Sustainability reporting scholarly research: a bibliometric review and a future research agenda

Abstract

Despite the substantial increase in sustainability reporting scholarly research, the comprehensive evaluation of scientific production in this area is scarce. This study combines the bibliometric and content analyses of sustainability reporting research to fill this gap. We map the development, conceptual structure, and thematic evolution of sustainability reporting scholarly research based on 1,053 Scopus peer-reviewed articles written by 2,071 scholars comprising 69 countries and published from 2000 to 2022. The findings suggest that sustainability reporting has witnessed exponential growth, moved from a “paucity” stage in 2000 to the “saturation” stage in 2022, and is still ongoing. The collaboration among institutions producing sustainability reporting research reflects “locally-centralized-globally-discrete” cooperation. The collaboration between developed and developing world research organizations can be termed the “North-South” divide. Authors have disciplinary or thematic similarities in their research interests (i.e., homophily impact). The study has explained the thematic categories and topics of interest in sustainability reporting. Based on our findings, we provide an agenda for future research directions. The study’s findings are of interest to scholars and practitioners in business, finance, and accounting.

Firm governance structures, earnings management, and carbon emission disclosures in Chinese high‐polluting firms

“…Second, the legitimacy theory proposed that firms provide sustainability disclosures to legitimize their actions to relevant stakeholders in relation to demands from society in relation to environmental interest (Benameur et al, 2023;Deegan, 2002Deegan, , 2019Wilmshurst & Frost, 2000). Prior researchers determined that firms reduce the legitimacy gap by unveiling environmental information to multiple stakeholders with governance structures based on board size (Godos-Díez et al, 2018;Masud et al, 2018), board independence (Fahad & Rahman, 2020;Garas & ElMassah, 2018;Masud et al, 2018;Ullah et al, 2019), CEO duality (Lassoued & Khanchel, 2022), directors' share ownership (Masud et al, 2018), and frequency of board meetings (Godos-Díez et al, 2018).…”

Corporate social and environmental reporting in the mining sector: seeking pragmatic and moral forms of legitimacy?

“…Overall, the prior literature has identified varying features of industries when it comes to SER practices and/or the need for more SER research focused on a "single industry" and/or a particular context (Benameur et al, 2023;Wachira and Mathuva, 2022;Crossley et al, 2021;Qian et al, 2021;Amoako et al, 2017;Lodhia and Hess, 2014;Gray et al, 2001;Guthrie et al, 2008). This is primarily due to the concern that "disclosure studies have paid relatively less attention to internal contextual factors [and for that reason] more disclosure studies at the organisational and individual level of analysis" might further develop theory to explain organisations' SER practices (Ali et al, 2017, p. 290).…”

“…Despite a wealth of prior literature on the subject, corporate social and environmental reporting (SER) continues to attract considerable attention from the research community (see Benameur et al, 2023;Wachira and Mathuva, 2022;Qian et al, 2021;Ali et al, 2017, for an overview of some of the research). In relation to the prior literature, authors have provided different explanations about why organisations adopt SER practices.…”

“…Despite a wealth of prior literature on the subject, corporate social and environmental reporting (SER) continues to attract considerable attention from the research community (see Benameur et al. , 2023; Wachira and Mathuva, 2022; Qian et al.…”

“…In relation to the prior literature, authors have provided different explanations about why organisations adopt SER practices. For instance, various studies have linked the type and extent of SER disclosures to the apparent information needs of “powerful” stakeholder groups; to various legitimacy-threatening events; or to various institutional pressures (Benameur et al. , 2023; Crossley et al.…”