literature review sustainability

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Ualison rébula de oliveira.

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

Rodolfo Pombo Menezes

Vicente aprigliano fernandes.

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

Associated Data

Not applicable for this research.

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of corporate sustainability

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

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

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

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

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

Corporate sustainability approach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Main findings in literature review papers on corporate sustainability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Materials and methods

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

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

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

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

Structured research protocol for the SLR

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

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

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

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

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

Summarized methodological scheme for performing the SLR

Results of the systematic literature review

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

Historical evolution of corporate sustainability over the years

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

Historical evolution of the quantity of materials published on CS

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

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

Year-over-year objectives of the studies analyzed

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

Main objectives and themes related to the researched materials

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

Main journals with content on Corporate Sustainability environment-focused

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

Methodological features on corporate sustainability

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

Context of the analyzed studies

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

Areas of application of the analyzed studies

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

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

Map of the SLR (2011–2020)

Citation networks and research clusters on corporate sustainability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contributions of corporate sustainability to organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contributions of CS to organizations

Barriers to the adoption of corporate sustainability by organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barriers faced for the adoption of corporate sustainability

Guidelines for the adoption of corporate sustainability by organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Innovations on corporate sustainability

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

Innovative approaches to CS

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

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

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

Agenda and future research directions

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

Recommendations for future research that remain open

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

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

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

Highlighted future research recommendations

Recommendations of relevant future research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author contributions

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

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

Data availability

Code availability, declarations.

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

Publisher's Note

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

Contributor Information

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

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

Vicente Aprigliano Fernandes, Email: [email protected] .

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

Green Chemistry

Safe and sustainable chemicals and materials: a review of sustainability assessment frameworks †.

* Corresponding authors

a European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, Ispra, Italy E-mail: [email protected]

In the context of the EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability, a key action regards the development of a framework to identify criteria for safe and sustainable by design chemicals and materials. The integration of safety and sustainability considerations is challenging, and this systematic review investigates how aspects pertaining to sustainability have been implemented in 155 frameworks proposed by scholars, industry, governments and non-governmental organizations. In particular, this review scrutinizes methods, models and indicators for environmental, social and economic aspects in frameworks combining multiple sustainability dimensions. Furthermore, the application of such frameworks to an early stage of chemicals and materials development was also analysed. The review unveiled that the majority of the frameworks are purely conceptual/theoretical, while some attempts are made by others towards providing methods and indicators for the assessment as well as operational procedure of decision support. Life cycle considerations are often remarked as necessary for evaluating the environmental sustainability of chemicals, climate change being the environmental impact mentioned by the majority of frameworks. Social sustainability aspects with quantitative indicators have been proposed only in a few studies so far. Another aspect often disregarded is data uncertainty. Although the reviewed frameworks showed several similarities in structure and aspects covered, indicators often differ significantly. Hence, using one framework instead of another might lead to a different outcome.

• This article is part of the themed collections: Green Chemistry 25th Anniversary Collection and 2023 Green Chemistry Reviews

Supplementary files

• Supplementary information XLSX (430K)

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

Safe and sustainable chemicals and materials: a review of sustainability assessment frameworks

C. Caldeira, E. Abbate, C. Moretti, L. Mancini and S. Sala, Green Chem. , 2024, Advance Article , DOI: 10.1039/D3GC04598F

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications, without requesting further permission from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given and it is not used for commercial purposes.

To request permission to reproduce material from this article in a commercial publication , please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party commercial publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements

Advertisement

A systematic literature review concerning the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management

• Open access
• Published: 31 July 2021
• Volume 73 , pages 31–60, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Kevin Friedrich   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8349-4223 1  

9836 Accesses

12 Citations

Explore all metrics

The concept of sustainable development is widely accepted as one of the most important topics of our time. Although significant research has already been conducted within the field of integrating sustainability into project management, different interpretations of the role of sustainability appear. This is a major issue for the scientific community, as due to these varying interpretations it is difficult to put publications into context; accordingly, it might lead to communication issues within the community. With this research study we want to help solve this issue. We conduct a systematic literature review and identify 293 relevant publications. Using a synthesis approach based on grounded theory, we define three different categories of interpretations of the role of sustainability in the current state of research. The literature is then assigned back to these interpretations. Following this approach we are not only able to review the development of each interpretation over time, but also to identify that many publications contain multiple interpretations. Based on our findings, we give recommendations for the reflection of the existing literature, the writing of new publications and communication in the research field. We also redefine the concept of ‘sustainable project management’ based on a major theoretical characteristic we synthesise during our grounded theory approach to give guidance to future researchers.

Similar content being viewed by others

How researchers frame scientific contributions to sustainable development: a typology based on grounded theory, methodological characteristics of sustainability science: a systematic review.

Management of Sustainable Infrastructure Projects: A Scientometric Analysis

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The concept of sustainable development is widely accepted as one of the most crucial topics of our time and increasingly important in corporations worldwide (United Nations 2016 ). Multiple companies have integrated sustainability into their organisation but bringing those sustainability aspects into the daily operational business is a significant challenge within praxis and theory. The current state of research offers several different approaches to combat this. One approach is to include sustainability into project management: the field of project management itself is increasingly located in the centre of everyday business in most organisations (Haniff and Salama 2016 ; Kerzner 2013 ). It is argued that up to 1/3 of global GDP is realised through projects (Turner et al. 2010 ).

Though sustainability and project management are in the centre of public interest to a greater degree, there are some major differences between the theoretical background of both, as we wish to demonstrate.

When evaluating the sustainability literature, it is obvious that multiple definitions of sustainability and sustainable development exist (Labuschagne and Brent 2005 ). However, the most commonly applied definition of what is ‘sustainable’ with regard to development originated in the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland report (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987 , para. 1): “to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This anthropocentric definition already sets a theoretical frame for sustainability and implies a holistic view in time, including short term (preserve today) and long term (to save for future generations) considerations. But within the report one can also discover that sustainable development has a spatial character by considering impacts of an action taken from a local and global view. In his book ‘Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business’, John Elkington describes the aspects of sustainable development with the concept of a triple bottom line; sustainability is about balancing economic, social and environmental goals. These pillars are also known as ‘Triple-P (People, Planet, Profit)’ (Elkington 1997 ). Thus, sustainability can be seen as a holistic, multidimensional concept considering economic, social and environmental aspects with no restrictions in either time or space.

When evaluating the project management literature, a project can be defined as “a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service, or result” (Project Management Institute 2013 , p. 3). This definition identifies projects as restricted in time and scope. In 1969, Dr. Martin Barnes first defined the theoretical concept of the iron triangle regarding the efficiency in projects in his course entitled ‘Time and Money in Contract Control’ (Barnes 2007 ). In the later widely accepted version, it describes projects as restricted in time, cost and quality. Moreover, most project management approaches have a one-dimensional focus for monetary goals by maximising the outcome and minimising the required input. Thus projects can conventionally be seen as an endeavour with focused (quality) goals and scope that are limited in time and cost (Haniff and Salama 2016 ).

In summary, on the one hand there is the in time and space holistic, multidimensional concept of sustainability and, on the other hand, the one-dimensional focus and restricted frame in time, cost, scope and quality of the conventional project management concept. This seems to be in contrast when trying to define the relationship and integration possibilities of sustainability in project management (Silvius et al. 2012a ). Long term issues that might even be only detected by future generations should already be considered in a temporary endeavour like a project. Furthermore, both the multidimensional sustainability and project goals that define the original scope might be contradictory.

Because of the growing importance of project management and sustainability, as argued above, these contrasts between the concepts have a high relevance for the scientific community. Silvius even describes sustainability as a new school of thought in project management (Silvius 2017 ).

Although many contributions already exist in the research field of integrating sustainability into project management (Aarseth et al. 2017 ; Goel et al. 2019 ; Silvius and Schipper 2014 ), there exists a gap in research as the role of sustainability in project management is interpreted as conceptually different within the research field, as we will present in detail in the next section. For example, on the one hand, some researchers include an interpretation of the role of sustainability as an additional cost (Hand et al. 2015 ; Otegi-Olaso et al. 2015 ). On the other hand, other researchers show an interpretation of the role of sustainability as an economic benefit (Fiksel et al. 1999 ), a chance for financial success (Robichaud and Anantatmula 2008 ) or an investment (Robichaud and Anantatmula 2008 ) that could help to decrease operational costs (Bachour and Chasteen 2010 ; Eid 2002 ). To the best of our knowledge, this gap in the interpretation of the role of sustainability in project management was never a central part of an existing research study. Still, we see it as a major challenge in the research field, because due to these different interpretations it is difficult to put scientific publications into context and, accordingly, it might lead to communication issues within the scientific community.

We want to close this gap by defining categories of the different interpretations of the role of sustainability and, furthermore, by defining sustainable project management based on a main theoretical characteristic to give assistance in the research field.

Therefore, the research question this paper wants to answer is: How can the existing literature for integrating sustainability into project management be conceptually structured regarding the interpretation of the role of sustainability? The first aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) (Brereton et al. 2007 ; Hart 1998 ; Moher et al. 2009 ; Okoli 2015a ; Rousseau et al. 2008 ; Xiao and Watson 2017 ) for the development of conceptual categories that reflect the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in the research field. As a second aim, we want to systematise our results and reflect whether there is a structural order to these conceptual categories and review the definitions of sustainable project management to give guidance to future researchers. In addition, we will identify as of yet undiscussed topics and knowledge gaps for the field of research which should be tackled.

In the upcoming chapters, we will give a short introduction to the current state of research and the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management we could identify in the first instance. We will then describe why we have chosen the method of an SLR, how we conducted it and how we intended to structure our results. Afterwards, the selected literature used for the analysis will be presented and described. Later on, the synthesis will be described and results will be shown. Based on these results, in a final step the research question will be discussed, conclusions will be drawn and we will close our study with an agenda for future research and the identified limitations.

2 State of research

When reviewing the literature, it is obvious that various definitions of sustainable project management already exist. Tam ( 2010 , p. 176) defines sustainable project management as “the promoting of positive and minimizing of negative sustainability impacts (economic; environmental; and social) within the process by which projects are defined, planned, monitored, controlled and delivered such that the agreed benefits are realized and contributing to a sustainable society.” Meanwhile, Silvius and Schipper ( 2014 , p. 79) define sustainable project management as “the planning, monitoring and controlling of project delivery and support processes, with consideration of the environmental, economic and social aspects of the life-cycle of the project’s resources, processes, deliverables and effects, aimed at realising benefits for stakeholders, and performed in a transparent, fair and ethical way that includes proactive stakeholder participation.” Armenia et al. ( 2019 , p. 12), on the other hand define it as “the managerial practice aiming at pursuing project objectives by maximizing economic, social, and environmental benefits through the proactive involvement of stakeholders, the consideration of the extended life cycle of resources, processes, and effects, and continuous organizational learning.”

These definitions present a first frame for the research field of integrating sustainability into project management. In their publications, the authors of these definitions, as well as the entire research field (as we will see later), refer either directly or indirectly to the definition of sustainability from the Brundtland report, which we presented in our introduction.

But although all scientific contributions about integrating sustainability into project management act within the same field of research and base their research mostly on the same definition of sustainability, we see after a first evaluation of the literature that there exist different or even opposing interpretations of the role of sustainability as follows.

Some publications view sustainability issues “as a constraint or a low priority” (Verrier et al. 2014 , p. 88) and research on how sustainability aspects as constraints remain in relation to the conventional constraints in project management manifested in the iron triangle (Atkinson 1999 ; de Silva 2015 ; Ebbesen and Hope 2013 ; Eid 2004 ; Grevelman and Kluiwstra 2010 ; Mishra et al. 2011 ; Otegi-Olaso et al. 2015 ; Tharp 2012 ; Zdanytė and Neverauskas 2012 ). Other publications interpret sustainability “as an opportunity for improvement throughout the project” (Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López 2010 , p. 1193) and see sustainability more as a genuine goal (Marnewick 2017 ) that should be part of the business case (Silvius and Schipper 2012 ).

Many authors contributed with multiple approaches of considering sustainability in the project risk management describing how sustainability related risks in the project delivery process or the project deliverable can be managed or mitigated by specific actions (Chawla et al. 2018 ; Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López 2010 ; Goedknegt 2013a ; Tharp 2012 ). Despite this view, other authors argue that sustainability is less a risk than an opportunity (Bachour and Chasteen 2010 ; Crawford 2013 ) that makes an organisation more competitive (Obradović et al. 2018 ) and can increase its market value (Ghosh et al. 2014 ).

On the one hand, several publications have interpreted sustainability as a challenge where “a lot of effort […] has to be involved in implementation” (Toljaga-Nikolić et al. 2016 , p. 1092); on the other hand, some publications state that “some principles of sustainability are implicitly considered in project management” (Gareis et al. 2011 , p. 63). Certain researchers have even interpreted sustainability as a mind or paradigm shift, as a completely new approach for project management (Eskerod and Huemann 2013 ; Labuschagne and Brent 2008 ; Økland 2015 ; Silvius and Schipper 2014 ), focusing on the environmental aspect defining a ‘Green Project Management’ (Dai and Xu 2011 ; Maltzman and Shirley 2010 ) or establishing a new standard for sustainable project management (Carboni et al. 2013 ; Green Project Management® 2019 ).

While some see sustainability as something that creates tensions and contradictions (Gluch and Räisänen 2012 ), others say sustainability aspects “lead to synergies with other business interests.” (Byggeth and Hochschorner, 2006 , p. 1421) Several researchers see a pressure to incorporate sustainability (Misopoulos et al. 2018 ; Taylor 2010 ), which might arise from legislation (Senner 2011 ), policies (Martens et al. 2016 ) or to avoid bad credibility or reputation (Schieg 2009 ). Other researchers encourage projects and project managers to address sustainable aspects (Goedknegt and Silvius 2012 ; Xu and Hua 2011 ). Table  1 summarizes these different interpretations.

Within the context of our research question, we intend to clarify which of the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management exist in the research field, how they can be categorised, what their relationship is and reflect the existing definitions of sustainable project management. Therefore, we decided to conduct an SLR. This method is particularly suited to capturing the relevant literature in a research field, deducing a conceptual order from it and measuring a distribution within this order, as is our goal.

Previous (systematic) literature reviews have already addressed relevant aspects of sustainability, just like for crowdfunding (Böckel et al. 2020 ), governance (Heidingsfelder and Beckmann 2020 ) and customer relationship management (Müller 2014 ). These literature reviews have shown that by including sustainability the complexity of the respective topic increases. This applies also to project management as previous literature reviews on sustainable project management have shown. These reviews though have a different focus than our approach. Most literature reviews focus on the relationship between sustainability and project management. For example, Ali et al. ( 2016 ) analyse the body of knowledge for the linkage between the concepts of design for sustainability and project management and so develop potentials and needs arising from this relationship. Aarseth et al. ( 2017 ) identify that two perspectives exist in the literature, the perspective of the delivering project organisation and the perspective of the host organisation. The SLR then defines eight sustainability strategies adopted by project organisations and hosts (or both). Other SLRs focus on the creation of a conceptual framework, so for example to manage sustainable projects based on the four dimensions—namely processes, products, organisations and managers (Marcelino-Sádaba et al. 2015 )—or to integrate sustainability performance into business (Morioka and Carvalho 2016 ). Armenia et al. ( 2019 ) develop a conceptual framework linking five dimensions of sustainable project management that are, as per their analysis, the principal research domains for the integration of sustainability into project management, to be specific corporate policies and practices, resource management, life cycle orientation, stakeholders’ engagement and organisational learning. Some SLRs have a particularly generic approach and summarise constructs, variables or aspects of sustainability in project management (Martens and Carvalho 2014 ) or define critical parameters from sustainable project management, computational procedures, evolutionary algorithms and the inclusion of feedback functions for sustainability in project management (Chawla et al. 2018 ). Additionally, the impact of sustainability on project management is part of the research of some SLRs. For example, Silvius and Schipper ( 2014 ) identify from the literature areas of impact of sustainability on project management in general; Khalifeh et al. ( 2019 ) analyse the impact of project sustainability management on project success. Goel et al. ( 2019 ) possessed an industry focus conducting a morphological analysis categorising the literature of sustainability integration in the management of construction projects under the 7 dimensions of motivations, stakeholder orientation, organisational context, temporal orientation, benefits, barriers, risks and 31 variants thereof.

All these (systematic) literature reviews have the common feature of focusing on the relationship between the concepts of sustainability and project management and on integration possibilities. However, as we have seen, the interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management already differ in the existing literature, which creates a gap in the research field. We therefore wish to step in on another meta level with our SLR to close this gap. The need for this analysis was already identified by Chofreh et al. ( 2019 , p. 6) who analyse in their review the importance of sustainable project management for organisations and focus specifically on the development of potential research themes and the gaps therein: “In the terminology research topic, a study that analyses the terms used in SPM [sustainable project management; author’s note], their relationships, and categorisation would be valuable for academics and practices to clarify the ambiguity of terms.”

It is our goal to systematise our results and reflect whether there exists a structural order of the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management. During our research process, the development of a stage model of the different interpretations proved to be the most reasonable approach, as we will discuss later. Within the research field, different stage models already exist.

The stage model of Silvius und Schipper ( 2010 ) reflects on how comprehensively the three dimensions of sustainability are included at the project level of resources, business processes, business model and products/services sustainability. In a later developed model, the authors switch their focus from the project level/area of inclusion to the activity level of inclusion, defining stages from reactive to proactive, namely pre-compliance, compliance, beyond compliance, integrated strategy and purpose & passion (Silvius and Schipper 2018 ). The stage model of Kohl ( 2016 ) reflects to which extent in intensity sustainability is integrated in an (project) organisation from exposure to integration and transformation, while Siew et al. ( 2016 ) measure project sustainability maturity levels by a fuzzy-based approach. All these stage and maturity models have a more practical focus on the integration of sustainability than on the conceptual structure of the scientific literature, which is why our stage model is still needed.

In the following section, we will describe our research method in detail to synthesise the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management, create a stage model out of these and re-define sustainable project management.

As we want to find all publications relevant to our research question, an SLR is the appropriate method. We followed the general recommendations of Fisch and Block ( 2018 ) for systematic literature reviews to structure our approach. An SLR must be designed to identify every research study that has been published addressing a specific research question during a specific period (Nightingale 2009 ; Schweizer and Nair 2017 ). As (systematic) literature reviews are concept-centric (Webster and Watson 2002 ), they are suitable to identify existing concepts. Furthermore, an SLR has a goal not only to identify but also to synthesise relevant literature on a topic (Torraco 2016 ), just like we want to bring the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in the research field in relation.

As recommended by different researchers, we executed a scoping study to set a frame for our approach (Okoli 2015a ), to delimit the timeline, size, subject area and topic of the research field (Tranfield et al. 2003 ) and especially to finalise our research question (Denyer and Tranfield 2009 ).

In order to find appropriate keywords, we broke down the research question to its key components, ‘sustainability’ and ‘project management’. We then listed the keywords found in existing (systematic) literature reviews in the research field, during the scoping study (Levy and Ellis 2006 ) enhanced by the main keywords for the research field as identified by de Toledo et al. ( 2019 ). In addition, a brainstorming session and synonym search was conducted to discover even more appropriate keywords and phrases fitting to the research question (Tranfield et al. 2003 ). We selected multiple search terms: ‘Sustainability’, ‘Sustainable’, ‘Sustainable development’, ‘CSR’, ‘Corporate social responsibility’, ‘Ecological’, ‘Green’, ‘Three pillars’, ‘Project management’, ‘Project’, ‘Projects’, ‘Green project management’, ‘Agile’, ‘Project life cycle’ and ‘Scrum’. The search strings were adjusted by database regarding the database specific restrictions. We pooled our search queries for better efficiency and used the meta search platform HeBIS (Hessisches Bibliotheksinformationssystem), in particular, which includes e.g. EBSCO-Host, Web of Science and Science Direct (-2018), among others. Footnote 1 This was expanded by search iterations on Scopus, Proquest, Google Scholar, the Google search engine and the PMI Library due to our experience in the scoping study.

It is generally recommended to conduct a forward and backward search for a (systematic) literature review (Levy and Ellis 2006 ; Webster and Watson 2002 ). We have chosen authors from the SLRs for the backward reference search enhanced with researchers mentioned as “key-contributors of the sustainability school (in project management)” (Silvius 2017 , p. 1488). The forward author search was conducted within both Google Scholar and Web of Science. To ensure quality was high and to not miss any appropriate publications, the main contributors in the research field were contacted.

To set an appropriate scope for the SLR and identify the literature relevant to the research question, we decided to establish a practical screen with inclusion/exclusion criteria (Okoli 2015b ). To ensure international comparability, we adjusted the search criteria of the databases so only literature published in English was searched. The search included all years until 2019. For the quality appraisal (Okoli 2015a ), we decided to review the type of literature and included all potential literature (so peer-reviewed studies and articles, books and book chapters, but also scientific grey literature, not peer-reviewed studies and articles, conference papers and reviews, project management methodologies and frameworks like PMBOK/Prince2/ICB and editorials) with scientific relevance to the research question. We decided to do so since project management is a highly practical research topic compared to others and thus not to miss relevant literature. Non-scientific publications were excluded. To avoid doublings through a publication bias, we removed publications based on the same study and when in doubt contacted the author (Easterbrook et al. 1991 ; Song et al. 2000 as with Petticrew and Roberts 2006 ). In order to ensure only relevant papers were used for our full text analysis (Petticrew and Roberts 2006 ), we decided, similarly to Silvius and Schipper ( 2014 , p. 65), to exclude publications “that did not discuss sustainability in the context of project management”. In particular publications with only project/industry/country specific content that could not be generalised were excluded. For the full text analysis, the studies were weighted via an A-B-C listing (Sutton et al. 1998 as with Petticrew and Roberts 2006 ):

A-List publications are directly related to the research question

B-List papers are relevant in the general context of the research question, but not as the main object of the research

C-List papers are out of scope (‘nice-to-read’), because they are not in the context of the research question

Primary as well as secondary studies (Cronin et al. 2008 ) were included for further examination.

It was our decision to follow the approach of Petticrew and Roberts ( 2006 , p. 100) regarding when to stop the search for further literature: “when the search has covered all the most relevant databases and bibliographies, and when further searches of databases, and scanning of bibliographies of review papers do not add to the tally of included studies.”

After the data extraction, we synthesised the found literature (Brereton et al. 2007 ), which is called the most important step for (systematic) literature reviews (Okoli 2015b ). Our goal was to synthesise the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management. Therefore, we largely followed the recommendations made by Wolfswinkel et al. ( 2013 ) for using the grounded theory approach by Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ) in SLRs. The grounded theory approach follows the steps of open coding, axial coding and selective coding.

As we coded the existing literature via inductive open coding, we want to mention that existing categories, concept definitions, success factors, characteristics, dimensions, boundary conditions, etc., were described within the literature which we extracted in the first instance as codes (Bandara et al. 2015 ; Okoli 2015b ). For the axial coding, we then identified the underlying concepts of the codes and aligned the publications to the concepts via a concept matrix (Webster and Watson 2002 ). We then defined categories for the concepts and later major categories which reflected the different interpretations of the role of sustainability.

In the next deductive step as part of our grounded theory approach, the literature was assigned to the interpretations identified during the axial coding. This way, we could verify the identified categories of the different interpretations of the role of sustainability. We then conducted a quantitative analysis of the categorised literature to review the development of each interpretation over time.

We subsequently conducted the selective coding according to our grounded theory approach. Therefore, we further condensed the synthesis by working through the identified interpretations and connected them to a main theoretical characteristic. Based on this main characteristic, we defined an order of the different interpretations in a stage model. In the last step, we created a definition of sustainable project management.

4.1 Descriptive record of search results

We searched in multiple iterations. According to our exclusion criteria, unsuitable publications were removed. The remaining publications were selected for the synthesis. Regarding our iterations, we proceeded as seen in the following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) (Moher et al. 2009 ) statement and flow diagram, which is slightly adjusted according to our research approach (removing the duplicates after screening) (Fig.  1 ).

PRISMA flow diagram [own source according to Moher et al. ( 2009 )]

From the 293 publications, we extracted the following data. Most of the identified contributions (33 publications) were (co)authored by Gilbert Silvius. Over the years, publications increased discontinuously, though we still see sustainability in project management as a growing field of research (Fig.  2 ).

Amount of publications by year (own source)

Most publications (24) were published in the ‘Journal of Cleaner Production’. Footnote 2

During the past, multiple relevant studies on sustainable project management have been conducted, most about how sustainability is considered in the different project management areas. Some studies tried to identify in detail within which project management areas sustainability can be considered (Eid 2000 ; Hwang and Ng 2013 ) and multiple studies focus on or at least mention the relationship of sustainability to specific project management areas. Examples for project management areas involved are procurement (Ojeda and Reusch 2013 ), supply chain management (Eid 2004 ), resource management (Chawla et al. 2018 ), quality management (Eid 2002 ; Rusinko 2005 ; Wang et al. 2014 ; Ho and Fan 2014 ; Molina-Azorín et al. 2009 ; Sam et al. 2009 as by Morioka and Carvalho 2016 ), cost management (Rodríguez-Olalla and Avilés-Palacios 2017 ), communication (Morfaw 2014 ; Wang et al. 2014 ), stakeholder management (Eskerod and Huemann 2013 ; Kampf and Thomsen 2008 ; Rahman et al. 2017 ; Silvius and Schipper 2014 ) and reporting (Eid 2004 ; Silvius et al. 2012b ; Tufinio et al. 2013 ).

Other studies researched on indicators (Brent and Labuschagne 2004 ; Schipper and Silvius 2017 , 2017 ; Talbot and Venkataraman 2011 ; Vatalis et al. 2012 ; Yao et al. 2011 ) or incentive models (Kivilä et al. 2017 ). There exist studies focusing on assessments (Daneshpour 2015 ; Pope et al. 2004 ), especially environmental impact assessments (Brent and Petrick 2007 ; Labuschagne and Brent 2004 ; Wilkins 2003 ) or decision making (Brent and Labuschagne 2004 ; de Brucker et al. 2013 ; de Magalhães et al. 2019 ; Khalili-Damghani and Sadi-Nezhad 2013 ). Other researchers focused on specific project management tools such as stage gates (Chawla et al. 2018 ; Eid 2004 ; Lotz et al. 2009 ) or on management tools modified to sustainable purposes such as the Sustainable Balanced Scorecard (Figge et al. 2002 ; Grevelman and Kluiwstra 2010 ; Kirchhof and Brandtweiner 2011 ; Morioka and Carvalho 2016 ).

Most recent research seems to expand to the impact of sustainable project management on (project) success (Khalifeh et al. 2019 ; He et al. 2019 ) and to the motivation to include sustainability in project management by project managers (Marnewick et al. 2019 ; Silvius and de Graaf 2019 ; Poon and Silvius 2019 ) and project owners (Zhang et al. 2019 ). Our findings are summarized in Table  2 .

4.2 Different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management

In our description of the current state of research in Sect.  2 we showed that different or even opposing interpretations of the role of sustainability in the research field exist. One of our goals was to develop conceptual categories that reflect these different interpretations. To develop these categories, we synthesised the 293 publications via grounded theory. During the open coding we identified more than 4212 codes and created 397 memos from the publication regarding their interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management. To obtain a better understanding of the different interpretations, we first analysed from which project management and sustainability aspects the literature distances in these codes.

Approximately 76% of the total publications distance themselves directly or indirectly from a project management concept in which sustainability is not explicitly considered. Many publications (Moehler et al. 2018 ; Obradović et al. 2018 ; Otegi-Olaso et al. 2015 ; Toljaga-Nikolić et al. 2016 ) refer to this approach as ‘traditional project management’, but sometimes it is also named ‘conventional (project) management’ (Wang et al. 2014 ). Methodologies and frameworks like PRINCE2, PMBOK and ICB, but also the V-Model or Scrum can be described as such. Sustainability aspects can be added and integrated to those, as will be explained, but are not part of the initial concept.

A smaller number of publications, around 5%, distance themselves from 2010 onwards from a sustainability concept, which simply raises awareness for sustainable issues without taking further action. The publications distance from those, who simply pay lip service (Crawford 2013 ) and see sustainability as ‘nice to have’ or needing extra effort (Gareis et al. 2011 ). The so-called ‘Greenwashing’ can also be located here, as it is more about documenting and monitoring than taking sustainability actions and, as Silvius ( 2015 , p. 311) mentions, “’greenwashing’ […] is not a solution”. In the following we will not focus any further on the analysis of this differentiation but recommend it for further research.

Then we tried to find similarities within the remaining codes and further condensed them during the axial coding, by finding synonyms and codes that have a similar focus on sustainability (such as the impact of sustainability on project success, sustainability as an investment, benefits to introduce sustainability, sustainability as a risk, etc.). In doing so, we were able to develop first categories. We then clustered the categories in a concept matrix and assigned the existing codes to those categories. In this way and by going back and forth in the literature, new categories emerged (such as a pressure to introduce sustainability, sustainability as a challenge, a business case for sustainability, sustainability as improvement, etc.). During this process, we discovered that some categories seem to assign a more positive connotation and value to sustainability while others allocate a more negative value. Out of this, we were able to define the first major category of ‘Sustainability as a constraint’, in which more negative than positive value is assigned to sustainability. When reviewing the literature for the positively connoted value to sustainability, we had to make a distinction. On the one hand, sustainability is seen in the literature as an instrument to reach a specific goal or gain (business) benefits by for example cost reduction or synergies, but not as a genuine goal. On the other hand, sustainability aspects are seen as an intrinsic value and all sustainability dimensions are described as equal (genuine) goals. Out of these two different views, we were able to synthesise the other two major categories of ‘Sustainability as instrumental value’ and “Sustainability as intrinsic value’.

These three major categories ‘Sustainability as a constraint’, ‘Sustainability as instrumental value’ and “Sustainability as intrinsic value’ reflect the different interpretations of the role of sustainability and will be described in the following.

4.2.1 Sustainability as a constraint

When analysing the literature, we saw ‘Sustainability as a constraint’ as a first interpretation of the role of sustainability in project management. Here sustainability is seen as something that hinders the actual project goal or as a potential risk. As such, sustainability has a negative connotation in this regard. The aspects of sustainability come from outside of the project. Thus there exists always an extrinsic motivation for the interpretation of the role of sustainability as a constraint. After reviewing the current state of research, many of the statements and interpretations mentioned in Sect.  2 seem to follow sustainability as a constraint: By seeing sustainability as a cost (Otegi-Olaso et al. 2015 ), as a challenge (Toljaga-Nikolić et al. 2016 ), even as “a major challenge, especially in large projects” (Martens and Carvalho 2016 , p. 29), as a constraint (de Magalhães et al. 2019 ; Verrier et al. 2014 ), as a risk (Chawla et al. 2018 ; Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López 2010 ; Goedknegt 2013a ; Silvius and Schipper 2014 ; Tharp 2012 ) or as something that creates “tensions and contradictions” (Gluch and Räisänen 2012 , p. 136). In this category, we also include studies that identify a pressure to incorporate sustainability (Misopoulos et al. 2018 ; Taylor 2010 ); this pressure might arise from very different sources (Martens et al. 2016 ; Schieg 2009 ; Senner 2011 ). In conventional project management, major constraints already exist as defined in the iron triangle of time, cost and scope. Multiple authors have researched the relationship between sustainability and the other constraints in the iron triangle (Atkinson 1999 ; de Silva 2015 ; Ebbesen and Hope 2013 ; Grevelman and Kluiwstra 2010 ; Mishra et al. 2011 ; Otegi-Olaso et al. 2015 ; Tharp 2012 ; Zdanytė and Neverauskas 2012 ).

4.2.2 Sustainability as instrumental value

As another interpretation, we identified ‘Sustainability as instrumental value’. In contrast to the first interpretation, sustainability is seen less as a constraint that needs to be satisfied and more as an instrument that supports the actual project goal. Many of the aforementioned statements in Sect.  2 assign an instrumental value to sustainability in their interpretations.

Sustainability is interpreted as an opportunity (Bachour and Chasteen 2010 ; Crawford 2013 ; Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López 2010 ) that leads to synergies (Byggeth and Hochschorner 2006 ) or that makes an organisational structure like a project more competitive (Obradović et al. 2018 ) and can increase its market value (Ghosh et al. 2014 ). Sustainability is seen as an investment (Robichaud and Anantatmula 2008 ) to decrease costs (Bachour and Chasteen 2010 ; Eid 2002 ), as an economic benefit (Fiksel et al. 1999 ) or a chance for financial success (Robichaud and Anantatmula 2008 ). Among these interpretations it is commonplace that the actual organisational/project goal and as such the conventional project management approach remains and sustainability is seen as a possibility through which to better achieve the goal. In other words, sustainability contributes to the project success (Adriana and Ioana-Maria 2013 ; Carvalho and Rabechini 2017 ). As such, sustainability can also be seen in general as an improvement (Silvius et al. 2017 ), as something that leads to an improved reputation (Jugend and Figueiredo 2017 ) or “that considering SD [sustainable development; author’s note] principles results in an improved quality” (Gareis 2013 , p. 129). However, sustainability can also bring about multiple other benefits such as reductions in waste generation (Verrier et al. 2014 ), energy efficiency (Lapinski et al. 2006 ), “improved compliance, competitive advantage, improved financial returns, and greater access to capital” (Kohl 2016 , p. 21) and improved budget control (Hand et al. 2015 ).

Finally, this interpretation of the role of sustainability in project management as a supporting instrument can be further elaborated and analysed in an additional business case of sustainability: How can sustainability requirements support/fit the project’s goal?

4.2.3 Sustainability as intrinsic value

We synthesised a final interpretation called ‘Sustainability as intrinsic value’ in the current state of research. Here sustainability is interpreted as a genuine goal (Marnewick 2017 ); interpretations in this category go beyond the conventional project management by focusing on multi-dimensional economic, environmental and social sustainability goals in the project. All sustainable dimensions are ascribed such a high value that they are seen not as a constraint, instrument or secondary requirement to reach, but as equal goals in the very centre of the project. It is important that those environmental, social and economic goals are balanced and harmonised (Marnewick 2017 ; Silvius et al. 2017 ). There is no hierarchy of such goals, they exist on the same level with a holistic approach.

Sustainability is seen here as a part or dimension of project success (Silvius and de Graaf 2019 ) and not as a contributing element. Researchers encourage projects and project managers to address sustainable aspects (Goedknegt and Silvius 2012 ; Helgadóttir 2008 ; Valdes-Vasquez and Klotz 2013 ; Xu and Hua 2011 ) or call it an imperative for project management (Ghosh et al. 2014 ), with an intrinsically motivated pattern (Marnewick et al. 2019 ) where "the project manager is intrinsically motivated to work on a sustainable project, and to achieve sustainable results" (Goedknegt 2013b , p. 279). It is even argued that”the intrinsic type of project owners’ motivation is more effective than the extrinsic type” (Zhang et al. 2019 , p. 651) in which “projects can contribute significantly to the mission of sustainable development” (Yao et al. 2011 ) and that projects are conducive to sustainable development (Silvius et al. 2017 ; Silvius 2017 ). As a result, the business case also changes in comparison to conventional project management (Goedknegt 2013a ; Silvius and Schipper 2012 ) as sustainability should be part of the business case (Silvius and Schipper 2012 ). It is thus a business case for sustainability (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002 ; Eid 2002 ) rather than of sustainability, which Schaltegger and Wagner ( 2006 ) already described alongside a project management focus and which contained holistic, multidimensional components where each dimension is represented on the same level in one case.

At the beginning of the following section, we assign the literature to the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management for further analysis. In the last step, we then show the results of our selective coding, on the basis of which we ordered the different interpretations to a stage model and set a new definition of sustainable project management.

5 Discussion

5.1 deductive verification in the literature.

We have assigned the 293 identified publications to the synthesised interpretations described in Sect.  4.2 . The literature was not discontinuously assigned, as one publication can contain multiple interpretations. Although 94% of the publications defining sustainability follow the same definition of sustainability (Brundtland Report), there exist different interpretations of the role of sustainability in the literature. With the help of an area diagram, the distribution of the interpretations found were shown over the course of time starting from 2007 before too few publications were found to draw conclusions (Fig.  3 ).

Interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management/publications by year (own source)

The interpretations in the research field are not equally distributed over the course of time. Although there are fluctuations, no clear trend can be derived in the relative distribution of interpretations over time, but also in relation to the number of publications over time shown in the descriptive record of search results in Sect.  4.1 . As a first result, we can therefore state that the synthesised interpretations of the role of sustainability can be found in the literature. The distribution of these interpretation seems to remain relatively constant over time.

However, as previously mentioned we assigned the discontinuous literature not disjunct, because one publication can contain multiple interpretations. Additionally, we noted one yet crucial attribute of the distribution of the interpretations.

Approximately 50% of the publications (in total 150) exclusively follow a single interpretation of the role of sustainability either as a constraint (22), instrumental value (30) or intrinsic value (98). For the other half of the publications (in total 143), we found two (95) or even all three interpretations (48) within one publication. We do not want to preclude that one publication cannot contain multiple interpretations. For example, a publication can list the benefits and disadvantages of including sustainability (Hwang and Tan 2012 ). Furthermore, some publications explicitly distance other interpretations from their point of view just as they distance themselves from sustainability as not relevant or as mere lip service. As such, they, for example, mainly follow the interpretation of the role of sustainability as instrumental value but explicitly distance it from others, “viewing it as a cost and not fully examining the potential long-term and difficult-to-measure benefits” (Rogers et al. 2013 , p. 974) or state that others “still consider environmental issues as a constraint or a low priority, instead of using them as a real opportunity for progress” (Verrier et al. 2014 , p. 88). Certain publications even describe the attitudes and perspectives on sustainability of different actors in project management (Sabini et al. 2017 ). Still, all those publications explicitly distinguish the different interpretations of the role of sustainability.

But publications where this happens implicitly, so for example highlighting the intrinsic value of sustainability in one paragraph and in the next paragraph describing it as a high constraint in project management, can lead to irritations and misunderstandings during the reading (though it does not necessarily have to have a direct impact on the research result of those publications).

Overall, it is important for the research field to reflect on the different interpretations in order to gain an understanding of the research subject and among each other’s work. Different interpretations make it difficult to compare and evaluate results. It also prevents researchers from building on the study results of others and complicates communication between researchers. It is therefore vital to pay attention when analysing a publication which interpretation is currently addressed. It is also important to determine which interpretation one wants to follow before writing a publication or to explicitly name (or distance from) other interpretations within the publication. The same applies to communications between researchers.

5.2 Selective coding and stage model

As the final step of our synthesis, we conducted selective coding with the interpretations found to define an order among them. We synthesised as a common theoretical basis the term ‘value ascribed to sustainability aspects in project management’ as the main theoretical characteristic for the interpretation of the role of sustainability in the research field. In this section, we will further describe this value characteristic in the sustainability context.

In the extant literature, various aspects were identified of what is of value in project management, so for instance the process outcome, the return on investment, the level of (stakeholder) satisfaction and so on (Thomas and Mullaly 2007 ). Sustainability aspects would enhance this view on value for project management. The more a sustainable development, situation or outcome is desired by a project organisation, the more value the organisation ascribes to it.

Value refers to the project sponsor, as well as to other stakeholders of a project. We understand the project sponsor as one of the main drivers (Project Management Institute 2013 ) and (as ‘Executive’ in PRINCE2) main responsible (AXELOS 2017 ) of the business case, including the stakeholders’ interests in such way as to reach the main project goal(s) and a stakeholder as “an individual, group, or organization who may affect, be affected by, or perceive itself to be affected by a decision, activity, or outcome of a project” (Project Management Institute 2013 , p. 29). In traditional project management, the project manager is responsible for the project goals and the fulfilment of the business case(s).

Value ascribed to sustainable development can be positive or negative and must be considered for the entire period of a project (and product) life cycle (Shen et al. 2002 ). On the one hand, this value ascription becomes manifested in the investment by an organisation to reach the required sustainable situation or outcome. The more value an organisation ascribes to sustainability, the more this organisation invests. This investment might occur largely in monetary terms but could also include social or environmental capital. On the other hand, it is not only about the value invested, it is especially about the value gained as an organisation from sustainability as well. Currently organisations ascribe the most value to monetary factors (Dinu 2017 ) and value profit above the sustainability dimensions (Marnewick 2017 ). Despite this, assigning value to sustainability does not only mean assigning value to economic but also to social and environmental interests. Thus, an organisation has to decide the most valuable benefits that could be gained. One can gain value by tangible benefits, like cost savings, for example by the reduction of waste/energy costs, lower lending rates and attracting green investors or an increase in sales by attracting green consumers, as well as by intangible benefits, for example through a better reputation, through the avoidance of an unproductive relationship with activist groups or the government, the avoidance of lawsuits and fines, negative headlines and possible decreases in sales or higher employer involvement. Still, there is value creation that one cannot attribute directly to the organisation like a healthy environment (Aarseth et al. 2017 ) or social impact out of the organisational scope (Atkinson 1999 ). Therefore, an organisation has to decide which value creation it includes in its considerations for how much value is invested into sustainability actions. It also has to be considered that actions and value for sustainable development are difficult to quantify in monetary terms (Sánchez 2015 ). This makes the ratio of investment and benefit in monetary terms very difficult to determine.

As stated previously, it is our goal to systematise our results and reflect if there is a structural order of the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management. Therefore, we reflected upon the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management based on the aforementioned characteristic of ‘value ascribed to sustainability aspects in project management’.

For the interpretation of ‘Sustainability as a constraint’, there is value ascribed to sustainability but with a negative connotation. Sustainability is seen as a risk or cost that hinders the project goal, which is ascribed the prime value. Although sustainability broadens the field of stakeholders, following the interpretation of the role of sustainability as a constraint the responsibility of the project manager still seems to be focused towards the project sponsor.

Regarding the interpretation of ‘Sustainability as instrumental value’, there is positive value ascribed to sustainability in project management and thus sustainability is more highly valued than the interpretation of ‘Sustainability as a constraint’. It is seen as a benefit, opportunity or instrument that supports the actual project goal. It remains, however, an instrument and not in the centre of the project.

Finally, for the interpretation of ‘Sustainability as intrinsic value’, there is significant value ascribed to sustainability, which is seen as a dimension of project success or genuine goal to maximise in the very centre of the project and thus sustainability is even more valued than the other interpretations. The project is based on a business case for sustainability rather than a business case of sustainability being created. Furthermore, the responsibility of the project manager seems to be shifted from the project sponsor towards an extended set of stakeholders.

Since each interpretation ascribes a different value to sustainability, they can be ordered along this value dimension. To represent this order, a stage model is most reasonable. The order in our stage model reflects the ascending value ascribed to sustainability aspects in project management by each interpretation and starts with ‘Sustainability not explicitly considered’ where no value is ascribed to sustainability aspects in the project management (Fig.  4 ).

Stage model interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management (own source)

In the literature, as mentioned in Sect.  2 , extant stage models have a practical focus on the integration of sustainability, which is of great value for the research field. Our stage model concentrates on the different interpretations of the role of sustainability, with a focus on the more conceptual structure of the scientific literature and the communication between researchers and also practitioners. Though our stage model is not based on the others, it enhances these by adding the dimension of the access to the term sustainability; it broadens the view of how deep sustainability in general is integrated to how deep the different interpretations of the role of sustainability are integrated in project management aspects. This way the level of integration can be much more clearly reflected, which is why our stage model is also beneficial for the research field. It also shows that by including sustainability into project management the complexity increases, which confirms the findings of previous literature reviews and thus links directly to the latest research on sustainability as described in Sect.  2 .

In the following section, we will base our definition of sustainable project management on the synthesised term of value ascribed to sustainability in project management.

5.3 New definition of sustainable project management

All the definitions mentioned in Sect.  2 place the sustainability dimensions in the centre of their definition, which is why they have a particularly holistic view. They include all interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management which we extracted from the publications in the research field. In our opinion, however, a definition of sustainable project management should have a more differentiating focus on these interpretations.

On the one hand, the interpretations of the role of sustainability as a constraint and as instrumental value lead to the management of sustainability in traditional project management . Sustainability interpreted as a constraint would be managed as a possible risk or issue, while sustainability interpreted as instrumental value and realised by a business case of sustainability would be managed as an opportunity or benefit. On the other hand, when sustainability is interpreted as intrinsic value, sustainability lies at the very centre of a project, seen as a dimension of project success with a business case for sustainability and thus creating sustainable project management . Additionally, the development of these different interpretations is no short-term trend but instead remains relatively stable over time.

Therefore, we suggest a more value-oriented definition of sustainable project management to distinguish from traditional/conventional project management. We base this definition on the synthesised term of value ascribed to sustainability in project management and the interpretation of the role of sustainability as intrinsic value that underlines sustainable project management as a paradigm shift: Sustainable project management is a project management approach of ascribing intrinsic value to sustainability aspects by including all sustainability dimensions as equal parts of the project’s success and therefore creating a business case for sustainability.

As we have now discussed our results, we will outline a short summary and conclude our study.

6 Conclusion

Integrating sustainability into project management is a relatively new, but very relevant and growing field of research. Still, it seems that different interpretations of the role of sustainability exist in the research field. This is a challenge as it is difficult to put scientific publications into context and accordingly communication issues might arise. The aim of our research was to give researchers and practitioners guidance regarding the identification and order of the varying interpretations, as well as the development of a new definition for sustainable project management.

The SLR as our research method was necessary to develop those interpretations and to assign them back to the literature. We found more than 293 publications that we included in our analysis. Using this dataset, we identified three different interpretations that reflected the publications’ understanding of sustainability: ‘Sustainability as a constraint’, where sustainability is seen as a restriction, ‘Sustainability as instrumental value’, where sustainability is seen as an instrument that supports the actual project goal, as well as ‘Sustainability as intrinsic value’, where sustainability is interpreted as a genuine goal for creating a business case for sustainability. We also identified that the literature sets itself apart from a project management concept where sustainability aspects are not considered and sustainability is paid as mere lip service, where awareness is only raised for sustainable issues without taking further action. It is therefore important to identify in a publication or in communication what interpretation is addressed and determine which interpretation oneself wants to follow in one’s work.

We then synthesised the main theoretical characteristic, ‘value ascribed to sustainability aspects in project management’, as a common theoretical basis for the different interpretations of the role of sustainability. Based on this characteristic, the different interpretations of the role of sustainability were reflected and ordered in a stage model. In the final step, we reviewed the existing definitions of sustainable project management and compared them to our results. On the one hand, the interpretations of the role of sustainability as a constraint and as instrumental value lead to the management of sustainability in traditional project management. On the other hand, sustainability interpreted as intrinsic value led to a business case for sustainability and thus to sustainable project management. Because the existing definitions do not reflect this circumstance, we redefined sustainable project management.

The theoretical contribution of this study is its guidance for researchers in the field of sustainability in project management. We identified different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management through which the literature on sustainable project management can be conceptually structured. This allows existing contributions to be better connected and communication in the research field to be clarified. The development of the interpretations over time was illustrated using an area diagram and the interpretations were ordered in a stage model. In addition, recommendations were given for the interpretation of existing literature, the writing of new publications and communications between each other. Finally, the definition of sustainable project management in contrast to traditional project management can be used as guidance in the research field.

Based on our study, we created an agenda for future research to further develop the field of sustainable project management. First, the identified interpretations were extracted from the existing scientific literature. To better identify practical implications, it would be of value for future research to analyse by interviews if the interpretations are also present in practice and if the stage model can be transferred or if a different model appears. Especially between the stages of sustainability as a constraint and as instrumental value it could be researched if other interpretations exist in practice, which we did not find in the literature and how a transition between the stages might occur. Based on this, as an outlook for future research for the different interpretations synthesised, it could be of interest to analyse by another literature review the citation of the publications in the research field. Using this method, the different streams that follow the same interpretation and that exist in the research field could be observed. Within the newly defined sustainable project management, it would be of high value then to investigate the exact definitions and responsibilities of project management roles, as well as the possible remaining roles of the construct of the iron triangle, as well as the relationship between traditional/conventional and sustainable project management. As the business case in sustainable project management within our definition is expanded by multidimensional components, we would encourage future research to further define the responsibility for the business cases for/of sustainability and the fulfilment thereof.

In addition, during our research we identified the absence of a separation between agile project management and traditional (waterfall) project management in the publications. Future research could examine by interviews how this separation could affect the inclusion of sustainability into project management. From a methodological point of view, more literature reviews than empirical work exist in our finding of the current state of research, which confirms the findings by Khalifeh et al. ( 2019 ) and which is why we would encourage future researchers to use empirical methods such as interviews, surveys, case-studies, or experiments. Finally, there exist several open fields of discussion concerning how to define the project frame for multidimensional goals, e.g. how to measure progress (Hwang and Ng 2013 ; Xu and Hua 2011 ), the motivation of the project manager to include sustainability and how to define the project end because of the holistic approach or the distinction between weak and strong sustainability in project management.

We see several limitations of our study. The first regards the inclusion criteria in the search as we only focused on English literature. There is also a language and country bias (Petticrew and Roberts 2006 ) by which we might have missed relevant literature in other languages. Although we selected the keywords regarding our research question and defined the search strings with great care, it cannot be guaranteed that all relevant literature was found. The same applies to the selection of databases, search engines and websites, as well as the exclusion criteria according to the type of literature and content.

The citation or reference bias exists when publications that support a beneficial effect are more often cited than unsupportive ones (Song et al. 2000 ). For our backward search, we see the possibility of this bias, but as we also searched directly in databases, websites and search engines we minimised the risk of being affected by the bias. Particularly as the search and synthesis was completed by one person, we see the risk of limited reliability. Therefore, during our research we frequently presented and discussed our approach and findings within a doctoral colloquium. Though this procedure does not substitute the benefit of multiple researchers working on this publication, it reduced the limitation.

Availability of data and materials

All relevant data is included in the manuscript, a detailed list of literature is available upon request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

The full list of databases is available under http://info.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/fach_liste.html?fach=wiwi

The detailed list of publications is available to the readers upon request to the authors.

Aarseth W, Ahola T, Aaltonen K, Økland A, Andersena B (2017) Project sustainability strategies: a systematic literature review. Int J Proj Manag 35(6):1071–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.006

Article   Google Scholar  

Adriana T-T, Ioana-Maria D (2013) Project success by integrating sustainability in project management. In: Silvius AJG, Tharp J (eds) Sustainability integration for effective project management. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 106–127. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4177-8.ch007

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ali F, Boks C, Bey N (2016) Design for sustainability and project management literature—a review. Procedia CIRP 48:28–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.185

Armenia S, Dangelico RM, Nonino F, Pompei A (2019) Sustainable project management: a conceptualization-oriented review and a framework proposal for future studies. Sustainability 11(9):2664. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092664

Atkinson R (1999) Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. Int J Proj Manag 17(6):337–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-6

AXELOS (2017) Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. The Stationery Office Ltd, London (UK)

Bachour N, Chasteen L (2010) Optimizing the value of green it projects within organizations. In: 2010 IEEE green technologies conference, Grapevine, TX (USA), 15–16 April 2010

Bandara W, Furtmueller E, Gorbacheva E, Miskon S, Beekhuyzen J (2015) Achieving rigor in literature reviews: insights from qualitative data analysis and tool-support. Commun Assoc Inf Syst (CAIS) 37:8. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03708

Barnes M (2007) Some origins of modern project management. PM World Today II(XI)

Böckel A, Hörisch J, Tenner I (2020) A systematic literature review of crowdfunding and sustainability: highlighting what really matters. Manag Rev Q 138(2):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00189-3

Brent AC, Labuschagne C (2004) Sustainable life cycle management: indicators to assess the sustainability of engineering projects and technologies. In: 2004 IEEE international engineering management conference, Singapore (SG), 18–21 October 2004. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ (US), pp 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMC.2004.1407084

Brent AC, Petrick W (2007) Environmental impact assessment during project execution phases: towards a stage-gate project management model for the raw materials processing industry of the energy sector. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 25(2):111–122. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155107X205832

Brereton P, Kitchenham BA, Budgen D, Turner M, Khalil M (2007) Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. J Syst Softw 80(4):571–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009

Byggeth S, Hochschorner E (2006) Handling trade-offs in Ecodesign tools for sustainable product development and procurement. J Clean Prod 14(15–16):1420–1430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.03.024

Carboni J, Gonzalez M, Hodgkinson J (2013) PRISM: projects integrating sustainable development. The GPM reference guide to sustainability in Project Management. GPM Global, Detroit, MI (US)

Carvalho MM, Rabechini R (2017) Can project sustainability management impact project success? An empirical study applying a contingent approach. Int J Proj Manag 35(6):1120–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.018

Chawla VK, Chanda AK, Angra S, Chawla GR (2018) The sustainable project management: a review and future possibilities. J Proj Manag 3(3):157–170. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2018.2.001

Chofreh AG, Goni FA, Malik MN, Khan HH, Klemeš JJ (2019) The imperative and research directions of sustainable project management. J Clean Prod 238(117810):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117810

Crawford L (2013) Leading sustainability through projects. In: Silvius AJG, Tharp J (eds) Sustainability integration for effective project management. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 235–244. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4177-8.ch014

Cronin P, Ryan F, Coughlan M (2008) Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. Br J Nurs 17(1):38–43. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059

Dai AN, Xu D (2011) The study of green project management. In: 2011 IEEE 18th international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management, Changchun (CN), 3–5 September 2011. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ (US), pp 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIEEM.2011.6035155

Daneshpour H (2015) Integrating sustainability into management of project. Int J Environ Sci Dev 6(4):321–325. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJESD.2015.V6.611

de Brucker K, Macharis C, Verbeke A (2013) Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: a stakeholder management approach. Eur J Oper Res 224(1):122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.02.021

de Magalhães RF, de Danilevicz A, M. F., Palazzo J, (2019) Managing trade-offs in complex scenarios: a decision-making tool for sustainability projects. J Clean Prod 212:447–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.023

de Silva RG (2015) Introducing the fourth constraint in project management: project carbon footprint management. In: APIIT business and technology conference, April 2015, Colombo (LK), 9 April 2015, pp 1–6

de Toledo RF, Miranda Junior HL, Farias Filho JR, Costa HG (2019) A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and project management dataset. Data Brief 25:104312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.104312

Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan DA, Bryman A (eds) The Sage handbook of organizational research methods. Sage Publications, London, pp 671–689

Google Scholar  

Dinu FA (2017) The architecture of a decision support software system for sustainable projects selection. Glob Econ Obs 5(1):224–233

Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strategy Environ 11(2):130–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323

Easterbrook PJ, Gopalan R, Berlin JA, Matthews DR (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337(8746):867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y

Ebbesen JB, Hope A (2013) Re-imagining the iron triangle: embedding sustainability into project constraints. PM World J II(III):1–13

Eid M (2000) A review of “project management” and “sustainable development” for construction projects. Edinb Archit Res J 27:37–66

Eid M (2002) A sustainable approach to the project management odyssey. In: PMI® research conference 2002: frontiers of project management research and applications, Seattle, WA (US), 14–17 July 2002. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA (US)

Eid M (2004) Rethinking relationships in the construction industry: integrating sustainable development into project management processes

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

Eskerod P, Huemann M (2013) Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: what standards say. Int J Manag Proj Bus 6(1):36–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371311291017

Fernández-Sánchez G, Rodríguez-López F (2010) A methodology to identify sustainability indicators in construction project management—application to infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecol Indic 10(6):1193–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.04.009

Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M (2002) The Sustainability balanced scorecard—linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus Strategy Environ 11(5):269–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.339

Fiksel JR, McDaniel JS, Mendenhall C (1999) Measuring progress towards sustainability principles, process, and best practices. In: Proceedings of the 8th international network conference. greening of industry network, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 14–17 November 1999

Fisch C, Block J (2018) Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and management research. Manag Rev Q 68:103–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x

Gareis R (2013) Re-thinking project initiation and project management by considering principles of sustainable development. In: Silvius AJG, Tharp J (eds) Sustainability integration for effective project management. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 129–143. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4177-8.ch008

Gareis R, Huemann M, Martinuzzi A (2011) What can project management learn from considering sustainability principles. Project Perspect 33:60–65

Ghosh S, Buckler L, Skibniewski MJ, Negahban S, Kwak YH (2014) Organizational governance to integrate sustainability projects: a case study. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.850755

Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine publishing company, Chicago

Gluch P, Räisänen C (2012) What tensions obstruct an alignment between project and environmental management practices? Eng Constr Archit Manag 19(2):127–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/09699981211206070

Goedknegt D (2013a) Responsibility for adhering to sustainability in project management. In: 7th nordic conference on construction economics and organization, Trondheim (NO), 12–14 June 2013, pp 145–154

Goedknegt D (2013b) Sustainability in project management: perceptions of responsibility. In: Silvius AJG, Tharp J (eds) Sustainability integration for effective project management. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 279–287. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-4177-8.ch017

Goedknegt D, Silvius AJG (2012) The implementation of sustainability principles in project management. In: Proceedings of the 26th IPMA world congress, Crete (GR), 29–31 October 2012, pp 875–882

Goel A, Ganesh LS, Kaur A (2019) Sustainability integration in the management of construction projects: a morphological analysis of over two decades’ research literature. J Clean Prod 236:117676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117676

Green Project Management® (2019) The GPM P5™ standard for sustainability in project management. https://www.greenprojectmanagement.org/gpm-standards/the-p5-standard-for-sustainability-in-project-management . Accessed 8 Aug 2019

Grevelman L, Kluiwstra M (2010) Sustainability in project management: a case study on Enexis (Paper presented at the Happy Projects conference 2010, Vienna). PM World Today XII(VII):1–19

Hand A, Zuo J, Xia B, Jin X, Wu P (2015) Are green project management practices applicable to traditional projects? In: Shen LY, Ye K, Mao C (eds) Proceedings of the 19th international symposium on advancement of construction management and real estate. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (DE), pp 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46994-1_25

Haniff A, Salama M (2016) Project management. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford

Hart C (1998) Doing a literature review: releasing the social science research imagination. Sage Publications, London

He Q, Chen X, Wang G, Zhu J, Yang D, Liu X, Li Y (2019) Managing social responsibility for sustainability in megaprojects: an innovation transitions perspective on success. J Clean Prod 241:118395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118395

Heidingsfelder J, Beckmann M (2020) A governance puzzle to be solved? A systematic literature review of fragmented sustainability governance. Manag Rev Q 70(3):355–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00170-9

Helgadóttir H (2008) The ethical dimension of project management. Int J Proj Manag 26(7):743–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.11.002

Ho YC, Fan LC (2014) Achieving quality performance and environmental sustainability through the genius loci of quality management systems. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 31(2):144–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-11-2011-0147

Hwang BG, Ng WJ (2013) Project management knowledge and skills for green construction: overcoming challenges. Int J Proj Manag 31(2):272–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.05.004

Hwang B-G, Tan JS (2012) Green building project management: obstacles and solutions for sustainable development. Sustain Dev 20(5):335–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.492

Jugend D, Figueiredo J (2017) Integrating environmental sustainability and project portfolio management: case study in an energy firm. Gest Prod 24(3):526–537. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X3451-16

Kampf CE, Thomsen C (2008) Managing projects with CSR in mind: CSR knowledge communication in project management. In: Proceedings of the conference on corporate communication 2008, Baruch College/CUNY, Wroxton (GB), 06–09 June 2008, pp 217–228

Kerzner HR (2013) Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling, 11th edn. Wiley, New York

Khalifeh A, Farrell P, Al-edenat M (2019) The impact of project sustainability management (PSM) on project success. J Manag Dev. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2019-0045

Khalili-Damghani K, Sadi-Nezhad S (2013) A hybrid fuzzy multiple criteria group decision making approach for sustainable project selection. Appl Soft Comput 13(1):339–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2012.07.030

Kirchhof S, Brandtweiner R (2011) Sustainability in projects: an analysis of relevant sustainability aspects in the project management process based on the three pillars model. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 150:527–535. https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP110441

Kivilä J, Martinsuo M, Vuorinen L (2017) Sustainable project management through project control in infrastructure projects. Int J Proj Manag 35(6):1167–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.009

Kohl K (2016) Becoming a sustainable organization: a project and portfolio management approach. CRC Press, Boca Raton

Book   Google Scholar  

Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2004) Sustainable project life cycle management: aligning project management methodologies with the principles of sustainable development. In: Proceedings of the PMSA international conference, Johannesburg (ZA), 10–12 May 2004, pp 104–115

Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2005) Sustainable project life cycle management: the need to integrate life cycles in the manufacturing sector. Int J Proj Manag 23(2):159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.003

Labuschagne C, Brent AC (2008) An industry perspective of the completeness and relevance of a social assessment framework for project and technology management in the manufacturing sector. J Clean Prod 16(3):253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.07.028

Lapinski AR, Horman MJ, Riley DR (2006) Lean processes for sustainable project delivery. J Constr Eng Manag 132(10):1083–1091. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:10(1083)

Levy Y, Ellis TJ (2006) A systems approach to conduct an effective literature review in support of information systems research. Inf Sci 9:181–212. https://doi.org/10.28945/479

Lotz M, Brent AC, Steyn H (2009) Addressing the need for a clean development mechanism (CDM) specific project management strategy. S Afr J Econ Manag Sci 12(2):228–241. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v12i2.278

Maltzman R, Shirley D (2010) Green project management. CRC Press, Boca Raton

Marcelino-Sádaba S, González-Jaen LF, Pérez-Ezcurdia A (2015) Using project management as a way to sustainability. from a comprehensive review to a framework definition. J Clean Prod 99:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.020

Marnewick C (2017) Information system project’s sustainability capabality levels. Int J Proj Manag 35(6):1151–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.014

Marnewick C, Silvius AJG, Schipper RPJ (2019) Exploring patterns of sustainability stimuli of project managers. Sustainability 11(18):5016. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185016

Martens ML, Carvalho MM (2014) A conceptual framework of sustainability in project management oriented to success. In: 25th annual conference—production operations management society (POMS), Atlanta, GA (US), 9–12 May 2014

Martens ML, Carvalho MM (2016) The challenge of introducing sustainability into project management function: multiple-case studies. J Clean Prod 117:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.039

Martens ML, Carvalho MM, Martens CDP (2016) Sustainability and success in project management: a forum with academic experts. In: 25th international association for management of technology (IAMOT) conference proceedings: technology-future thinking, Orlando, FL (US), 15–19 May 2016, pp 1347–1360

Mishra P, Dangayach GS, Mittal ML (2011) An ethical approach towards sustainable project Success. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 25:338–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.552

Misopoulos F, Michaelides R, Salehuddin M, Manthou V, Michaelides Z (2018) Addressing organisational pressures as drivers towards sustainability in manufacturing projects and project management methodologies. Sustainability 10(6):1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062098

Moehler R, Hope A, Algeo C (2018) Sustainable project management: revolution or evolution? Acad Manag Proc 218(1):13583. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2018.13583abstract

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Molina-Azorín JF, Tarí JJ, Claver-Cortés E, López-Gamero MD (2009) Quality management, environmental management and firm performance: a review of empirical studies and issues of integration. Int J Manag Rev 11(2):197–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00238.x

Morfaw J (2014) Fundamentals of project sustainability. In: PMI global congress 2014—North America, Phoenix, AZ (US), 25–28 October 2014. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA (US)

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

Müller A-L (2014) Sustainability and customer relationship management: current state of research and future research opportunities. Manag Rev Q 64(4):201–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-014-0104-x

Nightingale A (2009) A guide to systematic literature reviews. Surg Infect (larchmt) 27(9):381–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpsur.2009.07.005

Obradović V, Todorović M, Bushuyev S (2018) Sustainability and agility in project management: contradictory or complementary? In: Shakhovska N, Medykovskyy MO (eds) Advances in intelligent systems and computing III. Springer, Cham, pp 522–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01069-0_37

Ojeda O, Reusch P (2013) Sustainable procurement—extending project procurement concepts and processes based on PMBOK. In: 2013 IEEE 7th international conference on intelligent data acquisition and advanced computing systems, Berlin (DE), 12–14 September 2013. IEEE, pp 530–536. https://doi.org/10.1109/IDAACS.2013.6662981

Økland A (2015) Gap analysis for incorporating sustainability in project management. Procedia Comput Sci 64:103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.469

Okoli C (2015a) A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 37(43):879–910. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2699362

Okoli C (2015b) The view from giants’ shoulders: developing theory with theory-mining systematic literature reviews. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2699362 . Accessed 27. June 2020. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2699362

Otegi-Olaso JR, Aguilar-Fernández ME, Cruz-Villazón C, Fuentes-Ardeo L (2015) Towards sustainable project management: a literature review. In: 19th international congress on project management and engineering, Granada (ES), 15–17 July 2015, pp 43–56

Petticrew M, Roberts H (2006) Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Blackwell, Oxford

Poon C, Silvius G (2019) Factors that stimulate project managers to consider sustainability; exploring the stimulus patterns of canadian project managers. J Mgmt Sustain 9(2):90–214. https://doi.org/10.5539/jms.v9n2p90

Pope J, Annandale D, Morrison-Saunders A (2004) Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24(6):595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.03.001

Project Management Institute (2013) A guide to the project management body of knowledge: PMBOK® guide, 5th edn. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA (US)

Rahman MM, Ali M, Malik N, Ahmad MS, Asmi F (2017) Essential skills for project stakeholders identification: sustainability perspective. Int J Bus Manag Soc Res 7(8):43–55. https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v7i8.1061

Robichaud LB, Anantatmula VS (2008) The greening of project management: Adapting project management practices to deliver cost efficient green building construction. In: PMI research conference: defining the future of project management, Warsaw (PL), 13–16 July 2008. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA (US)

Rodríguez-Olalla A, Avilés-Palacios C (2017) Integrating sustainability in organisations: an activity-based sustainability model. Sustainability 9(6):1072. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061072

Rogers K, Jenkin TA, Corbett J, Webster J (2013) The effects of ‘green’ on IT/S projects: recycling the garbage can model. In: 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Wailea, HI (US), 07–10 January 2013. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ (US), pp 974–983. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.518

Rousseau DM, Manning J, Denyer D (2008) Evidence in management and organizational science: assembling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledge through syntheses. Acad Manag Ann 2(1):475–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520802211651

Rusinko CA (2005) Using quality management as a bridge in educating for sustainability in a business school. Int J Sustain High Educ 6(4):340–350. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370510623838

Sabini L, Muzio D, Alderman N (2017) Integrating sustainability into project management practices: the perspective of professional institutions. In: International research network on organizing by projects (IRNOP) 2017, Boston University (US), 11–14 June 2017. UTS, ePRESS, Sydney, NSW (AU), pp 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5130/pmrp.irnop2017.5661

Sam AG, Khanna M, Innes R (2009) Voluntary pollution reduction programs, environmental management, and environmental performance: an empirical study. Land Econ 85(4):692–711. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.85.4.692

Sánchez MA (2015) Integrating sustainability issues into project management. J Clean Prod 96:319–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.087

Schaltegger S, Wagner M (2006) Managing the business case for sustainability: the integration of social, environmental and economic performance. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield

Schieg M (2009) The model of corporate social responsibility in project management. Bus Theory Pract 10(4):315–321. https://doi.org/10.3846/1648-0627.2009.10.315-321

Schipper RPJ, Silvius AJG (2017) The sustainable project management canvas. J Mod Proj Manag 4(3):51–59. https://doi.org/10.19225/JMPM01206

Schweizer ML, Nair R (2017) A practical guide to systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses in infection prevention: planning, challenges, and execution. Am J Infect Control 45(11):1292–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2017.08.004

Senner R (2011) Appraising the sustainability of project alternatives: an increasing role for cumulative effects assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 31(5):502–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.013

Shen LY, Wu M, Wang JY (2002) A model for assessing the feasibility of construction project in contributing to the attainment of sustainable development. J Constr Res 03(02):255–269. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1609945102000151

Siew RYJ, Balatbat MCA, Carmichael DG (2016) Measuring project sustainability maturity level-a fuzzy-based approach. Int J Sustain Dev 19(1):76–100. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2016.073680

Silvius AJG (2015) Considering sustainability in project management processes. In: Thomas KD (ed) Handbook of research on sustainable development and economics. Business science reference. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 311–334. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8433-1.ch014

Silvius AJG (2017) Sustainability as a new school of thought in project management. J Clean Prod 166:1479–1493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.121

Silvius AJG, de Graaf M (2019) Exploring the project manager’s intention to address sustainability in the project board. J Clean Prod 208:1226–1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.115

Silvius AJG, Schipper RPJ (2010) A maturity model for integrating sustainability in projects and project management. In: 24th world congress of the international project management association (IPMA), Istanbul (TR), 1–3 November 2010

Silvius AJG, Schipper RPJ (2012) Sustainability in the business case. In: Proceedings of the 26th IPMA world congress, Crete (GR), 29–31 October 2012, pp 1062–1069

Silvius AJG, Schipper RPJ (2014) Sustainability in project management: a literature review and impact analysis. Soc Bus 4(1):63–96. https://doi.org/10.1362/204440814X13948909253866

Silvius AJG, Schipper RPJ (2018) Four strategic postures for sustainability in the project-based organization. In: Tsai SB, Liu B, Li Y (eds) Green production strategies for sustainability. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 259–280. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3537-9.ch014

Silvius AJG, Schipper RPJ, Planko J, van den Brink J, Köhler A (2012a) Sustainability in project management. Gower Publishing, Farnham

Silvius AJG, van den Brink J, Köhler A (2012b) The impact of sustainability on Project Management. In: Linger H, Owen J (eds) The project as a social system: Asia-Pacific perspectives on project management. Monash University Publishing, Victoria (AU), pp 183–200

Silvius AJG, Kampinga M, Paniagua S, Mooi H (2017) Considering sustainability in project management decision making; an investigation using Q-methodology. Int J Proj Manag 35(6):1133–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.011

Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ (2000) Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess 4(10):1–115. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta4100

Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F (1998) Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. Health Technol Assess 2(19):1–276. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta2190

Talbot J, Venkataraman R (2011) Integration of sustainability principles into project baselines using a comprehensive indicator set. Int Bus Econ Res J 10(9):29–40. https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v10i9.5624

Tam G (2010) Sustainability competence requirements for project manager. In: Knoepfel H (ed) Proceedings of the IPMA international expert seminar: survival and sustainability as challenges for projects, Zurich (CH), 18–19 February 2010, pp 175–185

Taylor T (2010) Sustainability interventions: for managers of projects and programmes—with some serious opportunities, challenges and dilemmas. dashdot Enterprises Ltd, London

Tharp J (2012) Project management and global sustainability. In: PMI® global congress 2012-EMEA, Marsailles (FR), 7–9 May 2012. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA (US)

Thomas J, Mullaly M (2007) Understanding the value of project management: first steps on an international investigation in search of value. Proj Manag J 38(3):74–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20007

Toljaga-Nikolić D, Todorović M, Bjelica D (2016) Sustainability and project management—where is the linkage? In: Jaško O, Marinković S (eds) Reshaping the future through sustainable business development and entrepreneurship, Zlatibor (RS), 10–13 June 2016. University of Belgrade: Faculty of organizational sciences, Belgrade (RS), pp 1088–1093

Torraco RJ (2016) Writing integrative literature reviews. Hum Resour Dev Rev 15(4):404–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Tufinio SP, Mooi H, Ravestijn W, Bakker H, Boorsma M (2013) Sustainability in project management: where are we? Ann Fac Eng Hunedoara Int J Eng 11(1):91–100

Turner RJ, Huemann M, Anbari FT, Bredillet CN (2010) Perspectives on projects. Routledge, New York

United Nations (2016) Global sustainable development report 2016. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, NY (US)

Valdes-Vasquez R, Klotz LE (2013) Social sustainability considerations during planning and design: framework of processes for construction projects. J Constr Eng Manag 139(1):80–89. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000566

Vatalis KI, Manoliadis OG, Mavridis DG (2012) Project Performance indicators as an innovative tool for identifying sustainability perspectives in green public procurement. Proc Econ Finance 1:401–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(12)00046-9

Verrier B, Rose B, Caillaud E, Remita H (2014) Combining organizational performance with sustainable development issues: the Lean and Green project benchmarking repository. J Clean Prod 85:83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.023

Wang N, Wei K, Sun H (2014) Whole life project management approach to sustainability. J Manag Eng 30(2):246–255. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000185

Webster J, Watson RT (2002) Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. Manag Inf Syst Q 26(2):xiii–xxiii

Wilkins H (2003) The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23(4):401–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(03)00044-1

Wolfswinkel JF, Furtmueller-Ettinger E, Wilderom CPM (2013) Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur J Inf Syst 22:45–55. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future

Xiao Y, Watson M (2017) Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J Plan Educ Res 39(1):93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971

Xu D, Hua X (2011) The applications of sustainability in project management. In: Li W (ed) Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE international conference on emergency management and management sciences, Beijing (CN), 8–10 August 2011. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ (US), pp 693–697. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEMMS.2011.6015776

Yao H, Shen L, Tan Y, Hao J (2011) Simulating the impacts of policy scenarios on the sustainability performance of infrastructure projects. Autom Constr 20(8):1060–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.04.007

Zdanytė K, Neverauskas B (2012) Selection appropriate project management tool for advanced organization. Econ Manag 17(2):782–787. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.em.17.2.2213

Zhang J, Li H, Olanipekun AO, Bai L (2019) A successful delivery process of green buildings: the project owners’ view, motivation and commitment. Renew Energy 138:651–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.02.002

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the participants of the doctoral colloquium at the chair of Corporate Sustainability Management, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg for their constructive comments.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Corporate Sustainability Management, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Findelgasse 7, 90402, Nuremberg, Germany

Kevin Friedrich

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Friedrich .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest, additional information, publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Friedrich, K. A systematic literature review concerning the different interpretations of the role of sustainability in project management. Manag Rev Q 73 , 31–60 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00230-z

Download citation

Received : 03 December 2020

Accepted : 17 July 2021

Published : 31 July 2021

Issue Date : February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-021-00230-z

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sustainable project management
• Systematic literature review
• Sustainability
• Project management

JEL Classifications

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