Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Income-Increasing Benefits of Rural E-Commerce in China: Implications for the Sustainable Development of Farmers
Previous Article in Journal
Inclusive Innovation Governance for Just Transitions: Insights from the Bean Agri-Food System in the Brunca Region of Costa Rica
 
 
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 17
10.3390/su16177434
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Sustainability: Is It a Strategic Management Research Fashion?

by
Edgars Sedovs
* and
Tatjana Volkova
Department of Management, BA School of Business and Finance, LV-1013 Riga, Latvia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7434; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177434
Submission received: 24 July 2024 / Revised: 14 August 2024 / Accepted: 26 August 2024 / Published: 28 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This article aims to identify the relationship between sustainability and strategic management to determine whether sustainability can be considered a strategic management research fashion. This involves a bibliometric analysis of recent academic literature from 2021 to 2023 to identify the latest academic research, key trends, collaboration and keyword networks within this relationship. The analysis was conducted using two datasets from the Scopus database. These datasets focus on English-language journal articles on business, management and accounting. The first covers academic research on strategic management, while the second expands to sustainability and sustainable development. The results show that strategic management research focusing on sustainability has recently grown faster (24.70%) and with higher funding frequency (22.4%) than the whole strategic management research field (14.30% and 17.5%, respectively). Furthermore, the geographical analysis of co-authorship identified articles from 88 countries, suggesting a broad interest in this relationship. Notably, the strategic management network mapping revealed a unique, sustainable development, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability cluster. Moreover, extended mapping revealed four clusters: strategic and innovation-driven sustainability, operational corporate sustainability, crisis management and environmental economics, and sustainable supply chain and resource management. The thematic analysis further highlights well-developed sustainability and strategic management research topics like digitalisation, circular economy, sustainable supply chain management, sustainable development goals, industry 4.0, COVID-19, environmental sustainability, etc. that are contributing to the progress of sustainability and strategic management research. The results thus confirm the rapid growth and widespread coverage of research on sustainability and strategic management, highlighting sustainability as a strategic management research fashion.

1. Introduction

In a rapidly changing environment and society, two main themes have become essential to discussing organisational longevity and societal progress. First, strategic management (SM), a hybrid academic field combining economics and sociology, is essential for the long-term existence and expansion of organisations, and focuses on creating and implementing comprehensive strategies to achieve organisational goals [1,2,3]. As an academic field of research, SM emphasises creating and maintaining competitive advantage, promoting the common good and sharing wisdom to help organisational members understand the future [4,5]. Second, the importance of sustainability and environmental initiatives is receiving increasing attention from corporate, consumer and individual behaviour [6]. This shift is further supported by the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established by the United Nations, which aim to promote global sustainability by 2030, targeting a wide range of goals from poverty reduction to environmental sustainability by mobilising new agents of change such as businesses, cities and civil society [7,8,9,10]. Sustainability, therefore, plays an important role in organisational strategy [11].
Academic research fashion is characterised by a rapid acceptance of scientific information as a result of rapid growth in a scientific field, influenced by theoretical development and the number of scientists attracted to it [12]. Scientists following fashions often adopt the lead and styles of their respective disciplines [13]. On the other hand, management fashions at the organisational level influence the techniques used and adopted by managers to tackle complex managerial issues and organisational gaps, and often result in rapid, bell-shaped shifts in the popularity of these techniques [14]. Accordingly, these fashions, characterised by a fluctuating number of publications, should be rational and progressive, utilising social, psychological, technical and economic forces to influence their demand [14,15,16,17]. Accordingly, management fashions can be conceptualised as the production and consumption patterns of temporarily intensive management discourse, along with the organisational changes that discourse induces [18]. Notably, academic research and management fashions are similar in that both are cyclical and influenced by larger socio-economic factors in their development and adoption. Both management fashions indicate shifts in focus and concentration, caused by new theoretical insights and their impact on management practice.
Numerous studies suggest a relationship between SM and sustainability, indicating that their integration can generate value for businesses, society and the environment, resulting in a competitive advantage for sustainable firms, which reflects a firm’s ability to outperform its competitors by offering superior value to customers [19,20,21]. Although sustainability is increasingly being incorporated into business strategies to create value for companies, society and the environment, the question of whether sustainability is an SM research fashion in the academic literature remains unanswered [19]. This study, therefore, seeks to fill this gap by applying a bibliometric analysis to recent academic research to investigate whether sustainability is increasingly being considered in SM research.
This paper systematically reviews the relationship between SM and sustainability in academic research. It enables the mapping of the current state of research and the identification of future avenues for growth in sustainability and SM research [22]. Following an introduction that outlines the scope and objectives of this research, the following section examines the theoretical frameworks that underpin both fields, setting the stage for the research questions. The methodology section discusses bibliometric analysis techniques to examine the academic literature from the most recent period, 2021–2023, reflecting the latest academic insights into this approach. The results section presents a comprehensive analysis of the findings, focusing on the key trends and patterns identified from the bibliometric data. This discussion presents the current environment, the gaps and opportunities identified for future research. The concluding section synthesises these findings, identifies implications for the study and suggests future research directions.

2. Literature Review

With its origins in military science, SM emphasises aligning organisational structure with strategy, focusing on achieving superior performance, reducing costs and improving customer satisfaction [2,23,24]. It is a creative activity that uses scientific principles to improve management effectiveness and has evolved significantly over the past decades [25,26]. To achieve effective management, SM requires the input of distributed wisdom, planning and execution, promoting the common good and shared understanding among organisational members [5,27]. Meanwhile, sustainability, which originated in forestry, initially emphasised avoiding overharvesting [28]. Later, the Club of Rome report predicted resource depletion within one or two generations, influencing global public policy [29]. The World Commission on Environment and Development’s Brundtland report, which promoted current and future-oriented development that guarantees the satisfaction of current needs without jeopardising the capacity of future generations to meet their own, made sustainable development (SD) more widely recognised [30,31].
Corporate social responsibility (CSR), which originated as a neoliberal idea to decrease government regulation, has developed into a progressive coregulatory approach that seeks to voluntarily include social and environmental issues in business operations [32]. Thus, studies examining the impact of CSR and sustainability on various areas, including responsible consumption, production, human resources, supply chain management, industry, innovation, infrastructure, national culture, decision-making, the circular economy (CE), affordable and clean energy, and more, demonstrate that SD and CSR are emerging as global trends [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. Identifying these research trends allows researchers to recognise and analyse research topics promptly, thus facilitating the advancement of knowledge in these fields [42].
Corporate sustainability is a holistic approach that balances economic, environmental, and social aspects to ensure long-term business success and positive societal impact, benefiting current and future stakeholders [43,44]. This relationship between sustainability and SM has evolved from initial concepts to a sophisticated framework for managing business organisations, guiding them to integrate sustainability into their corporate, competitive and functional strategies [45]. It also highlights that integrating sustainability and change management as part of decision-making and value creation, and across all business units, functions and reporting structures is a critical success factor in driving strategic sustainability initiatives [46]. Therefore, such a framework should consider various organisational influences, both internal and external, and identify factors that support or hinder this integration within SM [47].
The long-term stability of superior resources, the ex-post and ex-ante limits to competition and imperfect resource mobility create a sustainable competitive advantage [48,49]. A company’s competitive advantage also depends on the transfer of internal best practices, but implementing these practices may present challenges [50]. As a result, integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making may enhance an organisation’s competitiveness and ensure its long-term sustainability, suggesting that SM and sustainability can result in a long-term competitive advantage [51]. Moreover, many studies demonstrate that, although previously seen as cost drivers, sustainability innovations improve company competitiveness by increasing value creation, lowering costs and acquiring non-financial assets [52,53].
The concept of fashion aims to bring order and structure to a dynamic and potentially hectic environment, thus fostering a sense of originality while reconciling it with the collective search for uniqueness [54,55]. It is characterised by rapid and often whimsical changes, creating a high rate of obsolescence [56]. This fashion may serve as a foundation for innovative research in management science, encouraging researchers to experiment and test new concepts both conceptually and empirically [57]. For example, publication trends in top management journals can be regarded as a particular form of academic research fashion driven by the timing and perceived novelty of topics [58,59]. Furthermore, it has the advantage of facilitating the exploration of new and intriguing theories and methodologies, rather than constraining the scope for innovation by limiting research to the influence of established ones [60]. The academic research fashion is thus characterised by a rapid and global adoption and dissemination of ideas at the right time, which, while potentially leading to significant breakthroughs, may reflect more short-term enthusiasm or the provision of lasting academic value [12,57,59]. From the authors’ perspective, it also influences funding priorities and further shapes the direction of scholarly research discourse. Therefore, for the world to implement SDGs by 2030 in just six years, sustainability should become a priority both in organisations and in SM research as a fashion.
The world is facing disruptions and multiple challenges known as polycrises, which are complex interrelated problems, antagonisms and uncontrolled processes [61,62]. These crises, which can vary depending on the context, typically involve environmental, economic, social, health, technological, political and geopolitical issues [62]. For example, the EU has experienced a polycrisis with the sovereign debt crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russia–Ukraine and Israel–Hamas wars, while other materialising issues such as natural and environmental disasters, climate change, rapid urbanisation, political instability, rapid technological development, demographics and social norms are multiplying their effects [63,64,65,66]. This provides further evidence for the need to prioritise research on sustainability and the global implementation of the SDGs, both at the organisational and SM research levels.
However, despite its widespread popularity, SD remains to be seen because of continued questions about its meaning, history and implications [67]. This background establishes the context for the research question: whether sustainability can effectively be viewed as an SM research fashion [46]. Therefore, this study assesses sustainability as an SM research fashion, marked by a swift and extensive surge in interest within academic research. Furthermore, this study aims to identify those areas that contribute to the development of sustainability as an SM research fashion. The following section of this study will focus on the methods used to investigate this research question, presenting the tools, techniques and datasets used to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the topic.

3. Materials and Methods

This study utilised bibliometric analysis, a widely used method for analysing large volumes of scientific data that allows the study of evolutionary nuances and emerging areas and the examination of the evolving sustainability and SM research environment to determine whether sustainability is an academic research fashion [68]. The bibliometric dataset was created from academic research in the SCOPUS database. Only recent English journal publications on accounting, management and business research were included in this analysis. The SCOPUS database was selected due to its careful content selection and review process, as well as for its comprehensive coverage of academic research [69].
A bibliometric search in Scopus was carried out in two steps, as shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. These queries were formulated in Scopus using Boolean operators. First, the keyword strategic management was used in Query 1 (n = 19,525) with a missing data check (n = 52, based on Bibliometrix) to identify SM studies’ most common related keywords. The resulting studies (n = 5209) were included in the subsequent bibliometric analysis. Second, the search was extended by combining the terms “strategic management”, “SD” and “sustainability” in Query 2 to find academic literature on the sustainability environment and SM research field (n = 4901). After applying the Query 2 parameters from Table 2 (n = 4069) and checking for missing data (n = 8, based on Bibliometrix), the study obtained the second dataset for further bibliometric analysis (n = 832). The Query results may change over time due to the continuous quality assurance activities conducted by Scopus and the regular updates [69,70].
Analysis and visualisation tasks were performed using VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20), Tableau (version 2024.1) and Bibliometrix software (version 4.1.4). Microsoft Excel (version 2402) was used for data processing. The VOSviewer software is a freeware tool that facilitates the analysis and creation of bibliometric maps by building and displaying bibliometric relationships between several variables [71,72]. The Bibliometrix tool was used in this study to perform performance analysis and science mapping to assess the environment of the sustainability and SM research fields [68,73]. In addition, Tableau was used for generating visual and geographical representations to analyse data [74].
This section explains the methods and techniques used to analyse the relationship between sustainability and SM in academic research. The next sections will present the results and discuss the implications of these findings to enhance the understanding of the relationship between sustainability and SM research.

4. Results and Discussion

This section presents the results and discussions of the study. It is divided into two parts: the first subsection focuses on the identification of sustainability as an SM research fashion, and the subsequent subsection identifies those areas that currently contribute to the advancement of sustainability as an SM research fashion.

4.1. Identification of Sustainability as a Strategic Management Research Fashion

Table 2 displays the key statistics from Query 1 and Query 2 used in this section. Query 1, which focused on SM, resulted in 5209 articles from 1009 journals. With sustainability and SD added to SM, the improved Query 2 produced 832 articles from 361 journals. In Query 2, the yearly growth rate of articles was significantly higher, at 24.70%, compared to 14.30% in Query 1. In addition, the annual funding frequency of articles in Query 2 was 22.4% higher than in Query 1 (22.4% vs. 17.5%). This shows an interest in expanding research activity on SM and sustainability topics. It is also supported by a higher average number of citations per paper (9.9 vs. 8.2), co-authors per paper (3.2 vs. 3.1) and international co-authorship (33.7% vs. 32.8%). This shows that sustainability is attracting academic attention, with a thriving and collaborative global research community focused on sustainability and SM.
Analysing the annual scientific output within Queries 1 and 2 provides insights into the evolving environment of SM and sustainability. Within Query 1, it increased gradually, as seen in Figure 2, from 1524 studies in 2021 to 1991 in 2023. However, the number of studies in sustainability and SM (Query 2) increased faster, from 225 in 2021 to 350 in 2023. The ratio of Query 2/Query 1 annual scientific production increased from 14.8% in 2021 to 17.6% in 2023. This growth suggests an increasing meaning and the recognition of sustainability as an important part of SM. Thus, it represents a broader societal and organisational shift towards sustainability and its integration into strategies and decision-making.
Figure 3 shows a network map of keyword co-occurrences derived from the results of Query 1, with a threshold of 100 co-occurrences to indicate the most common keywords (n = 23) that meet the specified requirement. The network map highlights the relationship between SM, sustainability, SD and other relevant keywords, including strategic approach, supply chain management, decision-making, strategic planning and innovation. Furthermore, the relationship between CSR, sustainability, SM and strategic approach shows that CSR significantly impacts these studies, especially in the context of sustainability. This further confirms that the SDGs have recently influenced CSR research, leading to an increased focus on strategic aspects of the community, companies, consumers, investors and employees [75].
Table 3 provides information about the bibliometric map shown in Figure 3, including a description of the keywords contained in each cluster. Brackets indicate the strength of the links and the co-occurrence of the keywords, while colour codes identify each cluster. The yellow cluster No. 4, which places sustainability and SD in a separate cluster alongside CSR, is notable for its relatively high co-occurrence (n = 578) and link strength (n = 748), showing the academic research concentration on sustainability and SM.
Figure 4 shows that research on sustainability in SM has recently attracted widespread interest on a global scale, representing 88 countries, or 45.6% of all 193 United Nations member states that adopted the SDGs in 2015 [76,77]. India is a major contributor (n = 74), representing 8.9% of global research. The US (n = 53) and China (n = 52) are close behind, with 6.4% and 6.3% of articles, respectively. The United Kingdom (n = 43) and Italy (n = 42) also contribute significantly. With 33.7% of international co-authorship, academic research in sustainability and SM has a broad and global reach beyond regional and economic boundaries. This makes SM and sustainability an enduring academic research area.
Overall, the results of this subsection show that academic attention given to sustainability and SM is increasing. It is supported by the high annual growth rate of articles and funding frequency, the concentration of sustainability-related keywords in a separate SM research cluster, the global geographical research coverage, and a more collaborative research community with higher citations per document than overall SM research. Accordingly, the findings presented in this subsection confirm the research question and suggest that sustainability is an SM research fashion. In this context, the next subsection will include the sustainability and SM-related article content analysis results, keyword co-occurrence analysis and thematic mapping to identify the topics that drive sustainability as an SM research fashion.

4.2. Identification of Areas Contributing to the Advancement of Sustainability as a Strategic Management Research Fashion

The network map in Figure 5 shows the co-occurrences of the keywords (n = 37) obtained from the results of Query 2. The threshold for the bibliometric map is set at 15 co-occurrences to represent the most common keywords. The network map places the keyword sustainability and SD at the centre of SM and sustainability research, indicating their importance as a concept around which other issues related to SM and sustainability revolve.
Table 4 provides information on the bibliometric map shown in Figure 4 and each cluster in the network map. A summary of the main findings of the analysed articles is provided in Annex A. When combined, the keyword co-occurrence analysis results show how each cluster’s existing academic research generates knowledge and how it relates to other keywords found in other clusters.
  • Red cluster No. 1: strategic and innovation-driven sustainability. This cluster highlights the importance of sustainability in SM, with key themes such as sustainability (n = 220), SM (n = 65) and innovation (n = 45). This emphasises how sustainability shapes strategy research. It influences leadership, climate change, project management, knowledge management, human resource management (HRM), industry 4.0, etc.
  • Green cluster No. 2: operational corporate sustainability. This emphasises sustainability in regulatory, operational and competitive terms, focusing on SD (n = 229), CSR (n = 51) and environmental management (n = 37). This cluster thus emphasises how academic research motivated by CSR initiatives and environmental compliance applies to sustainability concepts. The attention paid to corporate sustainability, economic and social effects, competition and SD suggests a wide involvement with the SDGs from different organisational perspectives.
  • Blue cluster No. 3: crisis management and environmental economics. This focuses on strategic development in response to global disruptions and market dynamics, including strategic approach (n = 63), pandemic (n = 33) and stakeholder engagement (n = 19). Thus, the keyword “pandemic”, along with the strategic approach, emphasises the need to take disruptions and resilience into account in academic research, together with stakeholders and business strategy.
  • Yellow cluster No. 4: sustainable supply chain and resource management. This cluster focuses on sustainable supply chain management and resource efficiency, and emphasises the need to enhance supply chain sustainability and resource optimisation in SM. Among the topics covered are supply chain management (n = 58), SDGs (n = 21), circular economy (n = 37) and waste management (n = 21), highlighting academic research focused on waste reduction, circular economy, resource reuse and achieving the SDGs.
In SM, theories help to understand business phenomena, guiding research questions, and offering explanations, predictions or prescriptions that extend, clarify or apply existing theories in new ways [103,104]. Examples of the use of different theories in sustainability and SM research are, therefore, provided in Appendix A. These theories are applied to explain the conceptual background for organisational practices to achieve sustainable outcomes. For example, institutional theory and stakeholder theory are widely used to understand the different stakeholder pressures that drive organisations to adopt sustainable practices and responsible leadership [85,91]. Stakeholder theory, often combined with resource-based theory, is applied to develop a comprehensive understanding of how companies can use internal resources and stakeholder relationships to achieve sustained competitive advantage, long-term success and enhance overall sustainability [81,84,87,88,90]. In addition, resource-based theory is applied to form a comprehensive understanding of how companies can use their internal resources to achieve better sustainability performance and address today’s challenges in resource management and SD [89,98].
On the other hand, fuzzy set theory is used to explain uncertain knowledge in research, and to provide optimised solutions in decision-making processes, especially in multi-criteria applications [97]. Dynamic capabilities and contingency theory are used to explain how organisations can adapt to market changes, manage risk, maintain competitive advantage and create value through improved sustainable production and visibility [95,102]. This broad application of different theories helps to facilitate the development of research questions, to guide the selection and interpretation of relevant data, and to suggest explanations for the causes or effects of observed phenomena within sustainability and SM research. For this reason, these theories offer different perspectives through which sustainability and SM issues can be viewed, providing a comprehensive understanding that is essential for developing effective and sustainable strategies and ensuring that strategic decisions are based on strong and empirical evidence.
The thematic map in Figure 6 visualises the themes of sustainability in SM research on a two-dimensional plane. The X–axis measures the centrality of the network cluster, indicating the importance of the research themes in the wider research network, while the Y–axis measures the density, reflecting the internal strength and growth potential [105]. This thematic analysis thus highlights the sustainability and SM research environment, identifying areas that are contributing to the progress of sustainability as an SM research fashion.
  • Motor themes (upper-right quadrant): This quadrant covers CE, industry 4.0, environmental sustainability, sustainable supply chain management, digitalisation, project management and decision-making, COVID-19, SDGs, stakeholder theory, competitiveness, sustainability reporting and sustainable tourism, etc. themes. These themes are well developed and central to ongoing sustainability and SM research, reflecting their essential role in fostering future achievements and innovation. The high centrality and density of these themes thus indicate their importance and strong development in this area [106].
  • Niche themes (upper-left quadrant): This includes themes such as competitive advantage, dynamic capabilities, resource-based theory (view) and firm performance. These themes are highly specialised and internally strong, but they need to be integrated into the more comprehensive research network. They are essential research areas but have a different broad impact and direct relevance to sustainability than motor themes. Accordingly, these themes show high density but low centrality, being well developed but relatively isolated [106].
  • Emerging or declining themes (lower-left quadrant): This contains talent management, knowledge management and sustainability performance themes. They may represent new research areas or those that are losing popularity in academia. The future direction of these themes depends on their ability to gain prominence and integration into the broader research discourse. Consequently, they have a low centrality and density, suggesting they are either developing or becoming less important [106].
  • Basic themes (lower-right quadrant): These themes can be described as a basis for research on sustainability and SM. Thus, they also serve as a foundation for further study in many areas. This quadrant includes themes such as sustainability, corporate sustainability and SD, SM, strategies, CSR, innovation and entrepreneurship. As a result, these themes are characterised by high centrality but low density [106].
Overall, the results of this subsection show that the environment of sustainability and SM research covers a wide range of topics and theories driving sustainability as an SM research fashion for the world to implement SDGs by 2030 in just six years. These topics include research on SDGs, climate change, sustainability reporting, relevant theories, innovation, CSR, strategic planning, environmental economics, digitalisation, industry 4.0, competitiveness, strategic approach, CE, supply chain management, etc. The following section presents the conclusions, limitations, implications and suggestions for further research.

5. Conclusions

This study provided a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between sustainability and strategic management (SM) by examining the increasing attention given to these areas in academic research, particularly in economics, management and accounting [41]. The study used bibliometric analysis in VOSviewer and Bibliometrics, as well as Tableau, for geographical visualisation to address the gap in the existing literature by investigating whether sustainability can be considered an SM research fashion.
The results indicated a notable rise in academic attention given to sustainability and SM concerns. This is supported by the annual growth rate of sustainability and SM articles, which demonstrates a notably higher growth rate than the overall SM articles (24.70% vs. 14.30%) and higher funding frequency (22.4% vs. 17.5%). The growing and collaborative research community focused on sustainability and SM is evidenced by the higher average number of citations per document (9.9 vs. 8.2) and international co-authorship (33.7% vs. 32.8%). This is also reflected in the global coverage of academic research, including 88 countries, with India, the USA and China leading the way. This indicates a broad acknowledgement of sustainability and SM in academic research.
Notably, the network mapping from an SM perspective indicates a distinct cluster that emerged in recent academic research and that focuses solely on sustainability-related issues. This cluster includes terms such as sustainability, sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. To gain further insight into academic research on sustainability and SM, a second set of network mapping exercises was carried out. The results identified four primary thematic clusters covering crisis management, strategic and creative sustainable development, operational and regulatory sustainability, sustainable supply chains and resource management. This focus is further illustrated in the thematic mapping. Topics such as circular economy, industry 4.0, environmental sustainability, sustainable supply chain management, digitalisation, project management, decision-making, COVID-19, sustainable development goals, stakeholder theory, competitiveness, sustainability reporting and sustainable tourism are well developed and central to ongoing sustainability and SM research. On the other hand, research on competitive advantage, dynamic capabilities, resource-based theory and firm performance is highly specialised and internally strong, but less integrated into the wider SM and sustainability research network.
The study has some significant limitations that need to be addressed. It is based on a selection of journal-type articles in English from the Scopus database between 2021 and 2023, focusing on business, management and accounting. Still, additional databases and articles can be explored through search queries. As a result, broadening the field’s scope and considering the influence of emerging research areas and topics is a potential avenue for future bibliometric analysis. In addition, it is recommended that the results of this study be replicated in the future to determine whether sustainability is a short-term or long-term SM fashion.
Notwithstanding these research limitations, the results of this study provide further evidence that sustainability is a prominent SM research area. This suggests that sustainability, characterised by observed growth, interdisciplinary collaboration and global participation [12] is an SM research fashion. This study and the methods used have implications for both researchers and practitioners. For instance, managers adopt management fashions to learn techniques to address issues caused by technical and economic environmental changes [14]. Accordingly, researchers and practitioners can gain an understanding of the importance and current state of the fields of SM and sustainability. However, to develop further sustainable SM research, it is essential to continue investigating this relationship.
Future research could build on this study by incorporating more bibliometric analysis approaches, extending the scope to other academic databases, analysing theoretical and conceptual frameworks, evaluating digitisation, identifying the relationship between sustainability, SM and global disruptions, comparing sustainability efforts across different geopolitical contexts, and investigating stakeholder engagement and collaboration in promoting sustainability. In addition, it could explore the impact of polycrises on sustainability and SM, examining how organisations can adapt to and manage the impact of multiple, simultaneous shocks, including environmental, economic, political and social disruptions, whilst achieving and maintaining sustainability. Such techniques contribute to a deeper understanding of how the sustainable development agenda influences SM and how organisations can use these insights to become sustainable and gain a sustained competitive advantage.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, E.S. and T.V.; methodology, E.S.; software, E.S.; validation, E.S. and T.V.; formal analysis, E.S.; data curation, E.S.; writing—original draft preparation, E.S.; writing—review and editing, T.V.; visualisation, E.S.; supervision, T.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the BA School of Business and Finance, Riga, Latvia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Overview of the Most Relevant Analysed Articles in the Fields of Sustainability and Strategic Management Based on Query 2

Title, Authors and JournalCitationsResearch ObjectivesResearch MethodApplied
Theories
A call for action: The impact of business model innovation on business ecosystems, society and planet (Snihur Y.; Bocken N., Long Range Planning, 2022)40Promotes understanding of business model innovation (BMI) and its impact on business ecosystems, society and the planet by exploring value destruction and BMI dynamics. To facilitate discussions on innovation in the context of SM, the study examines four key areas of innovation, namely BMI, sustainable BMI, ecosystem innovation and sustainable ecosystem innovation. In addition, it proposes an organising matrix and suggests areas for future research [78].QualitativeNot stated
How sustainable-orientated service innovation strategies are contributing to the sustainable development goals (Calabrese A.; Costa R.; Ghiron N.L.; Tiburzi L.; Pedersen E.R.G., Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2021)39Assess the contribution of sustainability and service innovation strategies to achieve SDGs, and develop an analytical approach using content analysis and open secondary data. Focusing on a sample of fitness equipment manufacturers’ data, it defines key SDGs that are consistent with the company’s value proposition. Thus, the aim of the study is to facilitate the integration of SDGs into business strategies without additional costs and burdens [101].MixedNot stated
Analysing the roadblocks of circular economy adoption in the automobile sector: Reducing waste and environmental perspectives (Agrawal R.; Wankhede V.A.; Kumar A.; Luthra S., Business Strategy and the Environment, 2021)53Identifies potential barriers to the implementation of the CE concepts in automotive companies, and analyses these barriers to prioritise effective strategies. It focuses on defining and analysing these barriers in emerging economies, such as India, to develop effective strategies for CE implementation [97].MixedFuzzy theory
Institutional and stakeholder effects on carbon mitigation strategies (Dhanda K.K.; Sarkis J.; Dhavale D.G., Business Strategy and the Environment, 2022)22Analyses the response of organisations facing institutional and stakeholder pressures to address climate change risks and opportunities. The study examines the relationship between climate change mitigation strategies, such as greenhouse gas reductions and carbon trading, and how the adoption of these strategies is affected by different types of institutional pressure, including coercive, normative and mimetic pressures [85].QuantitativeInstitutional theory, Stakeholder theory
The COVID-19 pandemic and the role of responsible leadership in health care: thinking beyond employee well-being and organisational sustainability (Haque A., Leadership in Health Services, 2021)58Emphasising the importance of responsible leadership, a multi-level conceptual model is developed to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the well-being of healthcare employees and the sustainability of organisations, as well as to address the crisis. It also explores the implementation of responsible management strategies in response to the pandemic’s impact on workforce retention, financial stability and workplace hazards [91].QualitativeSocial identity theory, Stakeholder theory, Agency theory, Institutional theory, Attribution theory
Socially responsible investment strategies for the transition towards sustainable development: the importance of integrating and communicating ESG (Sciarelli M.; Cosimato S.; Landi G.; Iandolo F., TQM Journal, 2021)64Explores the integration of ESG criteria into socially responsible investment (SRI) strategies and the content of key investor disclosure documents to identify ESG criteria that can encourage asset management companies to develop their SRI strategies. The aim is to understand the nature of these SRI strategies and potential to contribute to SD, and the financial transition towards more sustainable growth [86].QualitativeNot stated
Adoption of circular economy practices in small and medium-sized enterprises: Evidence from Europe (Dey P.K.; Malesios C.; Chowdhury S.; Saha K.; Budhwar P.; De D., International Journal of Production Economics, 2022)63Explores the implementation of CE practices in European SMEs and their impact on sustainability performance. It analyses the current state of CE practices through surveys, interviews and case studies. The study aims to identify how different areas of CE contribute to sustainability in economic, environmental and social terms, and finds that CE implementation can improve environmental performance through energy efficiency, resource efficiency and waste reduction [98].MixedResource-based theory
Measuring the progress of smart destinations: The use of indicators as a management tool (Ivars-Baidal J.A.; Celdrán-Bernabeu M.A.; Femenia-Serra F.; Perles-Ribes J.F.; Giner-Sánchez D., Journal of Destination Marketing and Management, 2021)63Establishes a comprehensive and applicable set of smart destination indicators at strategic, relative, instrumental and applied levels. It can be used as a tool for the business and public organisation management and control of any economic activity. The results obtained reflect the diversity and uneven performance of destinations in the different dimensions covered by smart destinations (sustainability, online marketing, connectivity, etc.) and allow the real progress of destinations towards a SD model to be assessed [94].MixedNot stated
Circular economy and corporate social responsibility: Towards an integrated strategic approach in the multinational cosmetics industry (Morea D.; Fortunati S.; Martiniello L., Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021)64Explores the relationship between CSR and CE in multinational companies in the luxury cosmetics industry to examine how they implement typical CSR dimensions, and whether CE is part of their corporate strategies. The study also aims to assess the current practices of multinational companies and to propose a theoretical framework for the integration of CSR and CE concepts [87].QualitativeStakeholder theory
Knowledge transfer for frugal innovation: where do entrepreneurial universities stand? (Fischer B.; Guerrero M.; Guimón J.; Schaeffer P.R., Journal of Knowledge Management, 2021)78Analyses the strategic knowledge transfer practices of entrepreneurial universities in developing countries to promote frugal innovation. It highlights the challenges of translating scientific and technological advances into affordable, inclusive and sustainable innovation, including internal dynamics, bureaucratic procedures and performance measurement systems. It also highlights the effectiveness of university–business co-operation in developing high-growth innovation in emerging economies, and emphasises the role of entrepreneurial universities in addressing societal challenges [83].QualitativeNot stated
Stakeholder Theory and the Resource-Based View of the Firm (Freeman R.E.; Dmytriyev S.D.; Phillips R.A., Journal of Management, 2021)176Suggests that resource-based theory is incomplete without incorporating elements of stakeholder theory, such as normativism, viewing people beyond resources and promoting collaborative actions. It provides a more holistic foundation for addressing management issues, justifying the purpose of the company and delivering on promises. The study also highlights that both theories relate to people, profit, positivism and practicality, and that the concept of sustainability is an important element in both theories, although each theory approaches it differently [84].QualitativeResource-based theory, Stakeholder theory
Integrating sustainability and resilience in the supply chain: A systematic literature review and a research agenda (Negri M.; Cagno E.; Colicchia C.; Sarkis J., Business Strategy and the Environment, 2021)163Examines the intersection of supply chain sustainability and resilience in the academic literature. The research aims to analyse sustainable and resilient supply chains, identify practices that promote both, and address the conflict between efficiency and effectiveness. It finds that the link between sustainable and resilient supply chains is often unclear, there is confusion about implementation practices and a lack of clarity about common achievements. It is therefore proposed to develop performance measurement systems to assess supply chain sustainability and resilience indicators [96].QualitativeNot stated
Do corporate social responsibility practices contribute to green innovation? The mediating role of green dynamic capability (Yuan B.; Cao X., Technology in Society, 2022)156Investigates the impact of CSR practices on green innovation in Chinese manufacturing companies. It examines how CSR practices promote green product and process innovation, and how green dynamic capabilities foster the link between CSR and green innovation. By conducting a survey of Chinese manufacturing companies and analysing them using linear regression, green dynamic capabilities are shown as a mediator that facilitates firms’ green innovation [88].QuantitativeResource-based theory, Stakeholder theory, Knowledge-based theory, Dynamic capabilities theory
Mitigate risks in perishable food supply chains: Learning from COVID-19 (Kumar A.; Mangla S.K.; Kumar P.; Song M., Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2021)138Focuses on risk-mitigation strategies in perishable food supply chains (PFSC) during the COVID-19 pandemic. It uses a fuzzy best–worst methodology to identify and analyse these strategies. It prioritises strategies such as collaborative management, proactive business continuity planning and financial sustainability, and uses contingency theory to improve the socio-economic and environmental performance of PFSCs in achieving the SDG of healthy and safe food for all. It also highlights strategic planning and collaboration importance in PFSC risk management during the COVID-19 pandemic [95].QualitativeContingency theory
Uncertainty risks and strategic reaction of restaurant firms amid COVID-19: Evidence from China (Kim J.; Kim J.; Wang Y., International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2021)137Analyses the financial sustainability strategies of restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights the impact on this industry once business restrictions were lifted. It identifies effective business drivers and practices to mitigate losses from such external shocks and reverse the downward trend in financial performance. Thus, restaurant owners are advised to implement business resilience measures and risk-response strategies using their business characteristics [93]. QuantitativeUncertainty reduction theory
Scientific mapping to identify competencies required by industry 4.0 (Kipper L.M.; Iepsen S.; Dal Forno A.J.; Frozza R.; Furstenau L.; Agnes J.; Cossul D., Technology in Society, 2021)130Identifies the competencies needed for industry 4.0 through a systematic literature review and mapping from 2010 to 2018. It highlights the importance of collaboration between business, government and academia to develop competencies such as leadership, problem-solving, teamwork, communication, innovation, adaptability and knowledge in a variety of contemporary fields. The study focuses on the creation of “learning factories” for professionals, giving them hands-on experience and preparing them for the demands of industry 4.0 [82].QualitativeSustainable development theory, General systems theory
A resource-based view of green innovation as a strategic firm resource: Present status and future directions (Khanra S.; Kaur P.; Joseph R.P.; Malik A.; Dhir A., Business Strategy and the Environment, 2022)125Using bibliometric analysis techniques, the fragmented literature on green innovation is organised, providing insights for managers and encouraging further research. The study identifies the main resource-based theory studies on green innovation as a firm resource, identifies the main thematic areas in the existing literature, the main contributors to the literature, conducts a content analysis of prominent articles in each thematic area and suggests future research agendas [89].QualitativeResource-based theory
Industry 4.0 applications for sustainable manufacturing: A systematic literature review and a roadmap to sustainable development (Ching N.T.; Ghobakhloo M.; Iranmanesh M.; Maroufkhani P.; Asadi S., Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022)113Explores the use of industry 4.0 technologies to support sustainable production, identifying 15 sustainability functions through a systematic literature review and structural modelling. It establishes the relationship between these functions and their contribution to the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability. It thus aims to provide a strategic roadmap for manufacturers and academia to exploit the digital transformation of industry 4.0 [80].MixedNot stated
Determinants of the transition towards circular economy in SMEs: A sustainable supply chain management perspective (Centobelli P.; Cerchione R.; Esposito E.; Passaro R.; Shashi, International Journal of Production Economics, 2021)103Discusses the relationship between social pressure, environmental commitment, green economic incentives, supply chain relationship management, sustainable supply chain design and CE capabilities to promote CE strategies, and develops a model to explore the relationships between these factors. The result confirms the positive impact of environmental commitments and green environmental incentives on supply chain relationship management and sustainable design, highlighting their role in improving the CE capabilities of SMEs [99].MixedInstitutional theory, Theory of planned behaviour, Extended theory of planned behaviour
Strategic sustainable development of industry 4.0 through the lens of social responsibility: The role of human resource practices (Mukhuty S.; Upadhyay A.; Rothwell H., Business Strategy and the Environment, 2022)80The study examines the human resource-related barriers to the development of industry 4.0, focusing on the role of HRM in promoting socially responsible development. It highlights approaches such as strategic collaboration, talent management, change management, inclusive knowledge sharing, educational research, curriculum co-design, smart technologies and rewarding inclusive ideas. The findings reveal human resource-related barriers such as resistance to change, lack of digital skills, employment threats, socio-economic inequalities, lack of collaboration in the industry 4.0, lack of leadership and organisational culture problems [79].QualitativeNot stated
Closed-loop supply chain design for the transition towards a circular economy: A systematic literature review of methods, applications and current gaps (MahmoumGonbadi A.; Genovese A.; Sgalambro A., Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021)74A review of existing academic literature assesses how current closed-loop supply chain design approaches can support the transition to CE at the supply chain level by evaluating modelling assumptions, methods and applications. It also seeks to provide guidance for future directions and to propose a research agenda to increase the relevance of closed-loop supply chain design in practice [100].QualitativeNot stated
Sustainable Natural Resource Management to Ensure Strategic Environmental Development (Koval V.; Mikhno I.; Udovychenko I.; Gordiichuk Y.; Kalina I., TEM Journal, 2021)72Analyses the long-term impact of environmental factors on public health in Ukraine, using sustainable natural resource management to ensure strategic development of environmental health. A model is developed that considers well-being gains, the relationship between pollution, environmental conditions and public health damage, focusing on the rational management of natural resources and its negative impacts on health and investment [92]. MixedNot stated
How do corporate social responsibility and green innovation transform corporate green strategy into sustainable firm performance? (Le T.T., Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022)71Explores the link between corporate green strategy and sustainable business performance of SMEs in emerging economies, focusing on the mediating role of green CSR and green innovation. It provides an integrated model of green strategy, green CSR, innovation and green innovation that offers strategic insights for long-term business development and encourages practical action to maximise ecological, social and environmental benefits, and achieve sustained competitive advantage [90].QuantitativeResource-based theory, Stakeholder theory, Legitimacy theory
Intellectual capital, blockchain-driven supply chain and sustainable production: Role of supply chain mapping (Kusi-Sarpong S.; Mubarik M.S.; Khan S.A.; Brown S.; Mubarak M.F., Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2022)69Examines intellectual capital impact on sustainable production and the role of supply chain mapping and blockchain-based supply chain management in this context. It provides empirical evidence and proposes a new framework integrating these variables based on data from the Pakistani and Bangladeshi textile industries. The study models blockchain-managed supply chains using dynamic capability theory and highlights that intellectual capital helps firms to implement blockchain-managed supply chains and develop supply chain mapping capabilities [102].QuantitativeDynamic capabilities theory, Intellectual capital-based view
Two-decade journey of green human resource management research: a bibliometric analysis (Bahuguna P.C.; Srivastava R.; Tiwari S., Benchmarking, 2023)50Conducts a literature review to identify academic research trends in green HRM, and provides an overview of these practices. It identifies prominent authors, key themes and intellectual structures. It provides insights for HRM practitioners, line managers and senior executives to make informed decisions about designing HRM architectures that enhance people’s capabilities, motivate them and create a supportive culture that enables them to demonstrate strategically aligned desired behaviours [81].QualitativeResource-based theory, Stakeholder theory

References

  1. Bhalla, A.; Lampel, J.; Henderson, S.; Watkins, D. Exploring Alternative Strategic Management Paradigms in High-Growth Ethnic and Non-Ethnic Family Firms. Small Bus. Econ. 2009, 32, 77–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bracker, J. The Historical Development of the Strategic Management Concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1980, 5, 219–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chakravarthy, B.S. Adaptation: A Promising Metaphor for Strategic Management. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1982, 7, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bowman, E.H.; Singh, H.; Thomas, H. The Domain of Strategic Management: History and Evolution. In Handbook of Strategy and Management; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nonaka, I.; Toyama, R. Strategic Management as Distributed Practical Wisdom (Phronesis). Ind. Corp. Chang. 2007, 16, 371–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cho, Y.N.; Thyroff, A.; Rapert, M.I.; Park, S.Y.; Lee, H.J. To Be or Not to Be Green: Exploring Individualism and Collectivism as Antecedents of Environmental Behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1052–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hajer, M.; Nilsson, M.; Raworth, K.; Bakker, P.; Berkhout, F.; de Boer, Y.; Rockström, J.; Ludwig, K.; Kok, M. Beyond Cockpit-Ism: Four Insights to Enhance the Transformative Potential of the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability 2015, 7, 1651–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hák, T.; Janoušková, S.; Moldan, B. Sustainable Development Goals: A Need for Relevant Indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Qureshi, M.A.; Ahsan, T.; Gull, A.A. Does Country-Level Eco-Innovation Help Reduce Corporate CO2 Emissions? Evidence from Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. United Nations. United Nations Sustainable Development (SDGs)—17 Goals to Transform Our World; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  11. Amui, L.B.L.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Kannan, D. Sustainability as a Dynamic Organizational Capability: A Systematic Review and a Future Agenda toward a Sustainable Transition. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 308–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Crane, D. Fashion in Science: Does It Exist? Soc. Probl. 1969, 16, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hagstrom, W.O. Social Influences and Scientists: The Scientific Community. In Science; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1965; pp. 177–194. [Google Scholar]
  14. Abrahamson, E. Management Fashion. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 254–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Abrahamson, E. Managerial Fads and Fashions: The Diffusion and Rejection of Innovations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1991, 16, 586–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nijholt, J.J.; Benders, J. Coevolution in Management Fashions: The Case of Self-Managing Teams in the Netherlands. Group Organ. Manag. 2007, 32, 628–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abrahamson, E.; Fairchild, G. Management Fashion: Lifecycles, Triggers, and Collective Learning Processes. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999, 44, 708–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Benders, J.; Van Veen, K. What’s in a Fashion? Interpretative Viability and Management Fashions. Organization 2001, 8, 33–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Baumgartner, R.J.; Rauter, R. Strategic Perspectives of Corporate Sustainability Management to Develop a Sustainable Organization. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lloret, A. Modeling Corporate Sustainability Strategy. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 418–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Porter, M.E. Competitive Strategy: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Creat. Sustain. Compet. Advant. 1985, 167, 167–206. [Google Scholar]
  22. Radhakrishnan, S.; Erbis, S.; Isaacs, J.A.; Kamarthi, S. Novel Keyword Co-Occurrence Network-Based Methods to Foster Systematic Reviews of Scientific Literature. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172778. [Google Scholar]
  23. Myers, K.H.; Chandler, A.D. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. Miss. Val. Hist. Rev. 1962, 49, 536–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Porter, M.E. How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. In Readings in Strategic Management; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bourgeois, L.J. Strategic Management and Determinism. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9, 586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hoskisson, R.E.; Hitt, M.A.; Wan, W.P.; Yiu, D. Theory and Research in Strategic Management: Swings of a Pendulum. J. Manag. 1999, 25, 417–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bryson, J.M. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wiersum, K.F. 200 Years of Sustainability in Forestry: Lessons from History. Environ. Manag. 1995, 19, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Meadows, D.H.; Meadows, D.L.; Randers, J.; Behrens, W.W. The Limits to Growth, Club of Rome; Universe Books: New York, NY, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  30. Merkel, C.M.; Aulake, K.; Esposito, M.; Weiß, R.; Baeke, F. Stormy Times. Nature and Humans: Cultural Courage for Change; European Union: Luxembourg, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  31. Keeble, B.R. The Brundtland Report: “Our Common Future”. Med. War 1988, 4, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Steurer, R. The Role of Governments in Corporate Social Responsibility: Characterising Public Policies on CSR in Europe. Policy Sci. 2010, 43, 49–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Assoratgoon, W.; Kantabutra, S. Toward a Sustainability Organizational Culture Model. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 400, 136666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Baumgartner, R.J.; Ebner, D. Corporate Sustainability Strategies: Sustainability Profiles and Maturity Levels. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 18, 76–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Carter, C.R.; Rogers, D.S. A Framework of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Moving toward New Theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2008, 38, 360–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gallego-Álvarez, P.I.; Ortas, P.E. Corporate Environmental Sustainability Reporting in the Context of National Cultures: A Quantile Regression Approach. Int. Bus. Rev. 2017, 26, 337–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hutchins, M.J.; Sutherland, J.W. An Exploration of Measures of Social Sustainability and Their Application to Supply Chain Decisions. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1688–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and Its Limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kramar, R. Beyond Strategic Human Resource Management: Is Sustainable Human Resource Management the next Approach? Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2014, 25, 1069–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lazar, S.; Klimecka-tatar, D.; Obrecht, M. Sustainability Orientation and Focus in Logistics and Supply Chains. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Meseguer-Sánchez, V.; Gálvez-Sánchez, F.J.; López-Martínez, G.; Molina-Moreno, V. Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability. A Bibliometric Analysis of Their Interrelations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lu, W.; Huang, S.; Yang, J.; Bu, Y.; Cheng, Q.; Huang, Y. Detecting Research Topic Trends by Author-Defined Keyword Frequency. Inf. Process Manag. 2021, 58, 102594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. de Lange, D.E.; Busch, T.; Delgado-Ceballos, J. Sustaining Sustainability in Organizations. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 110, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chow, W.S.; Chen, Y. Corporate Sustainable Development: Testing a New Scale Based on the Mainland Chinese Context. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 519–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stead, J.G.; Stead, W.E. Sustainable Strategic Management: An Evolutionary Perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Strateg. Manag. 2008, 1, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sroufe, R. Integration and Organizational Change towards Sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 315–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Engert, S.; Rauter, R.; Baumgartner, R.J. Exploring the Integration of Corporate Sustainability into Strategic Management: A Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2833–2850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Peteraf, M.A. The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-based View. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Szulanski, G. Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bonn, I.; Fisher, J. Sustainability: The Missing Ingredient in Strategy. J. Bus. Strategy 2011, 32, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hermundsdottir, F.; Aspelund, A. Sustainability Innovations and Firm Competitiveness: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dey, P.K.; Malesios, C.; De, D.; Chowdhury, S.; Abdelaziz, F. Ben The Impact of Lean Management Practices and Sustainably-Oriented Innovation on Sustainability Performance of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Empirical Evidence from the UK. Br. J. Manag. 2020, 31, 141–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Blumer, H. Fashion: From Class Differentiation to Collective Selection. Sociol. Q. 1969, 10, 275–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Esposito, E. Originality through Imitation: The Rationality of Fashion. Organ. Stud. 2011, 32, 603–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gregory, P.M. Fashion and Monopolistic Competition. J. Political Econ. 1948, 56, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Bort, S.; Kieser, A. Fashion in Organization Theory: An Empirical Analysis of the Diffusion of Theoretical Concepts. Organ. Stud. 2011, 32, 655–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Macdonald, S.; Kam, J. Quality Journals and Gamesmanship in Management Studies. Manag. Res. News 2008, 31, 595–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kieser, A. Rhetoric and Myth in Management Fashion. Organization 1997, 4, 49–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Abrahamson, E. Necessary Conditions for the Study of Fads and Fashions in Science. Scand. J. Manag. 2009, 25, 235–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Morin, E.; Kern, A.B. Homeland Earth: A Manifesto for the New Millenium; Cresskill, N.J., Ed.; Hampton Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  62. Matlovic, R.; Matlovičová, K. Polycrisis in the Anthropocene as a Key Research Agenda for Geography: Ontological Delineation and the Shift to a Postdisciplinary Approach. Folia Geogr. 2024, 66, 5–33. [Google Scholar]
  63. Hoeffler, C.; Hofmann, S.C.; Mérand, F. The Polycrisis and EU Security and Defence Competences. J. Eur. Public Policy 2024, 31, 3224–3248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dinan, S.; Béland, D.; Howlett, M. How Useful Is the Concept of Polycrisis? Lessons from the Development of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Policy Des. Pract. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Schu, K.; Preuss, H. Strategy Development in Times of Crisis—How the European National Olympic Committees Are Mastering the Corona Crisis. Sport Bus. Manag. Int. J. 2023, 13, 704–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ranjbari, M.; Shams Esfandabadi, Z.; Zanetti, M.C.; Scagnelli, S.D.; Siebers, P.O.; Aghbashlo, M.; Peng, W.; Quatraro, F.; Tabatabaei, M. Three Pillars of Sustainability in the Wake of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda for Sustainable Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Mensah, J. Sustainable Development: Meaning, History, Principles, Pillars, and Implications for Human Action: Literature Review. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2019, 5, 1653531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Baas, J.; Schotten, M.; Plume, A.; Côté, G.; Karimi, R. Scopus as a Curated, High-Quality Bibliometric Data Source for Academic Research in Quantitative Science Studies. Quant. Sci. Stud. 2020, 1, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.A.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and Weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008, 22, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kirby, A. Exploratory Bibliometrics: Using VOSviewer as a Preliminary Research Tool. Publications 2023, 11, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. J. Inf. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Batt, S.; Grealis, T.; Harmon, O.; Tomolonis, P. Learning Tableau: A Data Visualization Tool. J. Econ. Educ. 2020, 51, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. ElAlfy, A.; Palaschuk, N.; El-Bassiouny, D.; Wilson, J.; Weber, O. Scoping the Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Research in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGS) Era. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kubiszewski, I.; Mulder, K.; Jarvis, D.; Costanza, R. Toward Better Measurement of Sustainable Development and Wellbeing: A Small Number of SDG Indicators Reliably Predict Life Satisfaction. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly, Seventieth Session. 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2024).
  78. Snihur, Y.; Bocken, N. A Call for Action: The Impact of Business Model Innovation on Business Ecosystems, Society and Planet. Long Range Plan. 2022, 55, 102182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mukhuty, S.; Upadhyay, A.; Rothwell, H. Strategic Sustainable Development of Industry 4.0 through the Lens of Social Responsibility: The Role of Human Resource Practices. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 2068–2081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ching, N.T.; Ghobakhloo, M.; Iranmanesh, M.; Maroufkhani, P.; Asadi, S. Industry 4.0 Applications for Sustainable Manufacturing: A Systematic Literature Review and a Roadmap to Sustainable Development. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 334, 130133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bahuguna, P.C.; Srivastava, R.; Tiwari, S. Two-Decade Journey of Green Human Resource Management Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Benchmarking 2023, 30, 585–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kipper, L.M.; Iepsen, S.; Dal Forno, A.J.; Frozza, R.; Furstenau, L.; Agnes, J.; Cossul, D. Scientific Mapping to Identify Competencies Required by Industry 4.0. Technol. Soc. 2021, 64, 101454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Fischer, B.; Guerrero, M.; Guimón, J.; Schaeffer, P.R. Knowledge Transfer for Frugal Innovation: Where Do Entrepreneurial Universities Stand? J. Knowl. Manag. 2021, 25, 360–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Freeman, R.E.; Dmytriyev, S.D.; Phillips, R.A. Stakeholder Theory and the Resource-Based View of the Firm. J. Manag. 2021, 47, 1757–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Dhanda, K.K.; Sarkis, J.; Dhavale, D.G. Institutional and Stakeholder Effects on Carbon Mitigation Strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 782–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sciarelli, M.; Cosimato, S.; Landi, G.; Iandolo, F. Socially Responsible Investment Strategies for the Transition towards Sustainable Development: The Importance of Integrating and Communicating ESG. TQM J. 2021, 33, 39–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Morea, D.; Fortunati, S.; Martiniello, L. Circular Economy and Corporate Social Responsibility: Towards an Integrated Strategic Approach in the Multinational Cosmetics Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yuan, B.; Cao, X. Do Corporate Social Responsibility Practices Contribute to Green Innovation? The Mediating Role of Green Dynamic Capability. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Khanra, S.; Kaur, P.; Joseph, R.P.; Malik, A.; Dhir, A. A Resource-Based View of Green Innovation as a Strategic Firm Resource: Present Status and Future Directions. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 1395–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Le, T.T. How Do Corporate Social Responsibility and Green Innovation Transform Corporate Green Strategy into Sustainable Firm Performance? J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 362, 132228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Haque, A. The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Role of Responsible Leadership in Health Care: Thinking beyond Employee Well-Being and Organisational Sustainability. Leadersh. Health Serv. 2021, 34, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Koval, V.; Mikhno, I.; Udovychenko, I.; Gordiichuk, Y.; Kalina, I. Sustainable Natural Resource Management to Ensure Strategic Environmental Development. TEM J. 2021, 10, 1022–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kim, J.; Kim, J.; Wang, Y. Uncertainty Risks and Strategic Reaction of Restaurant Firms amid COVID-19: Evidence from China. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 92, 102752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Ivars-Baidal, J.A.; Celdrán-Bernabeu, M.A.; Femenia-Serra, F.; Perles-Ribes, J.F.; Giner-Sánchez, D. Measuring the Progress of Smart Destinations: The Use of Indicators as a Management Tool. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 19, 100531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kumar, A.; Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, P.; Song, M. Mitigate Risks in Perishable Food Supply Chains: Learning from COVID-19. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 166, 120643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. 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]
  97. Agrawal, R.; Wankhede, V.A.; Kumar, A.; Luthra, S. Analysing the Roadblocks of Circular Economy Adoption in the Automobile Sector: Reducing Waste and Environmental Perspectives. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 1051–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Dey, P.K.; Malesios, C.; Chowdhury, S.; Saha, K.; Budhwar, P.; De, D. Adoption of Circular Economy Practices in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: Evidence from Europe. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2022, 248, 108496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E.; Passaro, R. Shashi Determinants of the Transition towards Circular Economy in SMEs: A Sustainable Supply Chain Management Perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 242, 108297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. MahmoumGonbadi, A.; Genovese, A.; Sgalambro, A. Closed-Loop Supply Chain Design for the Transition towards a Circular Economy: A Systematic Literature Review of Methods, Applications and Current Gaps. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 323, 129101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Calabrese, A.; Costa, R.; Ghiron, N.L.; Tiburzi, L.; Pedersen, E.R.G. How Sustainable-Orientated Service Innovation Strategies Are Contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 169, 120816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kusi-Sarpong, S.; Mubarik, M.S.; Khan, S.A.; Brown, S.; Mubarak, M.F. Intellectual Capital, Blockchain-Driven Supply Chain and Sustainable Production: Role of Supply Chain Mapping. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 175, 121331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Makadok, R.; Burton, R.; Barney, J. A Practical Guide for Making Theory Contributions in Strategic Management. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 1530–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ethiraj, S.K.; Gambardella, A.; Helfat, C.E. Theory in Strategic Management. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. An Approach for Detecting, Quantifying, and Visualizing the Evolution of a Research Field: A Practical Application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory Field. J. Inf. 2011, 5, 146–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. López-Herrera, A.G.; Cobo, M.J.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F.; Bailón-Moreno, R.; Jiménez-Contreras, E. Visualization and Evolution of the Scientific Structure of Fuzzy Sets Research in Spain. Inf. Res. 2009, 14, 421. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 07434 g001
Figure 1. Research process flow chart. Source: SCOPUS, prepared by authors.
Figure 1. Research process flow chart. Source: SCOPUS, prepared by authors.
Sustainability 16 07434 g001
Sustainability 16 07434 g002
Figure 2. Comparison of annual scientific production based on Query 1 and 2. Source: SCOPUS article keywords, prepared by the authors using Bibliometrix and Microsoft Excel.
Figure 2. Comparison of annual scientific production based on Query 1 and 2. Source: SCOPUS article keywords, prepared by the authors using Bibliometrix and Microsoft Excel.
Sustainability 16 07434 g002
Sustainability 16 07434 g003
Figure 3. Strategic management keyword co-occurrence network map based on Query 1. Source: SCOPUS article keywords, prepared by authors using VOSviewer.
Figure 3. Strategic management keyword co-occurrence network map based on Query 1. Source: SCOPUS article keywords, prepared by authors using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 16 07434 g003
Sustainability 16 07434 g004
Figure 4. Geographical map of co-authorship based on Query 2. Source: SCOPUS article keywords, prepared by authors using VOSviewer, Tableau and OpenStreetMap.
Figure 4. Geographical map of co-authorship based on Query 2. Source: SCOPUS article keywords, prepared by authors using VOSviewer, Tableau and OpenStreetMap.
Sustainability 16 07434 g004
Sustainability 16 07434 g005
Figure 5. Co-occurrence network map of strategic management and sustainability keywords based on Query 2. Source: SCOPUS article keywords, prepared by authors using VOSviewer.
Figure 5. Co-occurrence network map of strategic management and sustainability keywords based on Query 2. Source: SCOPUS article keywords, prepared by authors using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 16 07434 g005
Sustainability 16 07434 g006
Figure 6. Thematic map based on Query 2. Source: SCOPUS article keywords, prepared by authors using Bibliometrix.
Figure 6. Thematic map based on Query 2. Source: SCOPUS article keywords, prepared by authors using Bibliometrix.
Sustainability 16 07434 g006
Table 1. Queries used in the Scopus database exploration and their preliminary results.
Table 1. Queries used in the Scopus database exploration and their preliminary results.
NameQuery CodeResults
Query 1(TITLE-ABS-KEY (strategic management) AND PUBYEAR > 2020 AND PUBYEAR < 2024 AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)))5261 1
Query 2((TITLE-ABS-KEY (strategic AND management) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainability) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (sustainable AND development)) AND PUBYEAR > 2020 AND (PUBYEAR < 2024) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “BUSI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))840 2
1 5209 after checking for missing data in Bibliometrix. 2 832 after checking for missing data in Bibliometrix.
Table 2. Key statistics on queries used in the Scopus database exploration.
Table 2. Key statistics on queries used in the Scopus database exploration.
DescriptionQuery 1Query 2Query 2/Query 1
Timespan2021:2023
Number of journals100936135.8%
Number of articles520983216.0%
Annual article growth rate14.3%24.7%
Document average age1.91.9
Average citations per document8.29.9
Number of keywords (keywords plus and author’s keywords)22,492488921.7%
Number of authors13,174244918.6%
Number of authors of single-authored documents5658715.4%
Number of authors of multi-authored documents12,609236218.7%
Single-authored documents6109014.8%
Co-authors per document3.13.2
International co-authorships32.8%33.7%
Annual research funding frequency growth rate 117.5%21.4%
Number of countries involved (co-authorship)1938845.6%
1 Based on funding information from the Scopus database using Query 1 and Query 2.
Table 3. Clusters of strategic management keyword network map based on Query 1.
Table 3. Clusters of strategic management keyword network map based on Query 1.
NoCluster ColourKeywords (Link Strength, Co-Occurrences)Link StrengthCo-Occurrences
1RedHuman resource management (159; 160); innovation (244; 230); knowledge management (140; 151); leadership (119; 107); management (111; 133); performance (107; 116); project management (147; 143); strategic management (360; 461); strategic planning (234; 192); strategy (176; 212)17971905
2GreenDecision-making (379; 281); pandemic (160; 211); risk management (116; 112); strategic approach (381; 292); supply chain management (316; 279); supply chains (180; 114)15321289
3BlueCommerce (210; 120); competition (249; 139); competitive advantage (128; 101); digital transformation (76; 101)663461
4YellowCSR (115; 129); sustainability (291; 220); sustainable development (342; 229)748578
Table 4. Clusters of strategic management and sustainability keyword network map based on Query 2.
Table 4. Clusters of strategic management and sustainability keyword network map based on Query 2.
ClusterKeywords (Link Strength, Co-Occurrences)Total Strength,
Co-Occurrences		Main Findings 1
1—Red
  • Sustainability (420; 220)
  • Innovation (111; 45)
  • Strategic management (99; 65)
  • Strategy (57; 41)
  • Human resource management (41; 16)
  • Leadership (41; 21)
  • Entrepreneurship (40; 27)
  • Performance (37; 18)
  • Knowledge management (37; 19)
  • Management (35; 23)
  • Industry 4.0 (34; 21)
  • Project management (30; 17)
  • Climate change (28; 21)
1010;
554		Research in this cluster highlights the following areas of sustainability-related innovation: business model innovation, sustainable business model innovation, ecosystem innovation and sustainable ecosystem innovation [78], all of which play an important role in contributing to the sustainability discourse in SM research. Technologies related to industry 4.0 facilitate sustainable manufacturing by improving efficiency, productivity and customer experience, while socially responsible HRM supports sustainable industry 4.0 through multi-stakeholder collaboration, talent management, change management, knowledge sharing and upskilling initiatives [79,80]. However, academic research on green HRM remains limited, indicating a need for further research into the skills required by HRM practitioners [81]. The adoption of industry 4.0 technologies highlights the importance of individual skills in connectivity, collaboration and human–machine interfaces, which are important for learning and competitiveness [82]. In addition, business universities play an important role in fostering frugal innovation in emerging economies through effective university–business collaboration [83]. From a theoretical perspective, stakeholder theory and resource-based theory are essential for advancing sustainability, despite differing views on the concept of sustainability [84]. Thus, the authors suggest that sustainability is a strategic driver of innovation, reinforcing its importance for long-term business success and environmental stewardship.
2—Green
  • Sustainable development (544; 229)
  • Environmental management (110; 37)
  • CSR (109; 51)
  • Strategic planning (102; 40)
  • Commerce (59; 18)
  • Economic and social effects (59; 15)
  • Competition (52; 20)
  • Environmental sustainability (48; 20)
  • Investments (42; 15)
  • Corporate sustainability (41; 20)
1166;
465		Studies in this cluster explore the impact of institutional and stakeholder pressures that significantly influence carbon reduction strategies, highlighting the role of regulatory frameworks in improving corporate environmental performance and the importance of transparent communication on ESG (environmental, social and governance) issues to maintain investor confidence and facilitate sustainability transitions [85,86]. Moreover, multinational companies are integrating CSR into CE strategies to address environmental issues and the SDGs, thereby expanding the traditional scope of CSR [87]. In addition, green dynamic capabilities act as mediators between CSR and green innovation, enabling green product and process innovation, creating competitive advantages and promoting sustainable growth by balancing resource consumption and preserving the future [88,89]. To achieve sustainable business outcomes, it is necessary to integrate green strategies with CSR and green innovation [90], ensuring that sustainability is an integral part of strategic planning. The inclusion of corporate sustainability in this cluster thus reflects the growing recognition of SD not only at the national level but also at the corporate level.
3—Blue
  • Strategic approach (195; 63)
  • Environmental economics (112; 27)
  • Business development (65; 19)
  • Stakeholder (62; 19)
  • Business strategy (56; 20)
  • Pandemic (55; 33)
  • Tourism management (24; 17)
569;
198		Recent research in this cluster highlights the need for healthcare organisations to embrace responsible leadership, which is important for ensuring employee wellbeing and organisational sustainability [91]. In addition, performance characteristics and brand impact are essential for maintaining revenue streams during crises, while social value transformation, individual accountability and environmental education are important for sustainable natural resource management [92,93]. Furthermore, variations in sustainability dimensions, marketing strategies, connectivity and governance across smart destination research highlight the need for strong regulatory frameworks and robust business strategies [94]. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, collaborative management, proactive business continuity planning and financial sustainability were key to improving socio-economic and environmental outcomes in perishable food supply chains [95]. In addition, integrating sustainability and resilience into supply chains significantly improves value creation and sustainability performance [96]. These findings demonstrate the relationship between environmental economics and areas such as crisis management, resilience and strategic business development, and highlight the need for a comprehensive approach to achieve long-term sustainability.
4—Yellow
  • Decision-making (176; 55)
  • Supply chain management (145; 58)
  • Circular economy (108; 37)
  • SDG (75; 34)
  • Waste management (65; 21)
  • Planning (59; 18)
  • Supply chains (51; 16)
679;
239		Findings from this cluster show that CE principles are essential for achieving sustainability in organisations, especially in developing countries, by minimising waste and improving environmental conditions [97]. Furthermore, in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the adoption of CE practices can lead to improved environmental performance, although economic and social outcomes vary across regions [98]. Social pressure, economic incentives for sustainability and commitments to environmental stewardship significantly influence supply chain relationship management and the design of sustainable supply chains, thereby enhancing CE capabilities in SMEs [99]. Notably, the existing literature on closed supply chain design often fails to incorporate CE principles, relying instead on reductionist sustainability measures that neglect social impacts [100]. Furthermore, the SDGs act as a strategic guide, helping companies to align their business strategies with SD [101], thus facilitating informed decision-making and effective planning. Supply chain management research further reveals the vital role of intellectual capital in sustainable production [102], highlighting the integration of the SDGs, CE and supply chain management as essential to achieving SD. From the authors’ perspective, the integration of these elements allows companies to strengthen their sustainability efforts and achieve more comprehensive and impactful results.
1 Based on the content analysis of the selected articles in Appendix A.
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

Sedovs, E.; Volkova, T. Sustainability: Is It a Strategic Management Research Fashion? Sustainability 2024, 16, 7434. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177434

AMA Style

Sedovs E, Volkova T. Sustainability: Is It a Strategic Management Research Fashion? Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7434. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177434

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sedovs, Edgars, and Tatjana Volkova. 2024. "Sustainability: Is It a Strategic Management Research Fashion?" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7434. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177434

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