10.1080/0015198X.2020.1723390. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seuring S, Müller M, Westhaus M, Morana R. Conducting a literature review—The example of sustainability in supply chains. Research Methodologies in Supply Chain Management. 2005 doi: 10.1007/3-7908-1636-1_7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith TM. Climate change: Corporate sustainability in the supply chain. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 2013; 69 (3):43–52. doi: 10.1177/0096340213487310. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stahl GK, Brewster CJ, Collings DG, Hajro A. Enhancing the role of human resource management in corporate sustainability and social responsibility: A multi-stakeholder, multidimensional approach to HRM. Human Resource Management Review. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100708. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steurer R, Langer ME, Konrad A, Martinuzzi A. Corporations, stakeholders, and sustainable development I: A theoretical exploration of business-society relations. Journal of Business Ethics. 2005; 61 (3):263–281. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-7054-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stolz J, Bautista R. Corporate sustainability: Perception and response by older consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2015; 39 (4):343–351. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12199. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sueyoshi T, Goto M. Environmental assessment for corporate sustainability by resource utilization and technology innovation: DEA radial measurement on Japanese industrial sectors. Energy Economics. 2014; 46 :295–307. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.09.021. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sueyoshi T, Goto M. DEA non-radial approach for resource allocation and energy usage to enhance corporate sustainability in Japanese manufacturing industries. Energies. 2019; 12 :1785. doi: 10.3390/en12091785. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sueyoshi T, Wang D. Radial and non-radial approaches for environmental assessment by data envelopment analysis: Corporate sustainability and effective investment for technology innovation. Energy Economics. 2014; 45 :537–551. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.07.024. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sukitsch M, Engert S, Baumgartner RJ. The implementation of corporate sustainability in the European automotive industry: An analysis of sustainability reports. Sustainability. 2015; 7 (9):11504–11531. doi: 10.3390/su70911504. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang K, Robinson D, Harvey M. Sustainability managers or rogue mid-managers? Management Decision. 2011; 49 :1371–1394. doi: 10.1108/00251741111163179. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tarquinio L, Raucci D, Benedetti R. An investigation of global reporting initiative performance indicators in corporate sustainability reports: Greek Italian and Spanish evidence. Sustainability. 2018; 10 (4):897. doi: 10.3390/su10040897. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomsic N, Bojnec S, Simcic B. Corporate sustainability and economic performance in small and medium sized enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2015; 108 :603–612. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management. 2003; 14 (3):207–222. doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.00375. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tseng ML. Using social media and qualitative and quantitative information scales to benchmark corporate sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017; 142 :727–738. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.062. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tseng M, Islam MS, Karia N, Fauzi FA, Afrin S. A literature review on green supply chain management: Trends and future challenges. Resources, Conservation & Recycling. 2019; 141 :145–162. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Usar DD, Denizel M, Soytas MA. Corporate sustainability interactions: A game theoretical approach to sustainability actions. International Journal of Production Economics. 2019; 218 :196–211. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.05.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van den Berg J, Zijp MC, Vermeulen WJV, Witjes S. Identifying change agent types and its implications for corporate sustainability integration based on worldviews and contextual factors. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019; 229 :1125–1138. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.272. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Byl CA, Slawinski N. Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win–wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organization & Environment. 2015; 28 (1):54–79. doi: 10.1177/1086026615575047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vardari L, Gashi R, Ahmeti G. The impact of corporate sustainability index on BIST sustainability index. European Journal of Sustainable Development. 2020; 9 (2):375–390. doi: 10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n2p375. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Venkatraman S, Nayak RR. Corporate sustainability: An IS approach for integrating triple bottom line elements. Social Responsibility Journal. 2015; 11 (3):482–501. doi: 10.1108/SRJ-11-2013-0136. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vieira ES, Gomes JANF. A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics. 2009 doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-2178-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vildasen SS, Havenvid MI. The role of interaction for corporate sustainability. IMP Journal. 2018; 12 (1):148–170. doi: 10.1108/IMP-05-2017-0016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vildasen SS, Keitsch M, Fet AM. Clarifying the epistemology of corporate sustainability. Ecological Economics. 2017; 138 :40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.03.029. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner M. How to reconcile environmental and economic performance to improve corporate sustainability: Corporate environmental strategies in the European paper industry. Journal of Environmental Management. 2005; 76 (2):105–118. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.021. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner, M. (2010). The role of corporate sustainability performance for economic performance: A firm-level analysis of moderation effects. Ecological Economics, 69 (7), 1553–1560. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.02.017
• Wang, D., Li, S., & Sueyoshi, T. (2014). DEA environmental assessment on U.S. Industrial sectors: Investment for improvement in operational and environmental performance to attain corporate sustainability. Energy Economics, 45 , 254–267. 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.07.009
• Wasara TM, Ganda F. The relationship between corporate sustainability disclosure and firm financial performance in Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) listed mining companies. Sustainability. 2019; 11 (16):4496. doi: 10.3390/su11164496. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber, O. (2017). Corporate sustainability and financial performance of Chinese banks. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8 (3), 358–385. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3118494
• Weber O, Chowdury RK. Corporate sustainability in Bangladeshi Banks: Proactive or reactive ethical behavior? Sustainability. 2020; 12 (19):7999. doi: 10.3390/su12197999. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wee BV, Banister D. How to write a literature review paper? Transport Reviews. 2016; 36 (2):278–288. doi: 10.1080/01441647.2015.1065456. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilshusen PR, MacDonald KI. Fields of green: Corporate sustainability and the production of economistic environmental governance. Environment and Planning A-Economy and Space. 2017; 49 (8):1824–1845. doi: 10.1177/0308518X17705657. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xia L, Wei J, Gao S, Ma B. Promoting corporate sustainability through sustainable resource management: A hybrid decision-making approach incorporating social media data. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 2020; 85 :106459. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106459. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang ZJ, Sun J, Zhang YL, Wang Y. Green, green, it's green: A triad model of technology, culture, and innovation for corporate sustainability. Sustainability. 2017; 9 (8):1369. doi: 10.3390/su9081369. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang ZJ, Sun J, Zhang YL, Wang Y, Cao LS. Employees' collaborative use of green information systems for corporate sustainability: Motivation, effort and performance. Information Technology for Development. 2017; 23 (3):486–506. doi: 10.1080/02681102.2017.1335281. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zahid M, Rahman HU, Ali W, Khan M, Alharthi M, Qureshi MI, Jan A. Boardroom gender diversity: Implications for corporate sustainability disclosures in Malaysia. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118683. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang J, Djajadikerta HG, Trireksani T. Corporate sustainability disclosure’s importance in China: Financial analysts’ perception. Social Responsibility Journal. 2020; 16 (8):1169–1189. doi: 10.1108/SRJ-10-2018-0272. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zillur PG, Rahman Z, Kazmi AA. Identification and prioritization of corporate sustainability practices using analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Modelling in Management. 2015; 10 (1):23–49. doi: 10.1108/JM2-09-2012-0030. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Title: mm1: methods, analysis & insights from multimodal llm pre-training.

Abstract: In this work, we discuss building performant Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). In particular, we study the importance of various architecture components and data choices. Through careful and comprehensive ablations of the image encoder, the vision language connector, and various pre-training data choices, we identified several crucial design lessons. For example, we demonstrate that for large-scale multimodal pre-training using a careful mix of image-caption, interleaved image-text, and text-only data is crucial for achieving state-of-the-art (SOTA) few-shot results across multiple benchmarks, compared to other published pre-training results. Further, we show that the image encoder together with image resolution and the image token count has substantial impact, while the vision-language connector design is of comparatively negligible importance. By scaling up the presented recipe, we build MM1, a family of multimodal models up to 30B parameters, including both dense models and mixture-of-experts (MoE) variants, that are SOTA in pre-training metrics and achieve competitive performance after supervised fine-tuning on a range of established multimodal benchmarks. Thanks to large-scale pre-training, MM1 enjoys appealing properties such as enhanced in-context learning, and multi-image reasoning, enabling few-shot chain-of-thought prompting.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .