How Do Companies Communicate Sustainability? A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
How Do Agri-Food Companies Communicate Sustainability?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Bibliographic Conceptual Search
2.2. Bibliographic Search Process
2.3. Bibliometric Review
2.4. Systematic Literature Review
3. Results
3.1. Data Synthesis
3.2. Descriptive Analysis (Bibliometric Analysis)
3.2.1. Publication by Year
3.2.2. Sources Analysis
3.2.3. Authors Analysis
3.2.4. Geographic Analysis
3.2.5. Documents Analysis
3.2.6. Cluster Analysis
3.2.7. Trend Analysis
3.3. Study Characteristics (Systematic Literature Review)
3.4. Cluster Analysis
3.4.1. Consumer Communication Strategies
3.4.2. The Relationship between Communication and Consumer Behavior
3.4.3. Communication (Labels) and Health Benefits
3.4.4. Sustainability and the Role of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
3.4.5. The Opportunity to Develop Sustainable Business Models
3.4.6. Sustainability and Process Optimization
3.4.7. Awareness of Sustainability and Environmental Impact
4. Discussion
5. Research Applications
6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Further Research Suggestions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Description | Results |
---|---|
MAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE DATA | |
Timespan | 1999:2022 |
Sources (journals, books, etc.) | 80 |
Documents | 118 |
Average years since publication | 4.72 |
Average citations per documents | 13.86 |
Average citations per year per doc | 2.502 |
References | 7793 |
DOCUMENT TYPES | |
Article | 104 |
Article—early access | 2 |
Article—proceedings paper | 1 |
Review | 11 |
DOCUMENT CONTENTS | |
Keywords plus (ID) | 573 |
Author’s keywords (DE) | 556 |
AUTHORS | |
Authors | 434 |
Author appearances | 455 |
Authors of single-authored documents | 17 |
Authors of multi-authored documents | 417 |
AUTHORS COLLABORATION | |
Single-authored documents | 18 |
Documents per author | 0.272 |
Authors per document | 3.68 |
Co-authors per document | 3.86 |
Collaboration index | 4.17 |
MAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE DATA |
Appendix B
Journal | Publications | Percentage | Cumulative |
---|---|---|---|
Italy | 41 | 13% | 13% |
Australia | 40 | 13% | 26% |
USA | 40 | 13% | 38% |
Germany | 39 | 12% | 50% |
Spain | 17 | 5% | 56% |
UK | 16 | 5% | 61% |
China | 15 | 5% | 66% |
Sweden | 15 | 5% | 70% |
Poland | 13 | 4% | 74% |
India | 10 | 3% | 78% |
Switzerland | 9 | 3% | 80% |
Czech Republic | 8 | 3% | 83% |
Netherlands | 8 | 3% | 85% |
Serbia | 8 | 3% | 88% |
Austria | 7 | 2% | 90% |
Greece | 7 | 2% | 92% |
Israel | 7 | 2% | 95% |
Ukraine | 7 | 2% | 97% |
Finland | 5 | 2% | 98% |
Norway | 5 | 2% | 100% |
Appendix C
Author | Year | Journals | Objectives | Nature of the Study | Sample | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wojciechowska-Solis et al. [7] | 2022 | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health | The main aim of the study was to compare young consumers’ purchasing behavior toward organic food in Poland and the UK. | Quantitative—cohort study | 892 Polish consumers and 161 consumers from the UK | The results showed that young consumers pay special attention to the freshness and quality of the products consumed; the main motivations for buying organic products were concerns for their own and their loved ones’ health and the desire to consume better-quality products. The organic products most purchased by the participants were eggs, vegetables and fruits, dairy products, and meat. The main source of information for young people when purchasing this type of product was experts (doctors, nutritionists, etc.), followed by referrals from family members, the content of social networks, and information from websites run by institutions. |
Guimarães et al. [14] | 2022 | Sustainable Production and Consumption | To study the coffee production industry in Brazil, bearing in mind that it is an agri-food industry that has struggled to implement sustainable innovations in the supply chain. | Qualitative—bibliometric analysis | Bibliography and questionnaire examining Brazilian coffee stakeholders | The results indicated that the main drivers involved in sustainable supply chain management in the Brazilian coffee industry are the following: social responsibility, economic performance/improvement, regulations (environmental, regional, international), and the adoption of an innovative business model. Barriers to sustainability management were also identified: lack of government support, high complexity of processes, and communication failures. |
Cooper et al. [6] | 2022 | Sustainability | To understand how consumers, perceive the value proposition of vegan food. | Qualitative—documental analysis | Over 120,000 tweets related to veganism | The results showed that in light of the three main drivers for choosing vegan food (ethics, personal health, and environment), surprisingly, there were a reduced number of tweets motivated by the environment/sustainability. The value propositions most likely to impact consumers and motivate them to increase their consumption of vegan foods, in addition to having environmental benefits, were (i) value propositions communicated in relation to health characteristics (e.g., dairy-free and gluten-free foods) and (ii) value propositions related to consumption benefits (e.g., delicious foods). Furthermore, the authors noted that due to the divergence of attitudes and conversations occurring on Twitter between vegans and non-vegans, it is unlikely that a single value proposition can be achieved for both groups. |
Iazzi et al. [33] | 2021 | British Food Journal | Assess the levels of communication by food and beverage companies on their sustainability activities and performance in terms of compliance with the requirements of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards and the consistency of the content of the sustainability reports they publish on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). | Quantitative—content analysis | 102 food and beverage companies | The study showed that companies’ transition to the GRI guidelines was still ongoing. It was also found that the companies under study were supporting the SDG standards by reducing inequalities at work. Finally, the analysis revealed that a company’s presence on the stock market listing is a driver of corporate social responsibility communication. |
Parekh and Svenfelt [28] | 2022 | Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy | Assess the perspectives of stakeholders involved in the food supply system in order to identify barriers and potentials for integrating sustainable food practices. | Qualitative—descriptive | 11 stakeholders from food companies | The data showed that stakeholders pointed to many barriers to enabling sustainable food in the current food supply system, but they also identified considerable potential for change. Many of the solutions suggested by stakeholders were related to consumer choices and behaviors, and others (to a lesser extent) were related to the redesign and replacement of practices and the reconfiguration of how practices currently interconnect. |
Sadovska et al. [25] | 2020 | Sustainability | Conduct a review on value creation in agriculture and propose a new conceptual framework. | Qualitative—systematic literature review | Articles | Based on the data obtained, the authors presented a new theoretical framework for sustainable value creation in the agricultural sector based on 10 clusters: 1—Knowledge and innovation: extending and spreading extended knowledge for future agriculture; 2—Digital transformation: transforming business through information technology; 3—Circularity: changing business as a response to environmental challenges; 4—Bio-economy: efficient use of resources; 5—Inclusiveness: ensuring wider teams in order to have greater community participation; 6—Product identity: build a product identity consistent with consumer needs in order to increase consumer loyalty; 7—Supply chain: establish a transparent and fair supply chain for reputational gains; 8—Collaboration: enhance relationships with stakeholders to increase learning and knowledge transfer; 9—Production: optimize the eco-efficiency of operations; 10—Diversification: enter new markets. |
Gider and Hamm [9] | 2019 | International Food and Agribusiness Management Review | To analyze how consumers search and process corporate social media and social responsibility information on food company websites. | Qualitative—documentary analysis | Websites | The findings of this study suggest that companies provide comprehensive information that can be easily filtered. In addition, companies should present specific information to credibly distance themselves from accusations of greenwashing, for example by referring to external evidence. |
Lerro et al. [10] | 2018 | Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Management | Analyze consumer preferences for corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the food industry. | Quantitative—descriptive | 1007 participants | The results revealed a high level of awareness among consumers about social responsibility initiatives by food industry companies, as well as a great interest in obtaining information and learning more about these initiatives. Five consumer groups were identified: “environmentalists”, “pro-socialists”, “collectivists”, “animal-friendly”, and “health-focused selfish”. Furthermore, the study showed that consumers are willing to pay a premium price to reward food companies that address their CSR concerns and expectations. |
Holden et al. [15] | 2018 | Nature Partner Journals | Conduct a review on the sustainability of food systems and the transition through the “food internet”. | Qualitative—literature review | Articles | The authors suggested that the transition to sustainable food systems will entail many changes, such as the harnessing of internet technology in the form of an “Internet of food”; offering the possibility to use global resources more efficiently; stimulating rural livelihoods; developing resilience systems; and facilitating responsible management through computing, communication, education, and trade. The “Internet of food” thus appears as a pre-competitive platform on which business models can be developed, which is quite similar to the Internet as currently known. As concluded by the authors, the ability to compute large amounts of data will change the way the food system is analyzed and understood and will enable a transition toward more sustainable food systems. |
Bobola et al. [16] | 2018 | Problemy Zarzadzania | Evaluate and analyze reports developed by food companies. | Qualitative—case study/literature review | 38 reports | The results led to the conclusion that the tools used by companies to implement actions and properly communicate sustainability are various and can be carried out through corporate governance, diversity in the workplace, social campaigns, philanthropic activities, dialogue with stakeholders, etc. |
Gold et al. [17] | 2016 | Journal of Industrial Ecology | This study investigated the factors that lead companies to delay the integration of the performance dimension of sustainability into global agri-food chains. | Qualitative—literature review | Articles | The authors pointed out sustainability indicators in the agri-food sector: local living conditions; workers’ rights; land rights; safe food; the end-of-life cycle; valorization through reverse logistics (energy, nutrients, etc.); and other environmental issues (e.g., energy and consumption). It was also concluded that many supply chain performance attributes represent credibility attributes that cannot be proven by the consumer, thus leading to an information asymmetry between the company and its consumers. As such, companies’ responses to this situation should focus on symbolic actions and communication efforts, through sustainability reports and other brand-strengthening marketing tools. |
Cavallo and Piqueras-Fiszman [11] | 2017 | Journal of Sensory Studies | To analyze the effect of visual elements of the packaging on the perceived healthiness of extra virgin olive oil in two populations with different levels of familiarity with the product and different cultural habits in terms of fat consumption. | Quantitative—cohort study | 214 consumers—2 groups (Italian and Dutch) | The results showed that people in the Italian consumer group were more familiar with the product, were more frequent consumers of the product, and had greater knowledge about the product requirements and regulations. Most elements of the packaging were perceived similarly by Dutch and Italian consumers, which suggests that there is no need to create different labels for products sold in different countries. The data also showed that labels and packaging can be used to better communicate the healthiness of products; therefore, indicating the origin and organic production can be useful for companies, regardless of the country in which they operate. |
Richter and Bokelmann [35] | 2015 | Waste Management | To analyze the treatment and importance of the food waste issue in manufacturing companies. | Quantitative—correlational | 51 companies in the German food industry | The results showed that the issue of food waste has a high significance in the food industry, which will possibly increase in the future. The data showed that the topic is more relevant for companies in the confectionery sector. Across the food industry, there was no communication with consumers about efforts regarding food losses. Therefore, the authors concluded that to decrease food losses at all stages of the supply chain, especially at the consumer level, it is necessary for companies to communicate with consumers and collaborate with various institutions if necessary. According to the authors, consumer perceptions on the issue of food losses are necessary to know whether people are interested or how their interest can be aroused. |
Rinaldi et al. [34] | 2016 | Sustainability | Presents a comprehensive approach to jointly assess the carbon (CF) and water (WF) footprint of the wine industry from start to finish. | Quantitative—exploratory | Data collected directly from wineries | According to the authors, life cycle assessments play a strategic role in improving a company’s environmental performance and supporting successful marketing communication. The high impact of the food industry on natural resources in terms of water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions has been drawing the attention of consumers and producers toward environmentally sustainable products. |
Beckers et al. [36] | 2013 | International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development | Knowing the extent to which sustainability information is reflected by an existing enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, or what investments would be needed for companies to facilitate the reporting of sustainability data. | Qualitative—literature review | Companies in the meat industry | The data showed that up to the date of the study, companies reported the following consumption data: energy consumption via the provider’s website, water consumption data, and sporadic energy data from raw materials and supplies. It was found that much of the relevant information (approx. 50%) was already available in the industry-specific PRE system but had not yet been sufficiently complemented by environmental information or some gaps still existed. |
Kowalska et al. [8] | 2021 | Sustainability | The aim of this study was to analyze young consumers’ attitudes and behaviors toward organic food. | Quantitative— comparative | 812 consumers from Poland and 161 from the UK | The results showed that UK participants are significantly more conscious green consumers with higher environmental attitude intensity than Polish consumers; the intensity of pro-environmental attitude components directly and indirectly influences organic food choice; people with higher pro-environmental attitude intensity are significantly more likely to choose organic food; organic food perception influences purchases only in Poland; and pro-environmental attitude components and organic food perception alone do not explain the results, which suggests that other independent variables may be influential. |
Vrontis et al. [26] | 2022 | Sustainability | Analyze how the adoption of digital technology can influence both the economic sustainability and social value of businesses and improve regional socio-economic conditions. | Quantitative | 319 participants with at least basic knowledge of digital technologies and their contributions to SMEs. | The results showed that the adoption of digital technologies has a significant impact on the creation of economic sustainability and social value for SMEs. The study also found a significant impact of entrepreneurial orientation on the relationship between social and economic value creation and SME performance. |
Kretschmer and Kahl [27] | 2021 | Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | To make a critical analysis of the driving forces in the food system on the assumption that mindset is the main predictor of food system outcomes. | Qualitative—theoretical review | Articles | This research shed new light on the nature of the drivers of change, which are often portrayed as powerful and inevitable trends that shape food systems. Instead, the authors proposed that drivers arise from the mindset of actors, affecting food system behavior in non-linear ways. |
References
- Genç, R. The Importance of Communication in Sustainability & Sustainable Strategies. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 8, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vargas-Hernández, J.G. Strategic Organizational Sustainability. Circ. Econ. Sustain. 2021, 1, 457–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afzal, F.; Lim, B. Organizational Factors Influencing the Sustainability Performance of Construction Organizations. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coronato, M. The Sustainability Dimensions: A Territorialized Approach to Sustainable Development. Glob. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2020, 20, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dos Santos, R. A Sustentabilidade e o Novo Modelo de Negócio Branding como Impulsionador de Oportunidades. Master’s Thesis, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal, 2019. Available online: https://ubibliorum.ubi.pt/bitstream/10400.6/10519/1/7226_15346.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2022).
- Cooper, K.; Dedehayir, O.; Riverola, C.; Harrington, S.; Alpert, E. Exploring Consumer Perceptions of the Value Proposition Embedded in Vegan Food Products Using Text Analytics. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wojciechowska-Solis, J.; Kowalska, A.; Bieniek, M.; Ratajczyk, M.; Manning, L. Comparison of the Purchasing Behaviour of Polish and United Kingdom Consumers in the Organic Food Market during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalska, A.; Ratajczyk, M.; Manning, L.; Bieniek, M.; Mącik, R. “Young and Green” a Study of Consumers’ Perceptions and Reported Purchasing Behaviour towards Organic Food in Poland and the United Kingdom. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gider, D.; Hamm, U. How do consumers search for and process corporate social responsibility information on food companies’ websites? Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2019, 22, 229–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerro, M.; Vecchio, R.; Caracciolo, F.; Pascucci, S.; Cembalo, L. Consumers’ heterogeneous preferences for corporate social responsibility in the food industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 1050–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavallo, C.; Piqueras-Fiszman, B. Visual elements of packaging shaping healthiness evaluations of consumers: The case of olive oil. J. Sens. Stud. 2017, 32, e12246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Primožič, L.; Kutnar, A. Sustainability Communication in Global Consumer Brands. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabet, N. Sustainability Communications and the Ceramic Tile Industry. Master’s Thesis, Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Leiria, Portugal, 2021. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.8/6774 (accessed on 12 December 2022).
- Guimarães, Y.M.; Eustachio, J.H.P.P.; Leal Filho, W.; Martinez, L.F.; do Valle, M.R.; Caldana, A.C.F. Drivers and barriers in sustainable supply chains: The case of the Brazilian coffee industry. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 34, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holden, N.M.; White, E.P.; Lange, M.C.; Oldfield, T.L. Review of the sustainability of food systems and transition using the Internet of Food. NPJ Sci. Food 2018, 2, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bobola, A.; Ozimek, I.; Szlachciuk, J. Social and Integrated Reports of Food Business as Tools of CSR and Sustainable Development. Probl. Zarz. 2018, 16, 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gold, S.; Kunz, N.; Reiner, G. Sustainable Global Agrifood Supply Chains: Exploring the Barriers. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 249–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Producing a Systematic Review. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods; SAGE: Newcastle, UK, 2009; pp. 672–689. Available online: https://www.cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/Denyer-Tranfield-Producing-a-Systematic-Review.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2022).
- Lame, G. Systematic Literature Reviews: An Introduction. In Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2019; Volume 1, pp. 1633–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cadavid Higuita, L.; Awad, G.; Franco Cardona, C.J. A bibliometric analysis of a modeled field for disseminating innovation. Estud. Gerenc. 2012, 28, 213–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albort-Morant, G.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D. A Bibliometric Analysis of International Impact of Business Incubators. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 69, 1775–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadovska, V.; Ekelund Axelson, L.; Mark-Herbert, C. Reviewing Value Creation in Agriculture—A Conceptual Analysis and a New Framework. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vrontis, D.; Chaudhuri, R.; Chatterjee, S. Adoption of Digital Technologies by SMEs for Sustainability and Value Creation: Moderating Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kretschmer, S.; Kahl, J. Sustainable Development Goal Drivers in Food Systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 536620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parekh, V.; Svenfelt, Å. Taking sustainable eating practices from niche to mainstream: The perspectives of Swedish food-provisioning actors on barriers and potentials. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2022, 18, 292–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. 2011. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0681&from=EN (accessed on 12 December 2022).
- Glover, J.L.; Champion, D.; Daniels, K.J.; Dainty, A.J.D. An institutional theory perspective on sustainable practices across the dairy supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 152, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju, S.; Chang, H. Consumer perceptions on sustainable practices implemented in foodservice organizations in Korea. Nutr. Res. Pract. 2016, 10, 108–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montiel, I. Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 245–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iazzi, A.; Ligorio, L.; Vrontis, D.; Trio, O. Sustainable Development Goals and healthy foods: Perspective from the food system. Br. Food J. 2022, 124, 1081–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rinaldi, S.; Bonamente, E.; Scrucca, F.; Merico, M.; Asdrubali, F.; Cotana, F. Water and Carbon Footprint of Wine: Methodology Review and Application to a Case Study. Sustainability 2016, 8, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richter, B.; Bokelmann, W. Approaches of the German food industry for addressing the issue of food losses. Waste Manag. 2016, 48, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beckers, C.; Marz, O.; Kolbe, L.M. Investing in Sustainability. Int. J. Soc. Ecol. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 4, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Inclusion Criteria | (a) Publications are present in one or both of the databases. |
(b) Publications contain the stipulated search terms. | |
(c) Publications are in English. | |
(d) Studies were published up to the year 2022. | |
Exclusion Criteria | (a) Opinion articles. |
(b) Conference papers. | |
(c) Master’s theses, reports, and doctoral dissertations. |
Journal | Publications | Percentage | Cumulative |
---|---|---|---|
Sustainability | 19 | 33% | 33% |
Jounal of Cleaner Production | 4 | 7% | 40% |
British Food Journal | 3 | 5% | 45% |
Foods | 3 | 5% | 50% |
International Journal on Food Systems Dynamics | 3 | 5% | 55% |
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics | 2 | 3% | 58% |
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management | 2 | 3% | 61% |
Environmental Reviews | 2 | 3% | 64% |
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review | 2 | 3% | 67% |
Inter. Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health | 2 | 3% | 70% |
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | 2 | 3% | 73% |
Journal of Dairy Science | 2 | 3% | 76% |
Plos One | 2 | 3% | 79% |
Science of the Total Environment | 2 | 3% | 82% |
Sustainable Production and Consumption | 2 | 3% | 88% |
Abac Journal | 1 | 3% | 91% |
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal | 1 | 3% | 94% |
Acta Horticulturae | 4 | 3% | 97% |
Acta Turistica | 4 | 3% | 100% |
Journal | H-Index |
---|---|
Sustainability | 8 |
Journal of Cleaner Production | 3 |
British Food Journal | 2 |
Environmental Reviewa | 2 |
Int. Food and Agribusiness Man. Review | 2 |
Int. Journal of Env. Research and Public Health | 2 |
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | 2 |
Internnational Journal on Food System Dynamics | 2 |
Journal of Dairy Science | 2 |
PLoS ONE | 2 |
Science of the Total Environment | 2 |
Sustainable Production and Consumption | 2 |
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal | 1 |
Acta Turistica | 1 |
Acta Universitatis Agriculture et Silviculture Mendelianae Brunensis | 1 |
Agriculture-Basel | 1 |
Aims Agriculture and Food | 1 |
American Behavioral Scientist | 1 |
Animal | 1 |
Authors | Articles | Authors | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Arru B | 2 | Cavallo C | 1 |
Asdrubali F | 2 | Garg D | 1 |
Bartolini F | 2 | Hartlieb S | 1 |
Bauer A | 2 | Jones B | 1 |
Bonamente E | 2 | Lettenmeier M | 1 |
Brunorig G | 2 | Liedtke C | 1 |
Chalupova M | 2 | Lukas M | 1 |
Cotana F | 2 | Luthra S | 1 |
Dale V | 2 | Piqueras-Fiszman B | 1 |
Eckhaus E | 2 | Rohn H | 1 |
Gava O | 2 | Wiesen K | 1 |
Govaerts B | 2 | Yadav S | 1 |
Kline K | 2 | ||
Levy S | 2 | ||
Mark-Herbert C | 2 | ||
Merico M | 2 | ||
Olazo D | 2 | ||
Rinaldi S | 2 | ||
Rohn H | 2 | ||
Sadovska V | 2 |
First Author | Year | Journal | Total Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Khan ZR | 2014 | Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. | 159 |
Shammi M | 2021 | Environ. Dev. SustainN | 82 |
Richte B | 2016 | Waste Manage | 58 |
Hartlieb S | 2009 | J. Bus. Ethics | 56 |
Dabija DC | 2018 | Morav. Geogr. Rep. | 45 |
Rinaldi S | 2016 | Sustainability | 41 |
Hayat P | 2016 | India Q | 41 |
Rinaldi S | 2016 | Sustainability | 41 |
Laing SS | 2012 | Prev. Chronic Dis. | 39 |
Lukas M | 2016 | J. Clean. Prod. | 37 |
Lerro M | 2018 | Corp. Soc. Rep. Environ. Manag. | 35 |
Cavallo C | 2017 | J. Sens. Stud. | 35 |
Gold S | 2017 | J. Insd. Ecol. | 32 |
Eckenwiler L | 2018 | Bioethics | 30 |
Banhazi TM | 2012 | Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. | 30 |
Schiano NA | 2020 | J. Dairy Sci. | 29 |
Isaksson RB | 2015 | Int. J. Product Perform. Manag. | 29 |
Jungbluth N | 2012 | J. Clean. Prod. | 28 |
Gossling S | 2021 | J. Sustain. Tour. | 28 |
Onel N | 2017 | Soc. Mark. Q. | 27 |
Terms | Frequency | Similar Terms | Obtained | Cumulative |
---|---|---|---|---|
sustainability | 21 | sustainability | 21 | 42 |
sustainable development | 8 | sustainability assessment | 5 | |
food | 6 | sustainability reporting | 5 | |
consumer | 5 | sustainable | 3 | |
sustainability assessment | 5 | sustainable development | 8 | |
sustainability reporting | 5 | food | 6 | 20 |
business | 4 | food industry | 4 | |
corporate social responsibility | 4 | food supply chain | 4 | |
food industry | 4 | food production | 3 | |
food supply chain | 4 | food systems | 3 | |
indicators | 4 | consumer | 5 | 5 |
innovation | 4 | business | 4 | 4 |
life cycle assessment | 4 | corporate social responsibility | 4 | 4 |
marketing | 4 | indicators | 4 | 4 |
food production | 3 | innovation | 4 | 4 |
food systems | 3 | life cycle assessment | 4 | 4 |
nutrition | 3 | marketing | 4 | 4 |
packaging | 3 | nutrition | 3 | 3 |
sustainable | 3 | packaging | 3 | 3 |
tourism | 3 | tourism | 3 | 3 |
Variable | Category | N | % |
---|---|---|---|
Typology | Scientific article | 18 | 100% |
Nature | Quantitative | 8 | 44% |
Qualitative | 10 | 56% | |
Publication date | 2013–2017 | 5 | 28% |
2018–2022 | 13 | 72% |
Journal | N |
---|---|
Sustainability | 5 |
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health | 1 |
Sustainable Production and Consumption | 1 |
British Food Journal | 1 |
Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy | 1 |
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review | 1 |
Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Management | 1 |
Nature Partner Journals | 1 |
Problemy Zarzadzania | 1 |
Journal of Industrial Ecology | 1 |
Journal of Sensory Studies | 1 |
Waste Management | 1 |
International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development | 1 |
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems | 1 |
Total | 18 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Borges, E.; Campos, S.; Teixeira, M.S.; Lucas, M.R.; Ferreira-Oliveira, A.T.; Rodrigues, A.S.; Vaz-Velho, M. How Do Companies Communicate Sustainability? A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8263. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108263
Borges E, Campos S, Teixeira MS, Lucas MR, Ferreira-Oliveira AT, Rodrigues AS, Vaz-Velho M. How Do Companies Communicate Sustainability? A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):8263. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108263
Chicago/Turabian StyleBorges, Eduardo, Susana Campos, Mário Sérgio Teixeira, Maria Raquel Lucas, Ana Teresa Ferreira-Oliveira, Ana Sofia Rodrigues, and Manuela Vaz-Velho. 2023. "How Do Companies Communicate Sustainability? A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 8263. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108263