Next Article in Journal
Short Cold Storage as a Sustainable Postharvest Handling Method for Natural Enrichment in Antioxidants of Fresh and Dried Walnut Kernels—Cultivar Effect
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Distribution Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Yunnan, Guangxi, and Guizhou Rocky Desertification Area
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 11
10.3390/su16114725
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:
Systematic Review

Environmental Drivers, Environmental Practices, and Business Performance: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions

by
Efthymia Iliopoulou
*,
Aspasia Vlachvei
and
Eirini Koronaki
Department of Economics, University of Western Macedonia, 52100 Kastoria, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(11), 4725; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114725
Submission received: 11 April 2024 / Revised: 27 May 2024 / Accepted: 28 May 2024 / Published: 1 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Internal and external pressures urge businesses to adopt sustainable practices and compel them to manage natural resources for enhanced performance. The objective of this literature review research was to investigate the stakeholders influencing companies to embrace environmental practices, document existing environmental practices, and investigate the effects of these practices on business performance. This study spans a 25-year period, from 1998 to 2023, utilizing articles sourced from the Scopus database. The novelty of this research is that (a) each dimension—drivers, environmental practices, and performances—is individually examined, as well as in combination; (b) environmental practices are categorized based on the value chain framework, across the different stages of business operations; and (c) it includes analysis of the effects of each of the environmental practices on all three types of performance—environmental, financial, and non-financial. This research is presented with its findings and highlights the gaps in the existing literature. This work discusses the implications of this research for academics and managers.

1. Introduction

In April 2024, the average atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations peaked at a record high of 427 parts per million (ppm) [1]. During COP28, numerous decisions were reached regarding the imperative for new climate plans among governments, agencies, and businesses, underscoring the urgency of the issue [2]. The United Nations has consistently emphasized the urgency of addressing climate change, an increasingly critical concern for humanity. The Paris Agreement, established in 2015, marked a pivotal move towards a low-carbon economy and outlined a global action plan to combat global warming [3]. Similarly, the launch of the European Green Deal in 2019 signaled Europe’s ambition to become the world’s first climate-neutral continent [4]. Furthermore, the European Commission has proposed an ambitious plan with high climate targets for both 2030 and 2050, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This plan encourages the active participation of all sectors of the economy and society in contributing to the collective effort [5].
Government and environmental agencies actively promote the adoption of environmental sustainability practices by manufacturers to address and navigate the challenges posed by environmental issues [6]. However, recent research has generated conflicting results regarding the relationship between environmental practices and business performance. Notably, corporate environmental responsibility has demonstrated both positive [7,8,9] and negative associations with financial performance [10,11]. Simultaneously, contradictory findings have emerged concerning the influence of stakeholders. For instance, stakeholder relations and collaborations have shown both positive [12,13,14] and negative [15] connections to environmental performance. Conversely, no consensus has been reached regarding the impact of environmental decisions on environmental performance. Environmental management decisions and other management systems have been positively linked [16] and negatively linked [17] to a firm’s environmental performance. Interestingly, the conflicting findings extend to the non-financial performance context. For example, Iranmanesh [18] established a positive relation between eco-design and non-financial performance, while Yue [13] observed a negative relation. This research aims to provide clarity and a categorization of current findings related to company practices and business performance, contributing to a contemporary review and analysis of drivers, practices, and performance. Additionally, it seeks to further develop a research agenda in this area.
The impetus for environmental practices in businesses arises from social, consumer, and competitive pressures, collectively forming the immediate external environment. Businesses are compelled to align with societal and consumer expectations regarding environmental issues, while also responding to the influence exerted by competitors in the pursuit of competitiveness. Environmental compliance with external demands is a significant commitment for businesses, as it not only serves to fulfil societal and consumer expectations but also enables them to gain a competitive advantage and improve both organizational and environmental performance [19]. The impact of environmental practices on a firm’s performance is contingent upon the specific environmental practice and the type of performance being considered, whether environmental, financial, or non-financial. This research aims to identify the drivers that motivate firms to adopt environmental practices, document the environmental practices firms engage in, and examine the influence of these actions on the overall performance of the firm. Consequently, this research endeavors to bridge the existing literature gap regarding the factors driving corporate environmental responsibility practices, as in Čater [20], who offered a comprehensive perspective on the topic. By doing so, it contributes to a more holistic understanding of the relationship between environmental drivers (policy, societal and economic pressures), practices, and firm performance, categorizing also environmental practices based on their impact, whether positive or negative, on performance. Additionally, performance indicators specific to each performance category are presented.
Specifically, our study aimed to address the following research questions: (1) What are the primary drivers influencing environmental practices? (2) Which environmental practices are most commonly adopted? and (3) How are various environmental practices correlated with business outcomes?
Based on our literature review, businesses incorporating environmental practices primarily aim for regulatory compliance and improved overall performance. Categorized indicators systematically assess environmental, financial, and non-financial performance, revealing a generally positive impact of environmental practices on environmental and financial performance, while non-financial performance benefits from practices such as environmental training, disclosure/reporting, emission reduction, resource reduction, and renewable energy sources. Notably, some practices, like eco-design and pollution prevention, exhibit mixed results, highlighting the nuanced relationship between specific environmental practices and their impact on diverse dimensions of business performance.
The outcomes of this research serve as a significant guide for both academics and business managers. Identified research gaps can serve as valuable avenues for further exploration within the academic community, providing a basis for subsequent studies by researchers [21,22]. Future investigations may explore practices whose impact on performance remains unexplored and examine sectors and countries that have not been thoroughly researched in relation to the three dimensions of the specific subject. The research findings offer clarity on the intricate nature of the topic and introduce new directions for environmental considerations. For managers, this research sheds light on the actual environmental actions undertaken by businesses and their impact on business performance. This insight enables businesses to comprehend which specific actions yield benefits, allowing them to adopt practices that align with their interests and can be practically applied. Consequently, this research provides business managers with a holistic approach to the adoption of environmental practices—an essential resource for making informed decisions on environmental issues in the future.

2. Research Methodology

2.1. Identification, Selection, and Inclusion of Articles

A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was used to analyze the relevant studies, identify research gaps, and suggest areas for future research [23,24]. We applied the SLR methodology to address our research questions because it is a scientifically designed process that provides qualitative findings [25]. This research aims to review the literature on environmental drivers, environmental practices, and business performance. An SLR that poses substantive research questions that have not been answered in the past by academics can be considered credible [26]. Therefore, we reviewed the existing literature according to the criteria related to the three environmental dimensions and discovered possible research gaps that are answered by the research questions: (1) What are the primary drivers influencing environmental practices? (2) Which environmental practices are most commonly adopted? and (3) How are various environmental practices correlated with business outcomes?
A systematic literature review should clearly state the process in order to ensure replicability and transparency [27]. The process should include identification, screening, and inclusion criteria. The systematic literature review conducted to address the above research questions followed the PRISMA framework (see Supplementary Material). The PRISMA method involved three stages beginning with source identification.
In view of the broad coverage of peer-reviewed academic literature, the Scopus database was considered for the study. It includes more than 21,500 peer-reviewed scientific journals, 113,000 books, and almost 7.2 million conference papers [28]. Due to the wide range of literature included in Scopus, it was decided to use only this database [29]. The articles were collected in June 2023, and they were last updated from the database during that month, when a substantial number of articles were gathered. Νo specific time limit was set in the initial search; therefore, there were searched articles published between 1998 and 2023. This broad time interval gave greater coverage to the study sample [30]. A time period of more than twenty years is commonly used in literature reviews [23,25,31,32].
For this study, the most relevant articles were obtained using the following keywords: “environmental practices” or “environmental strategies” and “stakeholder pressure” or “environmental drivers” and “performance or efficiency”. The keywords were evaluated by a panel of experts in sustainability fields to help ensure completeness and accuracy. These keywords were searched in the article fields ‘Title’, ‘Abstract,’ and ‘Keywords’ to retrieve articles relevant to the topic [33]. The initial search yielded 304 articles. Subsequent analysis revealed that many were not pertinent to businesses. To refine the search, the term ‘firm’ was added, reducing the number of articles to 107.
The second phase involved screening the articles to ensure they fell within the inclusion criteria. The most common screening techniques used by the researchers included reviewing the article title and abstract before moving to the full text. The selection of articles adhered to specific criteria. The inclusion criteria determined whether an article should be included in this study or rejected. Studies without relevant information and literature reviews were excluded. Out of 107, 8 were literature reviews, 27 were excluded due to content or lack of relevant information, and the final selection comprised 72 studies deemed crucial for this paper, as illustrated in Figure 1.
The third phase involved 70 journal articles and 2 e-book chapters that met the inclusion criteria. All of these studies were read and analyzed independently by the three authors to answer the established research questions, in order to reduce bias [34]. The studies examined encompassed either a singular dimension of the topic (environmental drivers, environmental practices, or performance) or various combinations of these dimensions. Nearly all the articles addressed two or three dimensions of the subject, aligning with the specified keywords. Additionally, our sample comprised studies utilizing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed (quantitative and qualitative) research methods, reflecting an absence of limitations regarding methodology. Validity was ensured by having three people analyze and select the manuscripts, which meant that the research could deliver unbiased results [34].

2.2. Descriptive Analysis

This paper follows the approach of the conceptual framework proposed by Balasubramanian [35], taking as the dimensions ‘environmental drivers’, ‘environmental practices’, and ‘performance’. Thus, our conceptual framework was as illustrated in Figure 2.
Analyzing the distribution of articles by journal in Table 1, we observe that most of the articles were published by the journals Business Strategy and the Environment (13 articles) and the Journal of Cleaner Production (8 articles), which are journals related to business and the environment. The journals Journal of Business Ethics and the International Journal of Production Economics follow with fewer publications (5 and 4 articles, respectively). We notice that only 8 journals had published more than one article on this research topic.
Table 2 shows 12 journals with an impact factor higher than 10. It is observed that 40 of the research articles were published by these 12 journals. The other 32 articles had an impact factor of less than 10 but greater than 1, since articles with an impact factor of less than 1 were not included in this research, according to the selection criteria.
Responding to the need to group the articles according to certain criteria, Figure 3 shows the articles published by year. Researchers have been particularly concerned with environmental practices, drivers, and business performance in more recent years, as shown by the fact that most articles on the subject were published between the years 2021 and 2023, and especially in 2023; even though the articles were last updated in June 2023, that was the year in which the most articles were published. There was an ever-increasing attention by researchers to these specific environmental issues. From 1998 to 2009, the published articles were few, and some were rejected because they were at an initial stage of approaching the subject. After 2017, there was a significant increase in published articles, since the environmental sustainability of businesses had become imperative.
Regarding the country of origin of the surveys, as shown in Table 3, most research focused on multi-country global databases, showing the need to study environmental issues at a global level. China was widely studied as a major polluting country, while countries with less research included India, the United States, Spain, Malaysia, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and Germany.
The articles were also categorized based on the industrial sector, as shown in Figure 4. The most research was observed for multiple sectors (29 articles), followed by the manufacturing sector (27 articles), the energy sector (4 articles), the hospitality and chemical sectors (2 articles each), and the sectors metal, wine, food, telecommunications, automotive, sea shipping, supply chain, and property (1 article each).
Furthermore, the articles were categorized according to the three main dimensions of the study, i.e., according to environmental drivers, environmental practices, and performance, as shown in Figure 5. The articles that studied all three dimensions, i.e., environmental drivers and environmental practices and performance, were 31, the articles that studied environmental practices and performance were 16, those that dealt with environmental drivers and environmental practices were 18, while the articles that studied environmental drivers and performance were 2. The articles that studied only environmental practices were 4 and there was one article that studied only environmental drivers.
The researched articles used different databases to collect their data. As Figure 6 shows, most articles used a questionnaire survey, 39 articles; a database survey, 11 articles (e.g., ASSET 4 database, ESG database, etc.); multiple surveys, 11 articles (e.g., websites and annual reports or focus group and interviews); interviews, 5 articles; reports, 4 articles; or a case study, 2 articles.
The statistical analysis of research data followed different methods of analysis. SΕΜ analysis was used by 32 articles, regression analysis by 24 articles, qualitative analysis by 10 articles, correlation analysis by 4 articles, and ANOVA test or T-test analysis by 2 articles, as shown in Figure 7.

3. Findings

3.1. Main Drivers That Lead to Businesses’ Environmental Practices

Research Question (1): What are the primary drivers influencing environmental practices?
The environmental drivers were the first dimension studied (Table 4). The three categories of drivers encompassed policy drivers, driven by government regulations; societal drivers, influenced by NGO pressure, local community concerns, and the media; and economic drivers, shaped by the interests of managers, shareholders, employees, consumers, investors, competitors, supply chain dynamics, and financial institutions. Our study showed that the most frequently studied environmental driver was government environmental regulations, followed by environmental corporate management and behavior as well as pressure from society, consumers, and competitors. The influence of shareholders was also highly studied. Environmental drivers that were in the middle of the ranking were company employees, supply chain, business benefits, and top management commitment. In contrast, the environmental drivers that were addressed by fewer studies were the influence of institutes, business partners, the media, and banks/financial institutions. Essentially, the dynamics of environmental drivers come from both the internal and external environments of the business.
In addition, firm characteristics such as age, ownership, and size were considered in previous research to be key variables that influenced the environmental drivers for the adoption of environmental practices [95,96]. Therefore, firm characteristics were studied in the analyzed articles, and it emerged that among the 51 relevant articles that analyzed environmental drivers, 21 included firm characteristics in their study (41.1%).

3.2. Businesses’ Main Environmental Practices

Research Question (2): Which environmental practices are most commonly adopted?
We adopted the value chain framework to categorize the main environmental practices (Table 5). Within the value chain framework, environmental practices span various categories across the different stages of business operations. In the procurement category, firms engage in environmental purchasing practices, while the technology category encompasses the adoption of environmental technologies and environment-related research and development (R&D) innovation. Firm infrastructure practices involve the implementation of green building initiatives and environmental management decisions, including the establishment of management systems and environmental auditing. Human resources practices include environmental training for employees. In the inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, marketing/sales, and service stages, practices such as the utilization of renewable energy/sources, adoption of green IT technologies, eco-design, resource reduction, emission reduction, pollution prevention, and the implementation of environmental management systems (EMSs) and environmental certification are essential. Additional practices encompass environmental transportation, eco-efficiency initiatives, disclosure reporting, environmental ethics, environmental labeling, corporate environmental responsibility, stakeholder relations and collaboration, pricing strategies, waste management, and end-of-life environmental practices. The comprehensive incorporation of these practices throughout the value chain reflects a commitment to addressing environmental impacts across the spectrum of products and processes.
The environmental practices most frequently adopted by companies, as revealed in our study, were managerial environmental decisions (Table 6). Following closely were environmental disclosures and reports, with eco-design, environment-related R&D/innovation, resource reduction, and environmental management systems (EMSs)/international standards (ISO) also playing significant roles. Environmental practices, including emission reduction, environmental training, corporate environmental responsibility, environmental suppliers, and waste management were less extensively studied. Even fewer studies (1 or 2) delved into pollution prevention, environmental ethics, biodiversity, green buildings, environmental transportation, or renewable energy sources.
Similar to the findings for environmental drivers, comparable results were obtained for environmental practices related to firm characteristics because they were considered in previous research to be key variables influencing the adoption of environmental practices [97,98]. Out of the 69 relevant articles, 28 incorporated some firm characteristics into their analysis (40.6%).

3.3. The Main Impacts of Environmental Practices on the Performance of Businesses

The third dimension of this study concerned business performance when an environmental practice was adopted (Table 7). Apart from environmental and financial performance, we further introduced the subcategory of non-financial performance (market, reputation/image, organizational performance, green competitive advantage, and operational performance). Most studies dealt with environmental and financial performance. A few studies were related to market, organizational performance, reputation/image performance, operational performance, and green competitive advantage.
Previous research has shown the impact of firm characteristics on business performance [99,100]. Firm characteristics were found in many articles; specifically, from among 52 relevant articles, 28 included firm characteristics (53.8%). Therefore, researchers have incorporated firm characteristics into their research to extract significant results.

3.4. The Impact of Environmental Practices on Business Performance

Research Question (3): How are various environmental practices correlated with business outcomes?
Businesses that embrace and integrate environmental practices do so with the dual aim of regulatory compliance and enhancing overall performance. The indicators used to assess environmental, financial, and non-financial performance are systematically categorized in Table 8. Within the realm of environmental performance, these indicators gauge factors like energy consumption, water usage, waste management, emissions, and related environmental aspects. Financial performance indicators, on the other hand, focus on financial metrics such as return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), return on sales (ROS), and other pertinent financial parameters. Non-financial performance indicators encompass a broader spectrum, measuring corporate image, organizational performance, market performance, operational efficiency, and the attainment of a green competitive advantage. This structured categorization allows for a comprehensive evaluation of the multifaceted impacts of environmental practices on diverse dimensions of business performance.
The influence of the adoption of environmental practices on the three performance categories is presented in Table 9. Notably, this literature review indicated a predominantly positive impact of environmental practices on environmental performance, except for two studies: Wagner [17] for management decisions and systems, and Shahab [15] for the impact of stakeholder relations and collaborations. The research did not investigate the impact of renewable energy/sources and corporate environmental responsibility on environmental performance.
Moreover, empirical research consistently demonstrated a positive impact of environmental practices, including renewable energy sources, resource reduction, emission reduction, pollution prevention, the environmental impact of products and processes, stakeholder relations and collaboration, environmental training, and other management systems, on financial performance. However, for environmental practices such as eco-design, environmental transportation, eco-efficiency, environmental suppliers, waste management, management decisions, environment-related innovation, corporate environmental responsibility, and EMSs/ISO14000, there was evidence supporting both positive and negative impacts on financial performance. Notably, environmental auditing was the only practice that had not been studied by the articles.
Moreover, there was consistent evidence supporting a positive impact of practices such as EMSs/ISO 14001, environmental training, environmental auditing, environmental disclosure/reporting, renewable energy/sources, emission reduction, resource reduction, environmental management decisions, other management systems, corporate environmental responsibility, environmental ethics, and stakeholder relations and collaborations on non-financial performance. Conversely, for practices like eco-design, waste management, environmental suppliers, environmental technologies, environmental transportation, and environment-related innovation there were both positive and negative results concerning non-financial performance. Notably, eco-efficiency and pollution prevention were practices that had not been studied in this research.
In light of this literature review, the adoption of five environmental practices—environmental training, environmental disclosure/reporting, emission reduction/prevention, resource reduction, and renewable energy sources—that have been scrutinized consistently, demonstrate a positive impact on all three dimensions of performance: environmental, financial, and non-financial performance.

3.5. Current Research on the Topic of Environmental Drivers, Environmental Practices, and Performance

This section aims to discuss the findings derived from the analysis of the 72 articles. Given the contemporary significance of environmental practices, drivers, and performance, the majority of the articles were authored in recent years, particularly in 2023. Recognizing the growing importance of the subject and the imperative for businesses to comply with both institutional and non-institutional regulations, researchers extensively delved into the multifaceted dimensions of the environmental problem. The need for a comprehensive approach to this relatively new phenomenon underscores the necessity for further research in order to enhance our understanding of the topic.
In examining the countries under study, a trend of simultaneous investigation across multiple nations emerges, emphasizing the necessity to address the multidimensional and global nature of the environmental sustainability problem. Environmental concerns impact businesses in both highly polluting and less polluting countries, necessitating an integrated approach to study. Notably, there was a prevalence of reports particularly from China, followed by India, the United States, Spain, Malaysia, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. While China stands out as the most frequently cited country in the articles, offering substantial evidence of its environmental practices, future research should aim to diversify the focus by including other highly polluting nations that have received less attention, such as Germany, India, and the United States [101]. This contrasts with what was found by Balasubramanian [35], who pointed out that most studies seem to have focused on one country, such as China or the United States. This shift in focus will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of environmental practices across a broader global context.
Research on industrial sectors exhibited a multifaceted approach, highlighting the imperative to scrutinize various sectors concerning their environmental behaviors. The simultaneous examination of multiple sectors underscored the extensive dimensions of the environmental issue, even in sectors traditionally considered non-polluting; the research by Balasubramanian [35] reached similar results, emphasizing the multisector analysis of industry and manufacturing. While the manufacturing sector, which ranked second in reports, garnered significant attention, sectors such as metal, wine, food, telecommunications, automotive, sea shipping, supply chain, and property had minimal references, revealing a surprising gap in focused reports. Noteworthy was the identification of the most polluting industries, including lead battery recycling, the lead industry, mines, industrial discharges, gold mining, petrochemicals, and dry cleaners. Additionally, sectors with significant carbon dioxide emissions, such as the energy supply chain, chemicals, and telecommunications, remained largely unaddressed, and the pharmaceutical sector lacked any reports. Future research should prioritize industry-specific study of polluting sectors.
An analysis of the journals involved revealed that only 8 out of the 40 journals had at least 2 publications related to the researched topic, with the rest having a single publication. These 8 journals accounted for the publication of 40 out of the 72 examined articles (55.5% of the total). Notably, environmental dimensions of the subject were predominantly studied in journals related to the environment and sustainability, despite the existence of other environmental dimensions explored across diverse scientific sectors and journals.
Among the 72 articles analyzed, 65 articles (90.3%) comprehensively explored all the environmental dimensions of the researched topic, encompassing environmental drivers, environmental practices, and performance. In contrast, the results of Balasubramanian [35] showed only five articles that thoroughly investigated all three environmental dimensions, while the dimension that received the most research individually was environmental practices and not any combination of these dimensions. Environmental practices act as a crucial link connecting these dimensions, contributing to a holistic understanding of businesses’ environmental behavior. The interplay involves the influence of environmental drivers on the implementation of environmental practices, subsequently influencing the benefits businesses derive from their performance. Therefore, a thorough examination of these three dimensions collectively is essential to provide a holistic perspective on the current state of affairs.
Regarding research methods, questionnaire surveys were prominently referenced, while databases and the use of multiple methods were also prevalent. In contrast, interviews, reports, and case studies had fewer references. In statistical data analysis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was the most popular, enabling the modeling of multiple independent and dependent variables, error terms, interactions, and correlations, thus facilitating the examination of complex relationships. Regression analysis and qualitative analysis held equal importance, while correlation analysis and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test or T-test analysis had fewer references.

4. Research Gaps and Future Research

Based on this bibliographic review of the articles, several gaps and opportunities for future research emerged which are discussed below.

4.1. Environmental Drivers Perspective—Research Gaps and Future Research Directions

In examining the first dimension, environmental drivers, a notable trend was the extensive focus on governmental environmental regulations. Researchers displayed significant interest in understanding how such regulations influence firms’ adoption of environmental practices. According to the European Parliament (2023), government environmental policies are legislatively based on principles like pollution prevention and correction at the source, along with the “polluter pays” principle. While organizations are obligated to adhere to government regulations, particularly those imposed by the European Union, there is a suggestion to shift emphasis away from government environmental regulations as drivers, given their mandatory nature. Instead, researchers should explore alternative environmental drivers that are not necessarily coercive. Future research endeavors should prioritize a more in-depth investigation exploring new environmental drivers that are not necessarily coercive, like societal pressures (mainly exerted by suppliers, consumers, trade unions, the media, and other social bodies) or economic pressures. Intense mimetic pressure can enable companies to adopt up-to-date environmental management and technologies to generate superior performance [102]. Few article references were made to environmental drivers such as the media, banks/financial institutions, institutes, and business partners, with the latter two being particularly under-researched. Despite their distinct nature—business partners seeking economic benefit and institutes focusing on social initiatives—these drivers have garnered minimal research interest [103].
Furthermore, environmental drivers extend to aspects such as top management commitment, business benefits, the supply chain, shareholders, and employees. While these drivers have been studied to a limited extent, they offer insights into the environmental cultures of businesses and voluntary environmental commitments that extend beyond mandatory regulations. These factors encompass the environmental education of a company, its ecological aspirations, and its efforts to instill this mindset throughout the organization. Future research could delve into the deeper environmental commitments of top managers and employees, exploring the motivations behind these commitments—whether economic, social, psychological, or behavioral—and examining strategies for channeling and integrating this environmental culture. Green human resource management could also be examined as an important environmental driver [104]. According to Grahamet [105], green human resource management practices are mechanisms through which companies can engage with, equip, and support their employees to adapt to changes associated with implementing environmental strategies.
Additionally, researchers deemed business characteristics (age, size, ownership, etc.) to be pivotal variables warranting exploration. Micheli [106] argues that firm size strongly affects the drivers–practices relationship. In particular, micro-sized companies present the greatest effects of these drivers on the implementation of environmental practices. Researchers should investigate further the moderating role of business characteristics on environmental drivers, practices, and performance relationships [106].

4.2. Environmental Practices Perspective—Research Gaps and Future Research Directions

The second dimension under investigation involved the environmental practices that businesses adopt in response to the pressures and guidance from environmental drivers. The choice of environmental strategy by businesses is contingent on the specific needs they aim to address. According to the research, the primary practice identified was managerial environmental decisions, where managers determine the company’s environmental policy and goals, communicating them to the public. Another significant practice was environmental reporting and disclosure, crucial for businesses seeking to enhance their reputation and image [107].
Practices such as eco-design, resource reduction, environment-related R&D/innovation, environmental training, corporate environmental responsibility, and environmental suppliers have not been studied intensively. These are interrelated and it would be preferable for them to be studied simultaneously and not separately. For example, an environmental innovation could facilitate ecological planning, good decision-making, or environmental transport. Environmental management systems (EMSs) and international standards (ISO) certify a business for the application of environmental rules.
Practices with limited references in the articles included environmental manufacturing/environmental technologies/industry 4.0, end-of-life environmental practices, environmental auditing, green IT strategies, and eco-efficiency. Categories with up to two practical references were pollution prevention, biodiversity, green buildings, environmental ethics, environmental transportation, and renewable energy sources. These practices warrant increased attention as there is ample scope for research. Given the scarcity of extensive studies in these sub-dimensions of environmental practices, they are in the early stages of exploration or simultaneous investigation.
The results from the categorization of the practices in the value chain showed that the environmental practices studied in the research have been integrated into the framework of the value chain. However, there were gaps in the adoption of specific practices. Specifically, the research did not address practices that refer to primary activities and are related to environmental packaging or eco-labeling. Wen [108] presented strong evidence of the positive effects of environmental labels as an environmental practice, on both production and the economic performance of firms, while He [109] concluded that environmental labeling certification improves a company’s environmental performance but has limited positive impact on financial performance.
Additionally, future research endeavors should prioritize a more in-depth investigation of green pricing integrated into the primary activities in the value chain. Price reductions for short-shelf-life products nearing their expiration date or losing their freshness is considered an important environmental practice for reducing food waste [110,111]. Also, the research did not address practices like company compensation to senior managers based on environmental performance, nor did it delve into a firm’s written energy or environmental policy. It is crucial for future researchers to investigate the role of developing and cultivating corporate environmental ethics and environmental culture [104]. Researchers should explore also the impact of the moderation and mediation of environmental leadership on environmental and financial performance [112].
More attention should be given to practices like environmental transportation. Dangelico [113] pointed out the importance of green supply chain operations, including transportation, which is also in line with Trivellas’ [114] argument that the deployment of green supply chain management, based on standardized processes, can contribute significantly to business performance.

4.3. Performance Perspective—Research Gaps and Future Research Directions

The third environmental dimension studied was the impact of environmental practices on business performance. The combination of these two dimensions (environmental practices and performance) showed significant evidence of the impact of environmental practices on performance, encompassing environmental performance, financial performance, and non-financial performance. Environmental performance indicators include reducing air pollution, managing waste, conserving water or solid waste, and forming partnerships with green organizations. Financial performance metrics encompass sales growth, profits, return on sales, and return on investment. Non-financial performance, including aspects related to reputation, market standing, green competitive advantage, and operational efficiency, was an area with fewer references in these articles but which holds significant potential for future research exploration.
This literature review indicated a predominantly positive impact of environmental practices on environmental performance, while consistently demonstrating a positive impact of renewable energy sources, resource reduction, emission reduction, pollution prevention, the environmental impact of products and processes, stakeholder relations and collaboration, environmental training, and other management systems on financial performance.
Moreover, there was consistent evidence supporting the positive impact of practices such as EMSs/ISO 14001, environmental training, environmental auditing, environmental disclosure/reporting, renewable energy/sources, emission reduction, resource reduction, environmental management decisions, other management systems, corporate environmental responsibility, environmental ethics, and stakeholder relations and collaborations on non-financial performance.
Although there was a large amount of literature studying these outcomes resulting from the adoption of environmental practices, it would be interesting to study also the next step, which is the relationship between environmental performance and financial and non-financial performance [115].
Firm characteristics played a crucial role in understanding performance impacts, with half of the reviewed articles examining two or more characteristics. Among the characteristics studied, “size” emerged as the most frequently analyzed, followed by “age,” “ownership,” “industry,” and various economic elements. Future research could explore the combined study of these characteristics, for instance, examining how small or new or family businesses may achieve environmental or financial performance benefits by adopting environmental practices, while future research should also take into account variables like board composition, governance quality and mechanisms, and shareholders’ rights [115].

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This research explored twenty-five years of articles to identify the determinants and elements embedded in three main environmental dimensions. It contributed to the literature, first, by categorizing scattered research and arriving at important environmental conclusions, which emerged mainly from articles of the last few years since the holistic study of this subject is a new topic in the literature. Second, this research proposed a supply chain analysis framework for categorizing environmental practices across the different stages of business operations to identify all possible gaps in the adoption of specific practices in the literature. Third, this research analyzed the effects of various environmental practices on all three types of performance—environmental, financial, and non-financial—which helps in better understanding and improving the environmental issues, by delineating the interconnected framework of environmental drivers, practices, and performance, and guides future research.
Our study’s findings regarding environmental drivers, corroborated by numerous authors in the literature [17,51,56,90], emphasize the paramount importance of government environmental regulations [17,51,56], societal pressures [46,56,88], and internal corporate management [38,56,65,88] in driving environmental practices within organizations. While media influence [17,46,88], competitor pressure [50,58,66], and other factors such as employee engagement [80,84,89], supply chain considerations [9,65,74], and top management commitment [12,38,45] are acknowledged, they are not as extensively studied or emphasized as the primary drivers. Nonetheless, the alignment between our findings and those in the literature underscores the multifaceted nature of environmental drivers, with regulatory, societal, and internal organizational dynamics playing pivotal roles in shaping environmental behaviors and policies.
Our adoption of the value chain framework allowed us to categorize environmental practices into various stages of business operations, reflecting a holistic commitment to addressing environmental impacts. Notably, managerial environmental decisions, environmental disclosures, and reports emerged as the most frequently adopted practices, with eco-design, environment-related R&D/innovation, resource reduction, and EMSs/ISO standards also playing significant roles, while certain practices such as pollution prevention and biodiversity received less attention in the literature.
Comparing our findings regarding the impact of environmental practices on business performance with current research reveals both alignment and disparities in the impact of environmental practices on business performance. Consistent with the existing literature, practices such as environmental training [12,48,61], emission reduction/prevention [39,48,61,68], resource reduction [12,48,61], and renewable energy sources [73] consistently demonstrate positive effects across environmental, financial, and non-financial dimensions. However, while our findings corroborate the positive impact of certain practices like EMSs/ISO 14001 [12,45,61,68,71,79,94] on financial performance, they also highlight divergent outcomes, such as mixed effects on environmental performance. Moreover, the nuanced nature of stakeholder relations and collaborations [12,13,14], essential for environmental management, suggests both positive and negative impacts on non-financial performance, underscoring the complexity of these relationships. Overall, while our study reinforces some established relationships, it also unveils nuances that deepen our understanding of how environmental practices influence business performance, contributing to the ongoing discourse in this field.
The results of this research allow for the identification of a wider range of environmental drivers, practices, and performance. Sub-dimensions emerged that nuance and complete the three main dimensions that have been examined. Examining these sub-dimensions makes it more difficult, but also more complete theoretically, to understand the activities of those responsible for policy making.
The implications of this research are important and are expanded on below:

5.1. Academic Implications

Environmental practices were grouped according to their impact on the performance of businesses. Specifically, the positive or negative impacts on environmental, financial, and non-financial performance of the adoption of environmental practices were presented, as well as the indicators that define each type of performance. This paper proposed a systematic and structured review of the literature on these three dimensions, aiming to investigate the current environmental situation. This study identified various gaps and trends that help to better approach and deal with this issue.
This research constitutes a comprehensive bibliographic review concentrating on the factors influencing three fundamental environmental dimensions. Some practices have not been thoroughly examined in terms of their impact on business performance, while others have demonstrated only negative effects, underscoring the need for future research to yield more complete results. This review highlights various bibliographic gaps, encouraging researchers to address them in subsequent studies.
Researchers are urged to concentrate on investigating polluting countries and industrial sectors that have received limited or insufficient examination. In terms of the journals housing the articles, the majority of publications were concentrated in only eight journals, while the remaining journals contributed only a single publication each. This suggests the existence of journals across diverse scientific sectors that could cover additional environmental facets of the subject. Lastly, the simultaneous exploration of the three environmental dimensions has provided a holistic environmental approach that warrants further study.

5.2. Managerial Implications

Our research provides managers with a comprehensive understanding of environmental issues, delineating the interconnected framework of environmental drivers, practices, and performance that is applicable to their businesses. These findings offer specific insights into the impact, whether positive or negative, of various practices on environmental, financial, and non-financial performance. Consequently, managers can make informed decisions regarding the adoption of specific practices tailored to their firm’s performance.
This study identified coercive government regulations and external pressures as primary environmental drivers, guiding managerial actions in a normative manner. However, recognizing the benefits of fostering environmental consciousness throughout the organization could lead to a new environmental framework. While managers often prioritize profit maximization, fostering a culture of environmental awareness could transform coercive regulations into genuine environmental empathy. Managers are encouraged to explore green partnerships with universities, foundations, investors, etc., leveraging regulatory challenges into opportunities for environmental engagement.
Additionally, our research highlights the diverse array of environmental practices applicable to businesses of varying sizes. Managers can gain insights into the significant impact these practices can have on business performance, whether in terms of environmental, financial, or non-financial performance. It emphasized the long-term benefits of environmental actions, urging policymakers to incentivize and support businesses through appropriate measures such as incentives and subsidies for environmental initiatives.

5.3. Limitations

While this study provides a significant contribution to both academic and managerial understanding, we acknowledge certain limitations. The final list of studied articles may be incomplete due to the specific keywords employed during the designated period and within the chosen database. We extend our apologies to authors whose relevant articles may not have been included in this survey. Additionally, the outcomes were influenced by the characteristics of the specific sample, and differences may arise when comparing these results with those of a different sample. Nevertheless, we maintain that this review serves as a valuable instrument for delving into these specific environmental issues.
For future research, we suggest a mixed-methods literature review because that enables the integration of both quantitative and qualitative data, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic by capturing diverse perspectives and contextual nuances. Also, future studies could conduct a meta-analysis literature review because that offers a robust quantitative synthesis of existing studies, allowing for the derivation of summary statistics and the identification of underlying patterns and trends across the literature, thereby enhancing the precision and generalizability of the findings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.V., E.K. and E.I.; methodology, A.V., E.K. and E.I.; validation, A.V., E.K. and E.I.; investigation, A.V. and E.I.; resources, A.V., E.K. and E.I.; data curation, A.V. and E.I.; writing—original draft preparation, A.V., E.K. and E.I.; writing—review and editing, A.V., E.K. and E.I.; visualization, A.V. and E.I.; supervision, A.V.; project administration, A.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su16114725/s1, Table S1: The PRISMA 2020 checklist.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Statista Average Monthly Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Levels in the Atmosphere Worldwide from 1990 to 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091999/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-historic/ (accessed on 10 May 2024).
  2. Brunswick Group COP28 Preview: Energy, Climate Finance, and the Future of COP. Available online: https://www.brunswickgroup.com/cop28-preview-energy-climate-finance-and-the-future-of-cop-i26093/ (accessed on 27 January 2024).
  3. Eur-Lex European Union Paris Agreement. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A22016A1019%2801%29 (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  4. European Parliament Environment Policy: General Principles and Basic Framework. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/71 (accessed on 3 November 2023).
  5. European Commission 2030 Climate Target Plan. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12265-2030-Climate-Target-Plan_en (accessed on 21 February 2023).
  6. Esfahbodi, A.; Zhang, Y.; Watson, G. Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Emerging Economies: Trade-Offs between Environmental and Cost Performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 181, 350–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lee, S.-P. Environmental Responsibility, CEO Power and Financial Performance in the Energy Sector. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2021, 15, 2407–2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nair, P.B.; Wahh, R.W.B. Strategic CSR, Reputational Advantage and Financial Performance: A Framework and Case Example. World Rev. Sci. Technol. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 13, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Siltaoja, M.; Egri, C.P.; Furrer, O.; Haapanen, M.; Alas, R.; Sinding, K. Configurations of High Corporate Environmental Responsibility with Regard to Business Legitimacy: A Cross-National Approach. In Handbook of Business Legitimacy: Responsibility, Ethics and Society; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1397–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dang, V.T.; Nguyen, N.; Bu, X.; Wang, J. The Relationship between Corporate Environmental Responsibility and Firm Performance: A Moderated Mediation Model of Strategic Similarity and Organization Slack. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nasereddin, A. Exploring the Effect of Corporate Environmental Management Responsibility on Firm Performance. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 2023, 11, 625–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fatima, T.; Elbanna, S. Drivers and Outcomes of Corporate Sustainability in the Indian Hospitality Industry. Manag. Decis. 2023, 61, 1677–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Paulraj, A.; Chen, I.J.; Blome, C. Motives and Performance Outcomes of Sustainable Supply Chain Management Practices: A Multi-Theoretical Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 145, 239–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yue, X.; Huo, B.; Ye, Y. The Impact of Coercive Pressure and Ethical Responsibility on Cross-Functional Green Management and Firm Performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2023, 38, 1015–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shahab, Y.; Wang, P.; Tauringana, V. Sustainable Development and Environmental Ingenuities: The Influence of Collaborative Arrangements on Environmental Performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 1464–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wagner, M. Maintaining Momentum: Drivers of Environmental and Economic Performance, and Impediments to Sustainability. In Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Food Networks; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 107–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wagner, M. Corporate Performance Implications of Extended Stakeholder Management: New Insights on Mediation and Moderation Effects. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 942–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Iranmanesh, M.; Fayezi, S.; Hanim, S.; Hyun, S.S. Drivers and Outcomes of Eco-Design Initiatives: A Cross-Country Study of Malaysia and Australia. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2019, 13, 1121–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. El-Kassar, A.-N.; Singh, S.K. Green Innovation and Organizational Performance: The Influence of Big Data and the Moderating Role of Management Commitment and HR Practices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 483–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Čater, T.; Čater, B.; Milić, P.; Žabkar, V. Drivers of Corporate Environmental and Social Responsibility Practices: A Comparison of Two Moderated Mediation Models. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 159, 113652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schaltegger, S.; Christ, K.L.; Wenzig, J.; Burritt, R.L. Corporate Sustainability Management Accounting and Multi-level Links for Sustainability–A Systematic Review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2022, 24, 480–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, A.; Tay, H.L.; Alvi, M.F.; Wang, J.X.; Gong, Y. Carbon Neutrality Drivers and Implications for Firm Performance and Supply Chain Management. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 1966–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hao, A.W.; Paul, J.; Trott, S.; Guo, C.; Wu, H.-H. Two Decades of Research on Nation Branding: A Review and Future Research Agenda. Int. Mark. Rev. 2021, 38, 46–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Paul, J.; Benito, G.R. A Review of Research on Outward Foreign Direct Investment from Emerging Countries, Including China: What Do We Know, How Do We Know and Where Should We Be Heading? Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2018, 24, 90–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chaudhuri, R.; Apoorva, A.; Vrontis, D.; Siachou, E.; Trichina, E. How Customer Incivility Affects Service-Sector Employees: A Systematic Literature Review and a Bibliometric Analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 164, 114011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Siachou, E.; Trichina, E.; Papasolomou, I.; Sakka, G. Why Do Employees Hide Their Knowledge and What Are the Consequences? A Systematic Literature Review. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 135, 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Producing a Systematic Review; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009; ISBN 1412931185. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ansari, Z.N.; Kant, R. A State-of-Art Literature Review Reflecting 15 Years of Focus on Sustainable Supply Chain Management. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2524–2543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Negri, M.; Cagno, E.; Colicchia, C.; Sarkis, J. Integrating Sustainability and Resilience in the Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review and a Research Agenda. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 2858–2886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vrontis, D.; Christofi, M. R&D Internationalization and Innovation: A Systematic Review, Integrative Framework and Future Research Directions. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 128, 812–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Billore, S.; Anisimova, T. Panic Buying Research: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2021, 45, 777–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xie, E.; Reddy, K.S.; Liang, J. Country-Specific Determinants of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions: A Comprehensive Review and Future Research Directions. J. World Bus. 2017, 52, 127–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kauppi, K.; Salmi, A.; You, W. Sourcing from Africa: A Systematic Review and a Research Agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 627–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Thomé, A.M.T.; Scavarda, L.F.; Scavarda, A.J. Conducting Systematic Literature Review in Operations Management. Prod. Plan. Control 2016, 27, 408–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Balasubramanian, S.; Shukla, V.; Mangla, S.; Chanchaichujit, J. Do Firm Characteristics Affect Environmental Sustainability? A Literature Review-based Assessment. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 1389–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Adomako, S.; Tran, M.D. Environmental Collaboration, Responsible Innovation, and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Stakeholder Pressure. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 1695–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bhatia, M.S.; Kumar, S. Linking Stakeholder and Competitive Pressure to Industry 4.0 and Performance: Mediating Effect of Environmental Commitment and Green Process Innovation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 1905–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Boiral, O.; Henri, J.-F.; Talbot, D. Modeling the Impacts of Corporate Commitment on Climate Change. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012, 21, 495–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cadez, S.; Czerny, A.; Letmathe, P. Stakeholder Pressures and Corporate Climate Change Mitigation Strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Carvajal, M.; Nadeem, M.; Zaman, R. Biodiversity Disclosure, Sustainable Development and Environmental Initiatives: Does Board Gender Diversity Matter? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 969–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chan, R.Y. Do Chief Information Officers Matter for Sustainable Development? Impact of Their Regulatory Focus on Green Information Technology Strategies and Corporate Performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 2523–2534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gao, Y.; Gu, J.; Liu, H. Interactive Effects of Various Institutional Pressures on Corporate Environmental Responsibility: Institutional Theory and Multilevel Analysis. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 724–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lewandowski, S. Corporate Carbon and Financial Performance: The Role of Emission Reductions. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 1196–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, L.; Zhang, M.; Hendry, L.C.; Bu, M.; Wang, S. Supplier Development Practices for Sustainability: A Multi-stakeholder Perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 100–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Plaza-Úbeda, J.A.; Burgos-Jiménez, J.; Vazquez, D.A.; Liston-Heyes, C. The ‘Win–Win’Paradigm and Stakeholder Integration. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2009, 18, 487–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shubham; Charan, P.; Murty, L.S. Secondary Stakeholder Pressures and Organizational Adoption of Sustainable Operations Practices: The Mediating Role of Primary Stakeholders. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 910–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Vazquez, D.A.; Liston-Heyes, C. Corporate Discourse and Environmental Performance in Argentina. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2008, 17, 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Haleem, F.; Farooq, S.; Boer, H. The Impact of Country of Origin and Operation on Sustainability Practices and Performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 304, 127097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Haleem, F.; Farooq, S.; Wæhrens, B.V. Supplier Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Sourcing Geography. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Laari, S.; Töyli, J.; Ojala, L. Supply Chain Perspective on Competitive Strategies and Green Supply Chain Management Strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 1303–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, X.; Anbumozhi, V. Determinant Factors of Corporate Environmental Information Disclosure: An Empirical Study of Chinese Listed Companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 593–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Martin-de Castro, G.; Amores-Salvado, J.; Navas-López, J.E.; Balarezo-Nuñez, R.M. Exploring the Nature, Antecedents and Consequences of Symbolic Corporate Environmental Certification. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 664–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Massoud, M.A.; Fayad, R.; El-Fadel, M.; Kamleh, R. Drivers, Barriers and Incentives to Implementing Environmental Management Systems in the Food Industry: A Case of Lebanon. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sharma, M.; Joshi, S.; Prasad, M.; Bartwal, S. Overcoming Barriers to Circular Economy Implementation in the Oil & Gas Industry: Environmental and Social Implications. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 391, 136133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Vishwakarma, A.K.; Nema, A.K.; Sangle, S. Study of Determinants of Proactive Environmental Strategies in India’s Power Sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 194, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cordano, M.; Marshall, R.S.; Silverman, M. How Do Small and Medium Enterprises Go “Green”? A Study of Environmental Management Programs in the US Wine Industry. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 92, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ding, D.; Liu, B.; Chang, M. Carbon Emissions and TCFD Aligned Climate-Related Information Disclosures. J. Bus. Ethics 2023, 182, 967–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dupire, M.; M’Zali, B. CSR Strategies in Response to Competitive Pressures. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 148, 603–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Menguc, B.; Auh, S.; Ozanne, L. The Interactive Effect of Internal and External Factors on a Proactive Environmental Strategy and Its Influence on a Firm’s Performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 94, 279–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Liu, X.; Yu, Q.; Fujitsuka, T.; Liu, B.; Bi, J.; Shishime, T. Functional Mechanisms of Mandatory Corporate Environmental Disclosure: An Empirical Study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 823–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Szász, L.; Csíki, O.; Rácz, B.-G. Sustainability Management in the Global Automotive Industry: A Theoretical Model and Survey Study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 235, 108085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xia, D.; Chen, B.; Zheng, Z. Relationships among Circumstance Pressure, Green Technology Selection and Firm Performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xiao, C.; Wang, Q.; van Donk, D.P.; van der Vaart, T. When Are Stakeholder Pressures Effective? An Extension of Slack Resources Theory. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 199, 138–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rubio-Andrés, M.; del Mar Ramos-González, M.; Sastre-Castillo, M.Á.; Gutiérrez-Broncano, S. Stakeholder Pressure and Innovation Capacity of SMEs in the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mediating and Multigroup Analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 190, 122432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Yu, W.; Ramanathan, R.; Nath, P. Environmental Pressures and Performance: An Analysis of the Roles of Environmental Innovation Strategy and Marketing Capability. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 117, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chen, P.-K.; Lujan-Blanco, I.; Fortuny-Santos, J.; Ruiz-de-Arbulo-López, P. Lean Manufacturing and Environmental Sustainability: The Effects of Employee Involvement, Stakeholder Pressure and ISO 14001. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kouaib, A. Corporate Sustainability Disclosure and Investment Efficiency: The Saudi Arabian Context. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ahmad, S.; Abdullah, A.; Talib, F. Lean-Green Performance Management in Indian SMEs: A Novel Perspective Using the Best-Worst Method Approach. Benchmarking Int. J. 2021, 28, 737–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Baah, C.; Agyabeng-Mensah, Y.; Afum, E.; Lascano Armas, J.A. Exploring Corporate Environmental Ethics and Green Creativity as Antecedents of Green Competitive Advantage, Sustainable Production and Financial Performance: Empirical Evidence from Manufacturing Firms. Benchmarking Int. J. 2023, 31, 990–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ramírez-Orellana, A.; Martínez-Victoria, M.; García-Amate, A.; Rojo-Ramírez, A.A. Is the Corporate Financial Strategy in the Oil and Gas Sector Affected by ESG Dimensions? Resour. Policy 2023, 81, 103303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ong, T.S.; Lee, A.S.; Latif, B.; Sroufe, R.; Sharif, A.; Heng Teh, B. Enabling Green Shared Vision: Linking Environmental Strategic Focus and Environmental Performance through ISO 14001 and Technological Capabilities. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 31711–31726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Napathorn, C. The Development of Green Skills across Firms in the Institutional Context of Thailand. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2022, 14, 539–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hristov, I.; Chirico, A.; Ranalli, F. Corporate Strategies Oriented towards Sustainable Governance: Advantages, Managerial Practices and Main Challenges. J. Manag. Gov. 2022, 26, 75–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Guo, Y.; Wang, L. Environmental Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance: The Role of Environmental Innovation and Stakeholder Pressure. Sage Open 2022, 12, 21582440211061354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bıçakcıoğlu-Peynirci, N.; Tanyeri, M. Stakeholder and Resource-based Antecedents and Performance Outcomes of Green Export Business Strategy: Insights from an Emerging Economy. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2022, 17, 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Grishunin, S.; Naumova, E.; Burova, E.; Suloeva, S.; Nekrasova, T. The Impact of Sustainability Disclosures on Value of Companies Following Digital Transformation Strategies. Int. J. Technol. 2022, 13, 1432–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bandeira Pinheiro, A.; da Silva Filho, J.C.L.; Moreira, M.Z. Institutional Drivers for Corporate Social Responsibility in the Utilities Sector. Rev. Gestão 2021, 28, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhang, Y.; Yang, F. Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: Responding to Investors’ Criticism on Social Media. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. de Nadae, J.; Carvalho, M.M.; Vieira, D.R. Integrated Management Systems as a Driver of Sustainability Performance: Exploring Evidence from Multiple-Case Studies. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2021, 38, 800–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Madaleno, M.; Vieira, E. Corporate Performance and Sustainability: Evidence from Listed Firms in Portugal and Spain. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Abaeian, V.; Khong, K.W.; Kyid Yeoh, K.; McCabe, S. Motivations of Undertaking CSR Initiatives by Independent Hotels: A Holistic Approach. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2019, 31, 2468–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ahmed, M.U.; Gölgeci, I.; Bayraktar, E.; Tatoglu, E. Environmental Practices and Firm Performance in Emerging Markets: The Mediating Role of Product Quality. Prod. Plan. Control 2019, 30, 315–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Fondevila, M.M.; Moneva, J.M.; Scarpellini, S. Environmental Disclosure and Eco-Innovation Interrelation. The Case of Spanish Firms: Divulgación Ambiental y La Interrelación de La Ecoinnovación. El Caso de Las Empresas Españolas. Rev. Contab.-Span. Account. Rev. 2019, 22, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Del Río, P.; Carrillo-Hermosilla, J.; Könnölä, T.; Bleda, M. Resources, Capabilities and Competences for Eco-Innovation. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2016, 22, 274–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hartmann, J.; Germain, R.; Grobecker, A. Antecedents of Environmentally Conscious Operations in Transitioning Economies: Insights from Russia. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2015, 35, 843–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kara, S.; Ibbotson, S.; Kayis, B. Sustainable Product Development in Practice: An International Survey. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2014, 25, 848–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Abdullah, N.A.H.N.; Yaakub, S. Reverse Logistics: Pressure for Adoption and the Impact on Firm’s Performance. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2014, 15, 151–170. [Google Scholar]
  88. Ramanathan, R.; Poomkaew, B.; Nath, P. The Impact of Organizational Pressures on Environmental Performance of Firms. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2014, 23, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Eiadat, Y.; Kelly, A.; Roche, F.; Eyadat, H. Green and Competitive? An Empirical Test of the Mediating Role of Environmental Innovation Strategy. J. World Bus. 2008, 43, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gouldson, A. Risk, Regulation and the Right to Know: Exploring the Impacts of Access to Information on the Governance of Environmental Risk. Sustain. Dev. 2004, 12, 136–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Christodoulou, A.; Cullinane, K. Potential for, and Drivers of, Private Voluntary Initiatives for the Decarbonisation of Short Sea Shipping: Evidence from a Swedish Ferry Line. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2021, 23, 632–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nguyen, Q.; Diaz-Rainey, I.; Kuruppuarachchi, D. Predicting Corporate Carbon Footprints for Climate Finance Risk Analyses: A Machine Learning Approach. Energy Econ. 2021, 95, 105129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Almagtome, A.; Khaghaany, M.; Önce, S. Corporate Governance Quality, Stakeholders’ Pressure, and Sustainable Development: An Integrated Approach. Int. J. Math. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2020, 5, 1077–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pinto, L.; Allui, A.; Mariotti, F. Motivations, Barriers and Benefits in the Adoption of ISO 14001 in Saudi Organizations. Int. J. Appl. Bus. Econ. Res. 2017, 15, 389–413. [Google Scholar]
  95. Darnall, N.; Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. Adopting Proactive Environmental Strategy: The Influence of Stakeholders and Firm Size. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47, 1072–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Serpell, A.; Kort, J.; Vera, S. Awareness, Actions, Drivers and Barriers of Sustainable Construction in Chile. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2013, 19, 272–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ashton, W.; Russell, S.; Futch, E. The Adoption of Green Business Practices among Small US Midwestern Manufacturing Enterprises. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 2133–2149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Eltayeb, T.; Zailani, S. Going Green through Green Supply Chain Initiatives toward Environmental Sustainability. Oper. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2014, 2, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Shrivastava, M.; Tamvada, J.P. Which Green Matters for Whom? Greening and Firm Performance across Age and Size Distribution of Firms. Small Bus. Econ. 2019, 52, 951–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Vijayvargy, L.; Thakkar, J.; Agarwal, G. Green Supply Chain Management Practices and Performance: The Role of Firm-Size for Emerging Economies. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2017, 28, 299–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sun, Y.; Anwar, A.; Razzaq, A.; Liang, X.; Siddique, M. Asymmetric Role of Renewable Energy, Green Innovation, and Globalization in Deriving Environmental Sustainability: Evidence from Top-10 Polluted Countries. Renew. Energy 2022, 185, 280–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. El-Garaihy, W.H.; Badawi, U.A.; Seddik, W.A.; Torky, M.S. Investigating Performance Outcomes under Institutional Pressures and Environmental Orientation Motivated Green Supply Chain Management Practices. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Purwandani, J.A.; Michaud, G. What Are the Drivers and Barriers for Green Business Practice Adoption for SMEs? Environ. Syst. Decis. 2021, 41, 577–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Aftab, J.; Abid, N.; Sarwar, H.; Veneziani, M. Environmental Ethics, Green Innovation, and Sustainable Performance: Exploring the Role of Environmental Leadership and Environmental Strategy. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 378, 134639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Graham, S.; Cadden, T.; Treacy, R. Examining the Influence of Employee Engagement in Supporting the Implementation of Green Supply Chain Management Practices: A Green Human Resource Management Perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 4750–4766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Micheli, G.J.; Cagno, E.; Mustillo, G.; Trianni, A. Green Supply Chain Management Drivers, Practices and Performance: A Comprehensive Study on the Moderators. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 121024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Tatoglu, E.; Bayraktar, E.; Sahadev, S.; Demirbag, M.; Glaister, K.W. Determinants of Voluntary Environmental Management Practices by MNE Subsidiaries. J. World Bus. 2014, 49, 536–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Wen, H.; Lee, C.-C. Impact of Environmental Labeling Certification on Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. He, D.; Ren, S.; Zeng, H. Environmental Labeling Certification and Firm Environmental and Financial Performance: A Resource Management Perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 751–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Gustavo, J.U., Jr.; Trento, L.R.; de Souza, M.; Pereira, G.M.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Ndubisi, N.O.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Borchardt, M.; Zvirtes, L. Green Marketing in Supermarkets: Conventional and Digitized Marketing Alternatives to Reduce Waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 296, 126531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Symmank, C.; Mai, R.; Hoffmann, S.; Stok, F.M.; Renner, B.; Lien, N.; Rohm, H. Predictors of Food Decision Making: A Systematic Interdisciplinary Mapping (SIM) Review. Appetite 2017, 110, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Aftab, J.; Abid, N.; Cucari, N.; Savastano, M. Green Human Resource Management and Environmental Performance: The Role of Green Innovation and Environmental Strategy in a Developing Country. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 1782–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Dangelico, R.M.; Pontrandolfo, P. Being ‘Green and Competitive’: The Impact of Environmental Actions and Collaborations on Firm Performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2015, 24, 413–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Trivellas, P.; Malindretos, G.; Reklitis, P. Implications of Green Logistics Management on Sustainable Business and Supply Chain Performance: Evidence from a Survey in the Greek Agri-Food Sector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Bătae, O.M.; Dragomir, V.D.; Feleagă, L. The Relationship between Environmental, Social, and Financial Performance in the Banking Sector: A European Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 290, 125791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 04725 g001
Figure 1. Literature search process.
Figure 1. Literature search process.
Sustainability 16 04725 g001
Sustainability 16 04725 g002
Figure 2. Conceptual framework of this literature review.
Figure 2. Conceptual framework of this literature review.
Sustainability 16 04725 g002
Sustainability 16 04725 g003
Figure 3. Publications by year.
Figure 3. Publications by year.
Sustainability 16 04725 g003
Sustainability 16 04725 g004
Figure 4. Articles per industrial sector.
Figure 4. Articles per industrial sector.
Sustainability 16 04725 g004
Sustainability 16 04725 g005
Figure 5. Articles per environmental dimensions studied.
Figure 5. Articles per environmental dimensions studied.
Sustainability 16 04725 g005
Sustainability 16 04725 g006
Figure 6. Articles per type of data collection.
Figure 6. Articles per type of data collection.
Sustainability 16 04725 g006
Sustainability 16 04725 g007
Figure 7. Articles per method of statistical analysis.
Figure 7. Articles per method of statistical analysis.
Sustainability 16 04725 g007
Table 1. Articles per publication journal.
Table 1. Articles per publication journal.
JournalNo.Articles
Business Strategy and the Environment13Adomako and Tran, 2022 [36], Bhatia and Kumar, 2022 [37], Boiral et al., 2012 [38], Cadez et al., 2019 [39], Carvajal et al., 2022 [40], Chan, 2021 [41], Gao et al., 2019 [42], Lewandowski, 2017 [43], Liu et al., 2018 [44], Plaza-Úbeda et al., 2009 [45], Shahab et al., 2023 [15], Shubham et al., 2018 [46], Vazquez and Liston-Heyes, 2008 [47]
Journal of Cleaner Production8Haleem et al., 2021 [48], Haleem et al., 2017 [49], Laari et al., 2017 [50], Liu and Anbumozhi, 2009 [51], Martin-de Castro et al., 2017 [52], Massoud et al., 2010 [53], Sharma et al., 2023 [54], Vishwakarma et al., 2018 [55]
Journal of Business Ethics5Cordano et al., 2010 [56], Ding et al., 2023 [57], Dupire and M’Zali, 2018 [58], Menguc et al., 2010 [59], Paulraj et al., 2017 [13]
International Journal of Production Economics4Liu et al., 2010 [60], Szász et al., 2021 [61], Xia et al., 2015 [62], Xiao et al., 2018 [63]
Technological Forecasting and Social Change3El-Kassar and Singh, 2019 [19], Rubio-Andrés et al., 2023 [64], Yu et al., 2017 [65]
Sustainability3Chen et al., 2020 [66], Dang et al., 2019 [10], Kouaib, 2022 [67]
Benchmarking: An International Journal2Ahmad et al., 2021 [68], Baah et al., 2023 [69]
Review of Managerial Science2Iranmanesh et al., 2019 [18], Lee, 2021 [7]
Management Decision1Fatima and Elbanna, 2023 [12]
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing1Yue et al., 2023 [14]
Uncertain Supply Chain Management1Nasereddin, 2023 [11]
Resources Policy1Ramírez-Orellana et al., 2023 [70]
Environmental Science and Pollution Research1Ong et al., 2023 [71]
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration1Napathorn, 2022 [72]
Journal of Management and Governance1Hristov et al., 2022 [73]
Sage Open1Guo and Wang, 2022 [74]
International Journal of Emerging Markets1Bıçakcıoğlu-Peynirci and Tanyeri, 2022 [75]
International Journal of Technology1Grishunin et al., 2022 [76]
Revista de Gestão1Bandeira Pinheiro et al., 2021 [77]
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health1Zhang and Yang, 2021 [78]
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management1de Nadae et al., 2021 [79]
Energy Reports1Madaleno and Vieira, 2020 [80]
Handbook of Business Legitimacy: Responsibility, Ethics and Society1Siltaoja et al., 2020 [9]
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management1Abaeian et al., 2019 [81]
Production Planning & Control1Ahmed et al., 2019 [82]
Accounting Review1Fondevila et al., 2019 [83]
World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development1Nair and Wahh, 2017 [8]
Technological and Economic Development of Economy1Del Río et al., 2016 [84]
Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Food Networks1Wagner, 2015 [16]
International Journal of Operations & Production Management1Hartmann et al., 2015 [85]
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management1Kara et al., 2014 [86]
International Journal of Business and Society1Abdullah and Yaakub, 2014 [87]
Business Ethics: A European Review1Ramanathan et al., 2014 [88]
Ecological Economics1Wagner, 2011 [17]
Journal of World Business1Eiadat et al., 2008 [89]
Sustainable Development1Gouldson, 2004 [90]
Maritime Economics & Logistics1Christodoulou and Cullinane, 2021 [91]
Energy Economics1Nguyen et al., 2021 [92]
International Journal Of Mathematical Engineering and Management Sciences1Almagtome et al., 2020 [93]
International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research1Pinto et al., 2017 [94]
Total72
Source: authors’ results.
Table 2. The 12 journals with an impact factor greater than 10.
Table 2. The 12 journals with an impact factor greater than 10.
No. JournalsJournalsNo. ArticlesImpact Factor (IF)
12Business Strategy and the Environment, Journal of Cleaner Production, Journal of Business Ethics, International Journal of Production Economics, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Production Planning & Control, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Ecological Economics, Journal of World Business, Energy Economics.40Higher than 10
Source: authors’ results.
Table 3. Articles per country.
Table 3. Articles per country.
CountryArticles
Multi-country19
China12
India5
United States4
Spain4
Malaysia4
Turkey3
United Kingdom3
Saudi Arabia2
Germany2
Canada1
New Zealand1
Italy1
Ghana1
Portugal1
Argentina1
Brazil1
Finland1
Lebanon1
Thailand1
Israel1
Jordan1
Russian Federation1
Sweden1
Total72
Source: authors’ results.
Table 4. Firm characteristics, main environmental drivers, and relevant articles.
Table 4. Firm characteristics, main environmental drivers, and relevant articles.
Firm characteristic(s) considered21[12,17,18,36,38,41,42,45,47,48,51,53,56,58,59,63,65,74,75,80,85]
Environmental DriversNo.Articles
Policy DriversGovernment environmental regulation29[9,13,14,16,17,18,36,37,38,41,42,46,51,55,56,59,60,62,66,74,75,77,86,87,88,89,90,92,93]
Societal DriversSocietal/NGO pressure25[9,16,17,18,36,37,41,42,44,46,48,49,55,56,60,61,62,63,74,86,87,88,89,90,92]
Consumer pressure25[9,13,16,17,18,19,36,37,38,39,42,46,55,56,59,60,64,65,66,74,75,86,87,89,92]
Media8[9,16,17,36,42,46,55,88]
Economic DriversEnvironmental corporate management/behavior27[9,12,13,14,16,19,37,38,42,47,48,55,56,59,61,63,65,75,79,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90]
Shareholders 19[9,13,14,38,39,45,46,47,49,51,53,55,60,62,78,88,90,92,93]
Competitor pressure17[9,12,13,14,17,19,36,37,39,42,46,50,58,65,66,86,87]
Employees14[16,36,37,38,39,46,56,66,75,79,80,84,89,92]
Supply chain14[9,16,17,36,37,39,42,46,60,64,65,74,89,92]
Business benefits13[13,18,19,38,42,55,56,75,84,86,87,88,92]
Top management commitment11[12,17,38,40,41,45,75,80,84,92,93]
Banks/financial institutions8[9,38,42,46,51,60,62,64]
Business partners5[17,38,44,60,75]
Institutes2[17,44]
Source: authors’ results.
Table 5. Analysis of environmental practices along the value chain.
Table 5. Analysis of environmental practices along the value chain.
Support ActivitiesProcurementEnvironmental purchasing
TechnologyEnvironmental technologies/Env.-related R&D innovation
Firm InfrastructureGreen building/env. management decisions
Management systems/environmental auditing
Human ResourcesEnvironmental training/ethics/environmental culture
Inbound
Logistics		OperationsOutbound LogisticsMarketing/SalesServices
-
Renewable energy/sources
-
Green IT technologies
-
Eco-design
-
Resource reduction
-
Emission reduction
-
Pollution prevention
-
EMSs and env. certification
-
Env. transportation
-
Eco-efficiency
-
Disclosure reporting
-
Env. ethics
-
Environmental labelling
-
Corporate env. responsibility
-
Stakeholder relations and collaboration
-
Pricing
-
Waste management
-
End of life env. practices
-
Environmental impact of products and processes
Primary Activities
Source: authors’ results.
Table 6. Firm characteristics, main environmental practices, and relevant articles.
Table 6. Firm characteristics, main environmental practices, and relevant articles.
Firm characteristic(s) considered28[7,10,11,15,17,18,36,38,41,42,43,45,47,48,49,51,53,56,59,63,65,67,69,74,75,76,82,85]
Environmental practicesNo.Articles
Environmental management decisions16[12,14,16,17,37,38,55,56,59,66,68,74,75,80,82,86]
Environmental disclosure/reporting13[12,38,47,51,57,60,61,67,76,77,78,90,93]
Environment-related R&D/innovation12[7,19,36,37,54,64,65,70,74,83,84,89]
Resource reduction 12[7,12,46,48,56,61,63,70,73,81,91,92]
Eco-design12[13,14,18,39,46,54,66,68,71,81,82,85]
EMSs and ISO 1400111[12,45,46,52,53,54,68,71,79,86,92]
Environmental purchasing (suppliers)11[8,12,13,44,48,49,50,63,66,68,82]
Waste management and
end-of-life environmental practices		11[14,39,48,56,61,63,66,68,73,81,82]
Emission reduction10[7,39,48,57,61,63,68,70,73,91]
Environmental training8[12,48,54,61,63,72,82,86]
Corporate
environmental responsibility		7[7,8,9,10,11,42,81]
Environmental impact of products and processes6[13,19,39,55,68,71]
Stakeholder relations/collaborations6[8,12,13,15,50,54]
Other management systems6[16,17,48,61,63,82]
Environmental manufacturing/environmental technologies/industry 4.04[14,37,62,71]
Environmental auditing3[8,48,50]
Green IT strategies3[41,54,55]
Eco-efficiency3[39,43,82]
Environmental transportation2[14,87]
Renewable energy/sources2[73,81]
Pollution prevention2[59,68]
Biodiversity1[40]
Green building1[63]
Environmental ethics1[69]
Source: authors’ results.
Table 7. Firm characteristics, main impacts on performance of environmental practices, and relevant articles.
Table 7. Firm characteristics, main impacts on performance of environmental practices, and relevant articles.
Firm characteristic(s) considered27[7,10,11,12,15,17,18,36,38,41,43,45,47,48,49,58,59,65,67,69,73,74,75,76,80,82,85]
PerformanceNo.Articles
Financial performance38[7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,17,18,19,36,37,38,41,43,49,52,59,61,62,64,65,67,69,70,73,74,75,76,79,80,82,85,87,88,89]
Environmental performance25[12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,37,38,39,45,47,48,49,61,62,65,66,68,69,71,79,88,92]
Non-financial—Organizational8[12,17,18,48,49,58,61,73]
Non-financial—Reputation/image6[8,17,49,73,87,92]
Non-financial—Market5[12,14,64,73,75]
Non-financial—
Green competitive advantage		3[19,69,92]
Non-financial—
Operational performance		3[64,68,81]
Source: authors’ results.
Table 8. Indicators of environmental, financial, and non-financial performance.
Table 8. Indicators of environmental, financial, and non-financial performance.
Performance IndicatorsArticles
Environmental Performance IndicatorsIntegration of green suppliers[19,68,92]
Solid/liquid wastes[13,14,18,19,37,48,49,61,65,66,68,79,92]
Energy[13,14,16,17,19,39,48,49,61,62,65,69,92]
Regulatory compliance[19,38,39,47]
Offenses[47]
Water[16,17,48,49,61,92]
Renewable resources[17,62]
Inputs/materials[13,14,17,18,19,37,39,48,49,61,69]
Soil contamination/landscape damage[17,18]
Emissions to air[13,16,17,18,19,37,38,39,48,49,61,62,68]
Environment-related certifications[18,65,68]
Recycling/reuse[65,66,68,79]
Environmental accidents[13,14,18]
Natural resources[13,18,66,79]
Pollution prevention[66,68]
Cooperation with customers including environmental requirements[66]
Practices and processes that reduce negative environmental impacts[39,68,69,79]
Financial Performance IndicatorsReturn on assets (ROA)[7,9,10,11,13,43,52,67,70,73,80]
Return on equity (ROE)[7,10,11,43,69,70,73,80]
Return on sales (ROS)[10,38,43,52,61]
Return on invested capital (ROIC)[43,75]
Sales growth[8,9,14,17,19,36,38,41,49,52,59,61,62,64,65,74,75,82,89]
Market share[9,14,16,17,19,36,41,65,69,74,82,89]
Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)[13]
Return on investment (ROI)[9,11,16,38,41,69,75,82,85,89]
Profit growth[8,9,13,17,19,36,38,41,59,62,64,69,74,75,82,85,87]
Productivity[16,17,65]
Economic Value Added (EVA)/Market Value Added (MVA)[11]
Bank loans[17]
Cost savings[37,65,73]
Tobin Q[76,80]
Non-Financial Performance IndicatorsImage/reputation[17,18,19,73,87,92]
Organizational (worker satisfaction, culture)[12,17,18,48,49,61,73]
Market (customer, stakeholder satisfaction)[12,14,64,65,73,75]
Green competitive advantage[19,69,92]
Operational performance[64,68,79]
Source: authors’ results.
Table 9. The impact of environmental practices on business performance and relevant articles.
Table 9. The impact of environmental practices on business performance and relevant articles.
PracticesPerformance
Environmental PracticesEnvironmental (+)Environmental
(−)		Financial
(+)		Financial (−)Non-Financial (+)Non-Financial (−)
Eco-design[13,14,18,39,66,68,71] [13,18,82,85][14][18][14]
Environmental suppliers[12,13,48,49,66,68] [12,13,49][82][12,48][49]
Environmental manufacturing/environmental technologies/industry 4.0[14,37,62,71] [41,62][14,37] [14]
Environmental transportation[14] [14,87] [14,87]
Waste management and end-of-life environmental practices[14,39,48,61,66,68] [73][14,82][48,61,73][14]
EMSs and ISO 14001[12,45,61,68,71,79,92] [12][52][12,61,79,92]
Environmental training[12,48,61] [12,82] [12,48,61]
Environmental auditing[48] [48]
Environmental disclosure/reporting[12,38,47,61] [12,38,67,76] [12,61]
Environment-related R&D/innovation[19,37,65] [7,36,37,64,65,70,74,89][65][19,64,65]
Renewable energy/sources [73][73]
Emission reduction and
pollution prevention		[39,48,61,68] [7,59,70,73] [48,61,73]
Resource reduction [12,48,61] [7,12,70,73] [12,48,61,73]
Environmental management decisions[12,14,16,38,66][17][12,14,16,17,38,59,74,75,80][82][12,14,17,68,75]
Other management systems[16,48,61][17][16,17,82] [17,48,61]
Corporate environmental responsibility [7,8,9][10,11][8]
Environmental ethics[69] [69][69]
Environmental impact of products and processes[13,19,39,71] [13] [68]
Eco-efficiency[39] [43][82]
Stakeholder relations/collaborations[12,13,14][15][12,13,14] [12,14]
Source: authors’ results.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Iliopoulou, E.; Vlachvei, A.; Koronaki, E. Environmental Drivers, Environmental Practices, and Business Performance: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114725

AMA Style

Iliopoulou E, Vlachvei A, Koronaki E. Environmental Drivers, Environmental Practices, and Business Performance: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions. Sustainability. 2024; 16(11):4725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114725

Chicago/Turabian Style

Iliopoulou, Efthymia, Aspasia Vlachvei, and Eirini Koronaki. 2024. "Environmental Drivers, Environmental Practices, and Business Performance: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Directions" Sustainability 16, no. 11: 4725. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114725

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