Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Social Media-Enabled Mentoring on Online Tacit Knowledge Acquisition within Sustainable Organizations: A Moderated Mediation Model
Next Article in Special Issue
Identifying the Financial Risk Factors of Excessive Indebtedness of Rural Communes in Poland
Previous Article in Journal
Framing Descriptive Norms as Self-Benefit Versus Environmental Benefit: Self-Construal’s Moderating Impact in Promoting Smart Energy Devices
Previous Article in Special Issue
Young People Collecting Natural Souvenirs: A Perspective of Sustainability and Marketing
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/su12020615
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

In Search of Sustainable Value: A Structured Literature Review

by
Andrea Cardoni
1,*,
Evgeniia Kiseleva
1 and
Paolo Taticchi
2
1
Department of Economics, University of Perugia, Via Alessandro Pascoli, 20, 06123 Perugia, Italy
2
Business Schools, Imperial College London, 457 ACE Extension, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(2), 615; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020615
Submission received: 11 December 2019 / Revised: 5 January 2020 / Accepted: 10 January 2020 / Published: 14 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Value Management–New Concepts and Contemporary Trends)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The concept of value, where shareholders are the main recipients of the created value, is changing towards more comprehensive models, which respond to the increased stakeholder awareness and urgent sustainability agenda. Hart and Milstein (2003) elaborated the widely used sustainable value concept in which they characterize temporal and spatial dimensions of value, and suggest strategic drivers for sustainability. Although the framework is highly cited, there is no review on the changes over more than ten years. In this paper, we adopted a structured literature review methodology to discover how the concept of sustainable value has been used by researchers and how it has been developed. Our findings show that sustainable value has mainly been used as the general phrase to describe positive business results instead of using it as a concept. Scholars, who make an in-depth analysis of sustainable value do not emphasize the time horizon of sustainable value as its peculiar characteristic while broad stakeholder surrounding is called to be an important feature of sustainable value. Additionally, strategic drivers for sustainability have moved from being purely environmental as in Hart and Milstein’s (2003) concept: globalization, economic fluctuations, and knowledge innovation have become as important as green technologies and carbon-reduction policies.

1. Introduction

The need for a better-definition of “value” in the modern world is becoming increasingly pressing [1]. The multidisciplinary nature of management literature means that there is considerable disagreement on for whose benefit value should be created, and how that value will be generated. The increased importance of stakeholders in business processes has changed the perception of business goals and of the beneficiaries of created value. Before, an organization was considered a black box that uses resources and generates economic profits for shareholders. Today, attention has been turned towards sustainable value creation, or co-creation with stakeholders over a longer period of time [2].
The clearest definition of sustainable value is proposed by Hart and Milstein (2003) in the much-cited “Creating sustainable value”. Hart and Milstein (2003) defined sustainable value as “strategies and practices that contribute to a more sustainable world while simultaneously driving shareholder value” [3]. We used Hart and Milstein’s framework, as it contains fixed measures to define sustainable value, and is the most influential in the scientific field. The authors’ measurement of sustainable value along two indices—spatial (internal and external stakeholders) and temporal (short, medium, and long-term orientation)—is of particular value.
However, this model was introduced more than a decade-and-a-half ago, in 2003. The sustainability agenda has changed dramatically since then. In 2015, the United Nations issued the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that have come to define the international sustainability agenda [4]. The SDGs cover everything pertaining to the triple bottom-line, not just the environment: poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace, and justice.
Another dramatic change in the intervening period was the financial crisis of 2008, which laid bare the dangers of short-termism focused on profit maximization. The consequences, many irrevocable, included drops in stock indices, the collapse of financial institutions, unemployment, poverty, and increased inequality [5]. The financial crisis served to raise the question of whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) was a threat to businesses or an opportunity [6].
Finally, what have been called the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and “Industry 4.0” have disrupted our understanding of business and the value creation process. Digitization has been identified as the main driver of change in all sectors of the new economy [7]. In this context, intangible assets, such as patents, knowledge, human resource capabilities, etc., have become the main part of a company’s value [8]. The scale of economic value alone is not adequate in measuring the growing contribution of intangible assets.
Although the concept of value—and sustainable value in particular—is widely discussed, we did not find any reviews on sustainable value that summarized changes in the sustainability agenda which modified Hart and Milstein’s definition and framework. In our paper, we undertake structured literature review [9] aiming to bring understanding of up-to-date sustainable value concept use and development.
The paper is organized as follows. After the Introduction Section, Section 2 proposes existing literature and research gap. Section 3 presents the research methodology. Section 4 shows our results and discussion. The last section proposes conclusions, implications and future research.

2. Literature Analysis and Research Gaps

Although the term “sustainable value” occurs frequently in the literature, the concept itself is not well defined. Common synonyms are “co-creation value”, “shared value”, “social value”, “environmental value”, and “stakeholder value”. The terms which appear with the highest frequency are “shared value” and “sustainable value”. Porter and Kramer’s shared value concept [10] is generally accepted as being underdeveloped from a theoretical point of view [11,12]. Consequently, this research focuses on sustainable value.
Precise definitions of sustainable value vary throughout the literature (Table 1).
Many literature reviews (LRs) on sustainability management have been carried out in recent years. With the help of Wiley Online Library, SAGE Journals, JSTOR, Academy of Management and Elsevier databases, we encountered 71 LRs carried out over the last decade, which we have classified according to the object of research (Appendix Table A1). No LRs on sustainable value were found.
All LRs state that gaps exist in CSR research. A number of authors highlight that research is mostly at the organizational level, ignoring the wider ecosystem in which a company operates [18,19] while behavioral analysis at an individual level is largely neglected as well [1,20,21,22]. Thus, there is a need for multilevel research that is capable of integrating separate levels of analysis: institutional, organizational, and individual [23,24]. A second research gap is a lack of investigation into the underlying mechanisms which link CSR with outcomes [23,24]. A third is the absence of a standardized definitional framework and accepted theories [18,21,25,26,27].
Our paper claims that sustainable value is able to bridge the gaps in the literature, as it represents:
  • A central concept for both microlevel (individual, group) and macrolevel (organization theory, strategic management) research [28];
  • An umbrella concept for all other topics about sustainability, which explains the links between them;
  • A concept that has been viewed from a number of different theoretical perspectives (stakeholder theory, ethical theories, resource-based views, institutional theory, agency theory, network theory, and others).
In this research, we use Hart and Milstein’s (2003) definition of sustainable value, by virtue of its being the most frequently cited. This framework also offers a very precise structure which enables us to develop objective criteria for sustainable value research. As shown below (Figure 1), the framework is developed across two axes: temporal and spatial. In combination, the vertical (temporal) and horizontal (spatial) axes map a framework divided into four strategic dimensions and their related sustainability drivers: (I) pollution prevention, considering the environmental consequences of industrialization; (II) product stewardship, taking into account proliferation and interconnections with civil society and stakeholders; (III) clean technology, with respect to the emergence of new green technologies; (IV) sustainability vision, as a strategic orientation to counteract the negative effects of population growth, poverty, and inequity.
According to Hart and Milstein (2003), the four quadrants, and the strategies and drivers related to each, are of equal importance. They state that programs in pollution prevention (quadrant I) and product stewardship (quadrant II) were already institutionalized within most multinational companies by the point at which their paper was published. In the intervening 15 years, we expect that portfolios have become more balanced, and that CSR-related research has been spread more evenly across each of the framework’s four quadrants. Thus, our paper formulates the following research question: “How is the concept of sustainable value used in the literature, and how has it developed?”

3. Research Methodology

The most common technique among 71 literature reviews on sustainability topics is systematic literature review that is mentioned in 56% of papers. Notably, 32% of papers, or 68% of systematic literature reviews, are undertaken in accordance to the Tranfield methodology [29,30].
Unlike previous researchers, we used a structured literature review methodology (SLR) proposed by Massaro et al. (2016) [9]. According to this, literature review includes ten steps: (1) writing a protocol, (2) posing questions to answer, (3) a literature search, (4) measuring article impact, (5) defining analytical framework, (6) checking reliability and (7) validity, (8) data codification, (9) getting insights from data and (10) developing future paths [9]. The steps are common with widely used systematic reviews, however, they are more detailed, which makes the approach the most precise and rigorous one [9]. The SLR framework of Massaro et al. (2016) is novel comparing to systematic review methodology of Tranfield et al. (2003) and coincides with up-do-date research tools [9,30]. Additionally, it is accepted to be effective when researching under-investigated topics, such as sustainable value, facilitating the development of new knowledge areas and research approaches [31].
We built the research protocol (Table 2), which represents our research work on each SLR step from Massaro et al. (2016) methodology.
Moving forward according to the predetermined protocol, we built a database of articles. Firstly, we found 30 top journals from the ABS-list (Appendix Table A2). ABS includes not only citations as criteria but also editorial and expert judgements, which makes rating scientifically reliable [32]. The management thematic blocks (with “management” or “strategy” in their names) were chosen in order to enhance homogeneity in understanding the sustainable value terminology. Practitioners’ oriented journals (Harvard Business Review and MIT Sloan Management Review) were excluded in order to enhance scientific rigor.
Next, we selected articles, which have the phrase “sustainable value” in the texts, from the predetermined journals. A total of 106 articles were found for a ten-year period from 2008 to 2018 with the help of databases such as Wiley Online Library, SAGE Journals, JSTOR, Academy of Management and Elsevier.
We performed a content analysis with Microsoft ExcelTM, and word frequency analysis (text mining) with R program to gather data.
The codification criteria can be divided into four categories. The first (formal) part was to build general statistics about the papers (name, authors, citations, journal information, etc.). The second set of criteria analyzed methodology trends, according to Bhattacherjee [33]. The third, measuring usage of the concept, looked at the year of publication, the number of appearances, and the role of sustainable value in the paper.
The development of the concept of sustainable value was gauged using Hart and Milstein’s [3] sustainable value framework. First, the strategic drivers of sustainability strategies were classified according to the four groupings suggested by the framework (environmental consequences of industrialization; the emergence of new green technologies; fighting poverty and inequity; and interconnection with civil society and stakeholders). We operationalized the analysis of the spatial and temporal perspectives along the following scales. For the former, we assigned a conventional score depending on the explicit beneficiary mentioned in the article: −3 (= nobody); −2 (= shareholder only); −1 (= internal stakeholders; e.g., employees); 0 (= not disclosed); 1 (= limited group of external stakeholders; e.g., customers); 2 (= all stakeholders); 3 (= society at large or environment at large). For the latter, the classification was: −1 (= short term); 0 (= both or not mentioned); 1 (= long-term).
The reliability of our research was supported by selective cross-checking; the validity through the usage of high-ranked ABS journals, and strong theoretical support of our expected results. Average citation (Crossref metric) per article was used for impact check as it is a strong signaling tool which shows what is important from the knowledge consumers’ points of view [9].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Overview on Formal Characteristics and Methodological Aspects

The articles are not spread evenly between journals (Table 3). The majority of papers are from two journals: Journal of Business Ethics (38.6%) and Business Strategy and the Environment (14.1%). Notably, Journal of Business Ethics focuses on human resource development, which leads to the assumption that sustainable value in this journal most likely pertains to an ethical management mindset. Taking this into account, the quantity of journals that develop the framework of sustainable value is very limited. The papers are actively discussed in the scientific community (Table 3): only 7.5% of articles are uncited. In total, 47.0% of papers have 1–19 citations, and 45.5% of articles are highly cited, with more than 20 citations.
Assuming the methodology employed, explanatory qualitative studies prevail (Table 4). Qualitative design is focused on “sense making” or understanding the phenomenon [33]. This shows that the concept of sustainable value is still underdeveloped, with further investigation required. Such explanatory research addresses “why” and “how”-type questions in an attempt to “connect the dots” and identify causal factors and outcomes related to the phenomenon in question [33]. Articles in our dataset try to answer questions such as “How can firms create different types of value for different stakeholders?” [34], “Why are some firms more effective than others at addressing stakeholder concerns?” [35], “How can value logic thinking be applied to organizations?” [36], etc.
The most commonly employed research design used in these studies is a literature review, used in 40.6% of articles (Table 4). These LRs respond to the need to classify the growing amount of literature on sustainable business models, sustainable innovation, product innovation, and sustainable leadership. Case study research also accounts for a significant share of articles (25.5%). These case studies aim at providing more in-depth analysis [37]. Unlike literature reviews, they have a close connection with empirical reality, which allows us to the development of testable, relevant, and valid theories [38].
Authors investigate sustainable value using a variety of different theoretical approaches (Table 4). Stakeholder theory (17.0%), ethical theories (16.0%), and resource-based views (14.2%) are the most common. This explains why the most widespread definitions of sustainable value relate to the creation of value for stakeholders (stakeholder theory) or to the efficient use of resources/capitals (resource-based). Ethical theories derive from Journal of Business Ethics papers, where sustainable value is used as a general term or in reference to an individual’s ethical standards.

4.2. Usage and Development of the Concept of Sustainable Value

We first analyzed the dynamic over time, looking at the frequency with which the concept of sustainable value is cited, and the role it plays in each paper (Table 5).
There is a growing body of literature which refers to the concept of sustainable value. The number of papers has been stably increasing by 7–15 papers per year, with a higher quantity of papers in more recent years. The final year of our analysis, 2018, was the most productive. Very few papers, however, are devoted to an in-depth analysis of sustainable value. This is shown by the number of appearances of “sustainable value” in the text of the papers. Authors generally use the term infrequently, with most papers (66.0%) mentioning it only once, usually in reference to the outcomes of CSR activities.
The role the concept plays is in line with the aforementioned trend: 65.1% of articles use sustainable value in a very broad sense, to mean everything good, long-lasting, profitable, low-risk, neutral, or positive, connected with society and/or the environment. Nearly a quarter of authors (24.5%) cite sustainable value as a defined concept in their papers, while only 10% of papers treat sustainable value as a framework (5.7%) or variable (4.7%).
All the 106 papers were then classified according to the most relevant management topics (Table 6).
The blocks are not equally represented. The largest block is “CSR, Performance and Management” (37.7% of papers) as it is driven by the interest of practitioners to gain the competitive advantage from implementing CSR. The next block by popularity is “Sustainable Strategy and Innovation” (35.8%). Consequently, two most popular blocks cover short-term operational and long-term strategic approach to CSR, which means that CSR is equally implemented at different levels of decision-making in the company. However, the use of the sustainable value concept in the blocks of “Sustainable Business Models and Supply Chains” and “Sustainability in Environment and Industry” is not developed (17.0% and 9.4% respectively) which leads to the fact that the underlying principles and mechanisms of corporate sustainability are not deeply studied. It confirms the call for a more system-thinking approach to CSR and the development of generalized framework for corporate sustainability [23,24].
Supported by these results, the SLR reveals different levels of analysis and conceptual blocks of sustainable value management that could be represented through the integrated view showed below (Figure 2).
Firstly, papers dealing with external environment and industry specifications (10 papers) are treating the stakeholder surrounding, which, in turn, determines CSR issues relevant to the company and shapes the way company generates sustainable value for its stakeholders. Such a proposition correlates with the stakeholder model of management theory [39]. The second block includes the papers related to strategic and innovative response to stakeholders’ inquiries (38 papers), which are accepted to be vital for gaining competitive advantage [40,41]. The third block includes the literature related to Sustainable Business Models and Supply Chains (18 papers), able to operationalize the predetermined strategy: describes different archetypes of business models for sustainability [42], searches for the tools to keep the balance between for-profit and social or environmental purposes [43], finds how to establish traceability of the sustainability norms across business partners [44]. The connection between CSR and performance, that is, the forth block, includes the papers (40 papers) using the sustainable value to investigate how to manage day-to-day CSR activities successfully, how to control the results, how to measure CSR effectiveness and what is the influence of CSR on financial performance.
Moving forward, the analysis of the development of the concept was implemented only for the papers that treated sustainable value as a framework (6 papers), variable (5 papers), or concept (26 papers)—a total of 37 articles—to avoid tangents. Articles were analyzed through the lens of Hart and Milstein’s (2003) framework, using the criteria outlined in the methodology section (Table 7).
We see two main trends: a move from internal to external stakeholders, and from short-termism to long-range planning (see Figure 3). Moreover, drivers for sustainability have transformed, becoming more comprehensive and taking the triple bottom-line into account.
We see a dramatic shift taking place across the spatial dimension, with a palpable shift from an internal to an external conception of value creation. A large share of papers (41%) refer to a wide range of stakeholders. Some authors even talk about the fashionableness of sustainability [45]. Stakeholders are no longer defined solely as parties that influence and/or are influenced by the company; they are society as a whole [46,47,48,49]. This even extends as far as labelling the environment a non-human stakeholder [36,50,51,52].
“Long-term” and “sustainable” are often used synonymously, and we see a rejection of short-termism (0 papers for short-term). Despite this, most authors (68%) describe sustainable value without strict reference to the time period, or state that short as well as long-term results should be taken into account.
Looking at sustainability drivers, a similar dynamic can be traced—again, more significantly along the spatial than the temporal axis. Several factors push companies to include more stakeholders in their value creation model, and to take a longer-term approach. Drivers in the upper (tomorrow) section receive only slightly more attention; however, 15 papers, against 14 in the bottom (today) section. This confirms a certain indifference to the temporal character of sustainable value. As far as the spatial dimension is concerned, movement from the left side of the framework (11 papers) to the right side (18 papers)—from internal to external—is more significant. The classification aside, 21.6% of researchers mention multiple drivers, moving beyond environmental issues to a more comprehensive agenda. This is linked to the increasing value of intangible assets (for example, intellectual capital) in comparison with the tangible [53]. The owners of intangible assets are employees [54]; thus, they become the main driver for adopting sustainability, as well as managers’ commitment to ethical values [53,54,55,56]. Consequently, today, topics such as human resources [53,55,56], organizational learning [57,58], and social innovation [59] have become part of the discourse. This compares with the early days of the CSR-movement, in which the focus was trained principally on the environmental consequences of industrialization [60].

5. Conclusions, Implications and Future Research

Assuming the sustainable value as key concept for integrating sustainability issues in the environment, both business strategies and management literature must actively integrate sustainable development into long-established assumptions and frameworks, reframing the theoretical foundations and practice of business [50]. Sustainability is seen as an urgent issue in top-level strategic management journals. A variety of topics are commonly discussed, from sustainable value chains to sustainable innovation, to sustainable strategies, to CSR performance and disclosure. Nevertheless, authors highlight a lack of research explaining the link between CSR and outcomes, a need for multilevel research, and the importance of establishing a standardized definitional framework. We argue that research into sustainable value has the potential to overcome these gaps in the existing literature.
Alongside the theoretical and practical implications of this paper, the concept “sustainable value” is still underdeveloped. This evidence is retrieved by the prevalence of explanatory qualitative studies. Moreover, it has not been updated to reflect the modern sustainability paradigm since Hart and Milstein in 2003. Authors frequently cite the concept without developing it. Hence, our work aimed to chart the usage and development of the concept of sustainable value, as described by Hart and Milstein (2003).
The first result of this research is a measurement of usage of the concept. It has become more popular over time, being mentioned in a greater quantity of research papers in recent years. It has not been analyzed in any sort of depth, however, and is mainly used as a general phrase for describing positive business results and thus, tends to be mentioned only once, at the end of the paper.
The second result is the construction of an integrated view of sustainable value management macro-topics. Research on sustainable value is undertaken at different levels of decision-making in the company, showing the great role of sustainable value concept in management field. Nevertheless, the lack of studies explaining underlying principles and mechanisms of corporate sustainability still exists, and can be solved by further research on sustainable value.
The third result of the research is an analysis of how the concept has developed. As the basis for analysis, Hart and Milstein’s (2003) concept was chosen by virtue of its status as by far the most-commonly cited definition and framework. According to Hart and Milstein (2003), relatively few companies established by 2003 were exploiting the opportunities that would come from a focus on outside stakeholders and long-term perspective. Modern scientific research is generally focused on both short-term and long-term value creation for a wide range of internal and external stakeholders. Literature analysis shows that scholars usually do not emphasize the time horizon of sustainable value, or that they equate short-term and long-term profitability/outcomes. The majority of Scholars assume creating sustainable value for a wide range of stakeholders.
Another finding from the research is that sustainable value is increasingly perceived as being derived equally from all three elements of the triple bottom-line. Sustainability drivers are moving from being purely environmental, as per the Hart and Milstein (2003) model: globalization, economic fluctuations, knowledge innovations, etc., are becoming as important as green technologies and carbon reduction policies.
The results of this study make a theoretical contribution to the management literature with the first SLR in this field, and the first literature review on sustainable value. Our literature review on sustainable value may help to overcome the lack in terminological heterogeneity of sustainable value concept by defining the time horizon, stakeholder orientation and topic preferences of sustainable value concept.
From a practical point of view, our research is useful to gain a holistic picture to elaborate and implement sustainable value strategy. Top managers can assess their company’s CSR activities using the concept of sustainable value and measure where they stand in relation to recent sustainability trends. Such an analysis may help to build sustainable strategies.
Particularly, the integrated view presented in Figure 2 could be very helpful to gain a holistic understanding and provide a framework to operationalize in practice the main pillars of sustainable value management. The sustainability agenda of external environment and industries shapes the value that the company may create for its stakeholders. Sustainable strategy and innovation for sustainability are determining what is the future value that the company will create and deliver to its stakeholders. Creation of the value is undertaken at the business model and supply chain level. Ongoing CSR management and control ensure day-to-day work on sustainable value generation. The conceptual blocks are linked with a circular flow that can help managers to assure the needed consistency for an integrated and holistic management, keeping the central role of sustainable value.
In terms of future research, while working with a significant body of literature, we identified essential blocks for further analysis. First, there is a lack of empirical studies on sustainable value. This corresponds with the call for empirical studies in different fields of closely related research: value, balance and accountability research; business model research; sustainability innovation, etc. [48,49,61]. Hart states that “[The field needs more] ‘future-creative’ research that helps us develop the sustainable enterprise practices of tomorrow, and less ‘hypothesis-testing’ practices from the past, using large-scale data sets” [62]. The second call is to operationalize the concept and find statistical tools and measurable indicators for analyzing model implementation [50,63,64,65]. Apart from theoretical gaps, there is a gap in our understanding of the role senior managers must play in generating sustainable value [34]. With the beneficiaries of value creation expanded from shareholders to a wider range of external stakeholders, managers’ roles increase in significance and complexity. This calls for new approaches, tools, capabilities, and personal skills. Thus, a new approach to sustainable value creation is needed in management.
Concerning the limitations of the research, we can mention that the analysis is limited in the scope to the part of literature on sustainable value available in the journals selected for the SLR.

Author Contributions

A.C.: Conceptualization, writing and review; E.K.: data analysis, investigation, and writing the draft; P.T.: methodology, review. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

One of the authors (E.K.) is attending the program I.Ph.D.@UNIPG.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Existing literature reviews (LRs) on sustainability and related topics.
Table A1. Existing literature reviews (LRs) on sustainability and related topics.
ReferencesNumber of ArticlesTopics of the Research
[66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74]9Sustainable supply chain
[1,19,20,23,24,25,27,75,76]9Sustainability at large (review and roadmap for future research), including stakeholder theory
[14,77,78,79,80,81,82,83]8Sustainability-oriented innovation, including eco-innovation
[84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91]8Sustainable performance measurement
[92,93,94,95,96,97]6CSR and corporate financial performance
[98,99,100,101,102,103]6Environmental management
[104,105,106,107,108]5Disclosure
[43,56,109,110].4Sustainable entrepreneurship
[18,42,111]3Sustainable business model
[21,26,112]3Sustainable strategy
[22,113]2CSR standards
[114,115].2Industry from sustainability point of view
[116,117].2Sustainability drivers in the company
[12,118,119,120]4Other
71Total
Table
Table A2. Journal list.
Table A2. Journal list.
No.Journal NameField (from ABS)Rating (from ABS)
1Strategic Management JournalStrategy5
2Global Strategy JournalStrategy3
3Long Range PlanningStrategy3
4Strategic OrganizationStrategy3
5Academy of Management JournalGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility5
6Academy of Management ReviewGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility5
7Administrative Science QuarterlyGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility5
8Journal of ManagementGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility5
9Academy of Management AnnalsGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility4
10British Journal of ManagementGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility4
11Business Ethics QuarterlyGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility4
12Journal of Management StudiesGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility4
13Academy of Management PerspectivesGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility3
14Business and SocietyGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility3
15California Management ReviewGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility3
16European Management ReviewGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility3
17Gender and SocietyGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility3
18Gender, Work and OrganizationGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility3
19International Journal of Management ReviewsGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility3
20Journal of Business EthicsGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility3
21Journal of Business ResearchGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility3
22Journal of Management InquiryGeneral Management, Ethics, Gender and Social Responsibility3
23Management ScienceOperations Research and Management Science5
24Management and Organization ReviewInternational Business and Area Studies3
25Management International ReviewInternational Business and Area Studies3
26Omega: The International Journal of Management ScienceOperations Research and Management Science3
27Group and Organization ManagementOrganisation Studies3
28Business Strategy and The EnvironmentRegional Studies, Planning and Environment3

References

  1. Freeman, R.E.; Phillips, R.; Sisodia, R. Tensions in Stakeholder Theory. Bus. Soc. 2018, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chandler, D. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainable Value Creation, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-1-5063-1099-2. [Google Scholar]
  3. Hart, S.L.; Milstein, M.B. Creating sustainable value. AMP 2003, 17, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Available online: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed on 11 December 2019).
  5. Heyzer, N. The Impact of the Financial and Economic Crisis on Sustainable Development, Particularly their Social Implications. ECOSOC. 2011. Available online: https://www.unescap.org/speeches/impact-financial-and-economic-crisis-sustainable-development-particularly-their-social (accessed on 11 December 2019).
  6. Giannarakis, G.; Theotokas, I. The Effect of Financial Crisis in Corporate Social Responsibility Performance. IJMS 2011, 3, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Kagermann, H. Change Through Digitization—Value Creation in the Age of Industry 4.0. In Management of Permanent Change; Albach, H., Meffert, H., Pinkwart, A., Reichwald, R., Eds.; Springer Fachmedien: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2015; pp. 23–45. ISBN 978-3-658-05014-6. [Google Scholar]
  8. The Future of Corporate Reporting—Creating the Dynamics for Change; Cogito Series; Federation of European Accountants FEE: Brussels, Belgium, 2015; Available online: https://www.accountancyeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/FEECogitoPaper_-_TheFutureofCorporateReporting.pdf (accessed on 11 December 2019).
  9. Massaro, M.; Dumay, J.; Guthrie, J. On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Account. Aud. Account. J. 2016, 29, 767–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value. How to Reinvent Capitalism. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2011, 89, 62–77. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crane, A.; Palazzo, G.; Spence, L.J.; Matten, D. Contesting the Value of “Creating Shared Value”. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2014, 56, 130–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dembek, K.; Singh, P.; Bhakoo, V. Literature Review of Shared Value: A Theoretical Concept or a Management Buzzword? J. Bus. Eth. 2016, 137, 231–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wheeler, D.; Colbert, B.; Freeman, R.E. Focusing on Value: Reconciling Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability and a Stakeholder Approach in a Network World. J. Gen. Manag. 2003, 30, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Adams, R.; Jeanrenaud, S.; Bessant, J.; Denyer, D.; Overy, P. Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review: Sustainability-oriented Innovation. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 180–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Figge, F.; Hahn, T. The Cost of Sustainability Capital and the Creation of Sustainable Value by Companies. J. Ind. Ecol. 2005, 9, 47–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Beattie, V.; Smith, S.J. Value creation and business models: Refocusing the intellectual capital debate. Br. Account. Rev. 2013, 45, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bocken, N.M.P.; Rana, P.; Short, S.W. Value mapping for sustainable business thinking. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2015, 32, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Pieroni, M.P.P.; McAloone, T.C.; Pigosso, D.C.A. Business model innovation for circular economy and sustainability: A review of approaches. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 198–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Williams, A.; Kennedy, S.; Philipp, F.; Whiteman, G. Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 148, 866–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Frynas, J.G.; Yamahaki, C. Corporate social responsibility: Review and roadmap of theoretical perspectives. Bus. Eth. A Eur. Rev. 2016, 25, 258–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ortiz-Avram, D.; Domnanovich, J.; Kronenberg, C.; Scholz, M. Exploring the integration of corporate social responsibility into the strategies of small- and medium-sized enterprises: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 201, 254–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tröster, R.; Hiete, M. Success of voluntary sustainability certification schemes—A comprehensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 1034–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 932–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Griffin, J.J. Tracing stakeholder terminology then and now: Convergence and new pathways. Bus. Eth. Eur. Rev. 2017, 26, 326–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Latapí Agudelo, M.A.; Jóhannsdóttir, L.; Davídsdóttir, B. A literature review of the history and evolution of corporate social responsibility. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2019, 4, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Orlitzky, M.; Siegel, D.S.; Waldman, D.A. Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability. Bus. Soc. 2011, 50, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Taneja, S.S.; Taneja, P.K.; Gupta, R.K. Researches in Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review of Shifting Focus, Paradigms, and Methodologies. J. Bus. Eth. 2011, 101, 343–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lepak, D.P.; Smith, K.G.; Taylor, M.S. Value Creation and Value Capture: A Multilevel Perspective. AMR 2007, 32, 180–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Producing a systematic review. In The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods; Buchanan, D., Bryman, A., Eds.; Sage: London, UK, 2009; pp. 671–689. [Google Scholar]
  30. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dumay, J.; Bernardi, C.; Guthrie, J.; Demartini, P. Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. Account. Forum 2016, 40, 166–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chartered Association of Business Schools. Available online: https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2018/ (accessed on 27 October 2019).
  33. Bhattacherjee, A. Social Science Research Pinciples, Methods and Practies; Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License: Leipzig, Germany, 2012; ISBN 978-1-4751-4612-7. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tantalo, C.; Priem, R.L. Value creation through stakeholder synergy: Stakeholder Synergy. Strateg. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 314–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Crilly, D.; Sloan, P. Enterprise logic: Explaining corporate attention to stakeholders from the ‘inside-out’. Strateg. Manag. J. 2012, 33, 1174–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Laasch, O. Beyond the purely commercial business model: Organizational value logics and the heterogeneity of sustainability business models. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 158–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yin, R.K. The Case Study Anthology; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004; ISBN 978-0-7619-2926-0. [Google Scholar]
  38. Eisenhardt, K.M. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Edward Freeman, R.; Harris, J.D. Creating Ties That Bind. J. Bus. Eth. 2009, 88, 685–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. Corporate Sustainability: A Strategy? SSRN J. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. HBR 2006, 23, 76–94. [Google Scholar]
  42. Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Muñoz, P.; Cohen, B. Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research: Taking Stock and looking ahead. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 300–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Taticchi, P.; Tonelli, F.; Pasqualino, R. Performance measurement of sustainable supply chains: A literature review and a research agenda. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2013, 62, 782–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gond, J.-P.; Igalens, J.; Swaen, V.; El Akremi, A. The Human Resources Contribution to Responsible Leadership: An Exploration of the CSR–HR Interface. J. Bus. Eth. 2011, 98, 115–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Boulouta, I.; Pitelis, C.N. Who Needs CSR? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on National Competitiveness. J. Bus. Eth. 2014, 119, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Brennan, G.; Tennant, M. Sustainable value and trade-offs: Exploring situational logics and power relations in a UK brewery’s malt supply network business model. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 621–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. O’Riordan, L.; Fairbrass, J. Managing CSR Stakeholder Engagement: A New Conceptual Framework. J. Bus. Eth. 2014, 125, 121–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Schwartz, M.S.; Carroll, A.B. Integrating and Unifying Competing and Complementary Frameworks: The Search for a Common Core in the Business and Society Field. Bus. Soc. 2008, 47, 148–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Holgado, M.; Van Fossen, K.; Yang, M.; Silva, E.A.; Barlow, C.Y. Business Model Innovation for Sustainability: Towards a Unified Perspective for Creation of Sustainable Business Models. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Panapanaan, V.; Bruce, T.; Virkki-Hatakka, T.; Linnanen, L. Analysis of Shared and Sustainable Value Creation of Companies Providing Energy Solutions at the Base of the Pyramid (BoP): SSVC by Energy Enterprises. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2016, 25, 293–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pedersen, E.R.G.; Gwozdz, W.; Hvass, K.K. Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and Organisational Values within the Fashion Industry. J. Bus. Eth. 2018, 149, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. López-Gamero, M.D.; Zaragoza-Sáez, P.; Claver-Cortés, E.; Molina-Azorín, J.F. Sustainable development and intangibles: Building sustainable intellectual capital. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2011, 20, 18–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rajan, R.G.; Zingales, L. The Governance of the New Enterprise; NBER Working Paper Series, No. 7598; NBER: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000; Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=245587 (accessed on 11 December 2019).
  55. Eberhardt-Toth, E.; Wasieleski, D.M. A Cognitive Elaboration Model of Sustainability Decision Making: Investigating Financial Managers’ Orientation Toward Environmental Issues. J. Bus. Eth. 2013, 117, 735–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Saebi, T.; Foss, N.J.; Linder, S. Social Entrepreneurship Research: Past Achievements and Future Promises. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 70–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Chen, H.; Lee, P.; Lay, T. Drivers of dynamic learning and dynamic competitive capabilities in international strategic alliances. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 1289–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Le Pennec, M.; Raufflet, E. Value Creation in Inter-Organizational Collaboration: An Empirical Study. J. Bus. Eth. 2018, 148, 817–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Phillips, W.; Lee, H.; Ghobadian, A.; O’Regan, N.; James, P. Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review. Group Organ. Manag. 2015, 40, 428–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Asif, M.; Searcy, C.; Zutshi, A.; Ahmad, N. An integrated management systems approach to corporate sustainability. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2011, 23, 353–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cassimon, D.; Engelen, P.-J.; Van Liedekerke, L. When do Firms Invest in Corporate Social Responsibility? A Real Option Framework. J. Bus. Eth. 2016, 137, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Sharma, A.; Lee, M.-D.P. Sustainable Global Enterprise: Perspectives of Stuart Hart, Ans Kolk, Sanjay Sharma, and Sandra Waddock. J. Manag. Inq. 2012, 21, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cubas-Díaz, M.; Martínez Sedano, M.Á. Measures for Sustainable Investment Decisions and Business Strategy—A Triple Bottom Line Approach. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 16–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Goranova, M.; Abouk, R.; Nystrom, P.C.; Soofi, E.S. Corporate governance antecedents to shareholder activism: A zero-inflated process: Corporate Governance Antecedents to Shareholder Activism. Strateg. Manag. J. 2017, 38, 415–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kleine, A.; von Hauff, M. Sustainability-Driven Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility: Application of the Integrative Sustainability Triangle. J. Bus. Eth. 2009, 85, 517–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gold, S.; Seuring, S.; Beske, P. Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational resources: A literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2010, 17, 230–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rajeev, A.; Pati, R.K.; Padhi, S.S.; Govindan, K. Evolution of sustainability in supply chain management: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gao, D.; Xu, Z.; Ruan, Y.Z.; Lu, H. From a systematic literature review to integrated definition for sustainable supply chain innovation (SSCI). J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 1518–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Feng, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Lai, K.-H. Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 158, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. De Oliveira, U.R.; Espindola, L.S.; da Silva, I.R.; da Silva, I.N.; Rocha, H.M. A systematic literature review on green supply chain management: Research implications and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 187, 537–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ciccullo, F.; Pero, M.; Caridi, M.; Gosling, J.; Purvis, L. Integrating the environmental and social sustainability pillars into the lean and agile supply chain management paradigms: A literature review and future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2336–2350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Martins, C.L.; Pato, M.V. Supply chain sustainability: A tertiary literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 995–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Farooque, M.; Zhang, A.; Thurer, M.; Qu, T.; Huisingh, D. Circular supply chain management: A definition and structured literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 82–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Koberg, E.; Longoni, A. A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in global supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 1084–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. White, C.L.; Nielsen, A.E.; Valentini, C. CSR research in the apparel industry: A quantitative and qualitative review of existing literature. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2017, 24, 382–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Isil, O.; Hernke, M.T. The Triple Bottom Line: A Critical Review from a Transdisciplinary Perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 1235–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Szutowski, D.; Ratajczak, P. Exploring the relationship between CSR and innovation. Sustainability 2016, 7, 295–318. [Google Scholar]
  78. Klewitz, J.; Hansen, E.G. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fu, Y.; Kok, R.A.W.; Dankbaar, B.; Ligthart, P.E.M.; van Riel, A.C.R. Factors affecting sustainable process technology adoption: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 205, 226–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bossle, M.B.; Dutra de Barcellos, M.; Vieira, L.M.; Sauvée, L. The drivers for adoption of eco-innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 861–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Xavier, A.F.; Naveiro, R.M.; Aoussat, A.; Reyes, T. Systematic literature review of eco-innovation models: Opportunities and recommendations for future research. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 1278–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Salim, N.; Ab Rahman, M.N.; Abd Wahab, D. A systematic literature review of internal capabilities for enhancing eco-innovation performance of manufacturing firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 1445–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pham, D.D.T.; Paillé, P.; Halilem, N. Systematic review on environmental innovativeness: A knowledge-based resource view. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 1088–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Mura, M.; Longo, M.; Micheli, P.; Bolzani, D. The Evolution of Sustainability Measurement Research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 661–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Searcy, C. Corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems: A Review and Research Agenda. J. Bus. Eth. 2012, 107, 239–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hansen, E.G.; Schaltegger, S. The Sustainability Balanced Scorecard: A Systematic Review of Architectures. J. Bus. Eth. 2016, 133, 193–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ahi, P.; Searcy, C. An analysis of metrics used to measure performance in green and sustainable supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 86, 360–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rahdari, A.H.; Anvary Rostamy, A.A. Designing a general set of sustainability indicators at the corporate level. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 108, 757–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kühnen, M.; Hahn, R. Systemic social performance measurement: Systematic literature review and explanations on the academic status quo from a product life-cycle perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 205, 690–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Dragomir, V.D. How do we measure corporate environmental performance? A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 1124–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Silva, S.; Nuzum, A.-K.; Schaltegger, S. Stakeholder expectations on sustainability performance measurement and assessment. A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 204–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rost, K.; Ehrmann, T. Reporting Biases in Empirical Management Research: The Example of Win-Win Corporate Social Responsibility. Bus. Soc. 2017, 56, 840–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Mattingly, J.E. Corporate Social Performance: A Review of Empirical Research Examining the Corporation–Society Relationship Using Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini Social Ratings Data. Bus. Soc. 2017, 56, 796–839. [Google Scholar]
  94. Faller, C.M.; zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. Does Equity Ownership Matter for Corporate Social Responsibility? A Literature Review of Theories and Recent Empirical Findings. J. Bus. Eth. 2018, 150, 15–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Grewatsch, S.; Kleindienst, I. When Does It Pay to be Good? Moderators and Mediators in the Corporate Sustainability–Corporate Financial Performance Relationship: A Critical Review. J. Bus. Eth. 2017, 145, 383–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Hinze, A.-K.; Sump, F. Corporate social responsibility and financial analysts: A review of the literature. Sustainability 2019, 10, 183–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wood, D.J.; Logsdon, J.M. Social Issues in Management as a Distinct Field: Corporate Social Responsibility and Performance. Bus. Soc. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Daddi, T.; Todaro, N.M.; Giacomo, M.R.D.; Frey, M. A Systematic Review of the Use of Organization and Management Theories in Climate Change Studies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 456–474. [Google Scholar]
  99. Rotzek, J.N.; Scope, C.; Günther, E. What energy management practice can learn from research on energy culture? Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. May, G.; Stahl, B.; Taisch, M.; Kiritsis, D. Energy management in manufacturing: From literature review to a conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 1464–1489. [Google Scholar]
  101. Slowak, A.P.; Taticchi, P. Technology, policy and management for carbon reduction: A critical and global review with insights on the role played by the Chinese Academy. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 601–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bartolini, M.; Bottani, E.; Grosse, E.H. Green warehousing: Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 242–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Tuokuu, F.X.D.; Idemudia, U.; Gruber, J.S.; Kayira, J. Identifying and clarifying environmental policy best practices for the mining industry–A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 222, 922–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Dienes, D.; Sassen, R.; Fischer, J. What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review. Sustainability 2016, 7, 154–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Asif, M.; Searcy, C.; dos Santos, P.; Kensah, D. A Review of Dutch Corporate Sustainable Development Reports: Trends in Dutch sustainability reporting. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2013, 20, 321–339. [Google Scholar]
  106. Vitolla, F.; Raimo, N.; Rubino, M. Appreciations, criticisms, determinants, and effects of integrated reporting: A systematic literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 518–528. [Google Scholar]
  107. Ali, W.; Frynas, J.G.; Mahmood, Z. Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2017, 24, 273–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Fifka, M.S. Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective—A Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta-analysis. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 22, 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  109. Tiba, S.; Rijnsoever, F.J.; van Hekkert, M.P. Firms with benefits: A systematic review of responsible entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility literature. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 265–284. [Google Scholar]
  110. Gast, J.; Gundolf, K.; Cesinger, B. Doing business in a green way: A systematic review of the ecological sustainability entrepreneurship literature and future research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [Google Scholar]
  112. Nave, A.; Ferreira, J. Corporate social responsibility strategies: Past research and future challenges. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Liston-Heyes, C.; Heyes, A. Is There Evidence for Export-Led Adoption of ISO 14001? A Review of the Literature Using Meta-Regression. Bus. Soc. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. García-Pérez, I.; Muñoz-Torres, M.-J.; Fernández-Izquierdo, M.-Á. Microfinance literature: A sustainability level perspective survey. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3382–3395. [Google Scholar]
  115. Rodrigues, M.; Mendes, L. Mapping of the literature on social responsibility in the mining industry: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Broccardo, L.; Truant, E.; Zicari, A. Internal corporate sustainability drivers: What evidence from family firms? A literature review and research agenda. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  117. González-Benito, J.; González-Benito, Ó. A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2006, 15, 87–102. [Google Scholar]
  118. Jaramillo, J.Á.; Sossa, J.W.Z.; Mendoza, G.L.O. Barriers to sustainability for small and medium enterprises in the framework of sustainable development—Literature review. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 512–524. [Google Scholar]
  119. Orzes, G.; Moretto, A.M.; Ebrahimpour, M.; Sartor, M.; Moro, M.; Rossi, M. United Nations Global Compact: Literature review and theory-based research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 177, 633–654. [Google Scholar]
  120. Zarte, M.; Pechmann, A.; Nunes, I.L. Decision support systems for sustainable manufacturing surrounding the product and production life cycle—A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 219, 336–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 12 00615 g001 550
Figure 1. Sustainable value framework (adapted from Hart and Milstein, 2003) [3].
Figure 1. Sustainable value framework (adapted from Hart and Milstein, 2003) [3].
Sustainability 12 00615 g001
Sustainability 12 00615 g002 550
Figure 2. Integrated view of sustainable value management.
Figure 2. Integrated view of sustainable value management.
Sustainability 12 00615 g002
Sustainability 12 00615 g003 550
Figure 3. The development of sustainable value concept: spatial and temporal dimensions.
Figure 3. The development of sustainable value concept: spatial and temporal dimensions.
Sustainability 12 00615 g003
Table
Table 1. Authors about sustainable value creation.
Table 1. Authors about sustainable value creation.
Author/sNumber of Citations (Google Scholar as of 25.12.19)Definition of Sustainable Value
Hart and Milstein (2003) [3]1.874“The global challenge associated with sustainable development, viewed through the appropriate set of business lenses, can help to identify strategies and practices that contribute to a more sustainable world while simultaneously driving shareholder value: this we define as the creation of sustainable value for the firm”.
Wheeler et al. (2003) [13] 562“… economic, social and ecological value”.
Adams et al. (2016) [14] 369“The context [of innovation activities of Systems Building] is characterized by a shift toward networks of relations in which sustainability value is created collaboratively rather than individually”.
Figge and Hahn (2005) [15] 233“… sustainable value, that is, the value created by a hyper-efficient use of all forms of capital. A positive (negative) sustainable value indicates that a company uses its capital base more (less) efficiently than the benchmark”.
Beattie and Smith (2013) [16] 232“Value is no longer created by firms acting autonomously, but by firms acting together with parties external to the firm through informal arrangements or formal alliances”.
Bocken et al. (2015) [17] 174“For sustainability thinking, [there is] the need for a more holistic view of value that integrates social and environmental goals, to ensure balancing or ideally alignment of all stakeholder interests to deliver “sustainable value” creation”.
Table
Table 2. Literature review protocol.
Table 2. Literature review protocol.
Question“How Is the Concept of Sustainable Value Used in the Literature, and How Has It Developed?”
SearchJournals:Articles:
• high rank in ABS-list (“3”–“4*”)• management field
• scientific• 2008–2018
• blocks with “management” or “strategy” in their names (only general management or strategy topics, international)• Key words: “sustainable value”, search in all the text of the paper (excluding author info and references)
Article ImpactAverage citation per article
Analytical Framework• Content analysis based on Hart and Milstein (2003) sustainable value concept
• Word frequency analysis with R (https://www.r-project.org)
ReliabilityCodification is undertaken with selective cross-check, work is saved at Microsoft ExcelTM
ValidityInternalExternalConstruct
An empirically based pattern is expected to coincide with predicted one made on the basis of Hart and Milstein (2003) concept106 articles are analyzed. Results are proved by 71 literature reviews from cross-related fieldsJournals are from management field
CodeFormal:The use of “sustainable value”:
• Name of the article• Year of publication
• Journal and its Rating• Number of appearances of the phrase “sustainable value”
• Authors• The role of “sustainable value” and its synonyms: framework/variable/concept to site/none
• Citations
Methodology:The development of sustainable value concept (Hart and Milstein (2003):
• Type of the study: qualitative/quantitative/both• Sustainability drivers
• Type of the questions in the study: exploratory/descriptive (what?where?when?)/explanatory (why?how?)• Spatial dimension (stakeholders)
• Research design: case study/literature review/survey research/secondary data analysis/ethnography/several• Temporal dimension
• Theories applied
Expected Insights• Increased prominence of the concept of sustainable value over time, with growing application of different theories and a shift from qualitative to quantitative research
• Focus to become more long-term, with a wider list of external stakeholders taken into consideration, moving toward greater balance across the four quadrants of Hart and Milstein’s (2003) framework
Future Research• Empirical research on sustainable value
• Elaboration of statistical tools
• Investigation of top managers’ new role
Table
Table 3. Formal characteristics of papers.
Table 3. Formal characteristics of papers.
Journaln%N of Citationsn%
Journal of Business Ethics4138.6087.5
Business Strategy and the Environment1514.1From 1 to 195047.0
Journal of Business Research87.5From 20 to 391716.0
Long Range Planning76.6From 40 to 5987.5
California Management Review54.7From 60 to 7987.5
Business and Society43.8From 80 to 9932.8
Journal of Management32.8Over 1001211.3
Journal of Management Inquiry32.8Total106100.0
Strategic Management Journal32.8
Other journals (with less than 2 articles)1716.0
Total106100.0
Table
Table 4. Methodological features of the papers.
Table 4. Methodological features of the papers.
Type of the Studyn%Type of Questionn%
Qualitative8176.4Explanatory (why? how?)5047.2
Quantitative2220.8Descriptive (what? where? when?)3129.2
Both32.8Exploratory2523.6
Total106100.0Total106100.0
Research Designn%Theories Appliedn%
Literature review4340.6Stakeholder theory1817.0
Case study2725.5Ethical theories1716.0
Survey research1615.1Resource-based view1514.2
Secondary data analysis109.4Institutional theory54.7
Several76.6Agency theory32.8
Ethnography32.8Not specified 4845.3
Total106100.0Total106100.0
Table
Table 5. The use of sustainable value: year of publication, appearance and role.
Table 5. The use of sustainable value: year of publication, appearance and role.
Year of Publicationn%N of Appearancen%
200865.717066.0
200976.621615.1
201098.5387.5
201198.5443.8
20121211.3>587.5
201387.5Total106100.0
20141110.4Role of Sustainable Valuen%
20151110.4Framework 65.7
201698.5Variable 54.7
201798.5Concept to cite 2624.5
20181514.2No specific role6965.1
Total106100.0Total106100.0
Table
Table 6. The use of sustainable value inside the most relevant management topics.
Table 6. The use of sustainable value inside the most relevant management topics.
Conceptual Blocks Related to Sustainable Value Managementn%
1. Sustainability in Environment and Industries109.4
2. Sustainable Strategy and Innovation3835.8
3. Sustainable Business models and Supply chains1817.0
4. CSR, Performance and Management4037.7
Total106100.0
Table
Table 7. The development of sustainable value concept: strategic drivers.
Table 7. The development of sustainable value concept: strategic drivers.
Strategic Orientation and Drivers of Sustainable Valuen%
1. Environmental consequences of industrialization25.4
2. New green technologies924.3
3. Increase in population, poverty and inequity616.2
4. Proliferation and interconnection of civil society stakeholders1232.5
5. ND or all drivers together821.6
Total37100.0

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cardoni, A.; Kiseleva, E.; Taticchi, P. In Search of Sustainable Value: A Structured Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020615

AMA Style

Cardoni A, Kiseleva E, Taticchi P. In Search of Sustainable Value: A Structured Literature Review. Sustainability. 2020; 12(2):615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020615

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cardoni, Andrea, Evgeniia Kiseleva, and Paolo Taticchi. 2020. "In Search of Sustainable Value: A Structured Literature Review" Sustainability 12, no. 2: 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020615

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop