Corporate sustainability performance across economic development countries: a systematic literature review on the innovation to achievement

The trend of sustainability in the industrial world has intensified, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, when public awareness of personal health, environmental preservation, and planetary sustainability rose sharply, signaling a rapid shift in societal mindset driven by technological advancement. The industrial sector has adapted to this shift, recognizing that markets increasingly favor products with sustainability value, while pricing remains crucial for profitability and government regulations play a significant external role. Business growth and environmental sustainability have thus evolved into a holistic concern, where sustainable development, meeting present needs without compromising future generations, has become a strategic objective. This study employs a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) using the PRISMA methodology, analyzing 236 peer-reviewed publications from 2015 to 2025 indexed in Scopus (Q1–Q4), and classifying research themes based on corporate strategies for achieving sustainability performance across countries with differing economic development levels. Research problem of this study is centered on how economic development influences corporate sustainability performance, and the findings reveal both the progress and challenges faced by companies in different economic contexts. The findings reveal that integrating sustainability into corporate strategy significantly enhances long-term performance and competitiveness; stakeholder engagement and innovation act as mediating factors strengthening sustainability outcomes; and institutional pressures, including regulations and social norms, accelerate the adoption of sustainability-oriented practices. The study highlights that Corporate Sustainability Performance (CSP) research and adoption surged, particularly in developed nations, reflecting a global shift towards integrating environmental, social, and economic factors for long-term success. However, a significant gap persists in developing countries like Indonesia, where despite growing reporting, challenges such as inconsistent regulations and limited SME awareness hinder effective integration, underscoring the urgent need for targeted policies and research in these regions to achieve holistic sustainability.

1 Introduction

A significant gap in research regarding how corporate sustainability performance (CSP) varies across countries with different levels of economic development. While much of the existing literature on CSP focuses on developed nations, there is limited understanding of how economic development influences the implementation and outcomes of sustainability strategies in developing and underdeveloped countries. This paper aims to address this gap by conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) on CSP across countries with varying economic statuses. The key problem addressed is the lack of comprehensive research on how economic development stages; developed and developing affect corporate sustainability efforts. By examining systematic literature review in 10 years back to analyze the trend of research in CSP and divided by country and its classification using World Bank, this research also analyzing management theory used in the scope of research along with the drivers, barriers, and outcomes of sustainability initiatives in these different contexts. This study aims to provide valuable insights that can guide businesses and policymakers in shaping more effective sustainability strategies globally. The research will also explore how CSP performance in these countries can contribute to achieving global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and fostering long-term economic and environmental resilience.

This paper aim to analyze sustainability trend in countries that is categories developed and developing based on its economic condition. A more formal definition of “economic development countries” typically refers to nations at various stages of economic growth, which can be categorized as developed, developing, and underdeveloped based on GDP, industrialization, standard of living, and other socio-economic indicators. This classification generated by the World Bank, which groups countries into high-income, middle-income, and low-income categories based on Gross National Income (GNI) per capita. Developed countries are typically those with high-income economies, stable infrastructure, and advanced technological capabilities. In contrast, developing countries are in the process of industrialization and improving their infrastructure, but still face challenges related to poverty, education, and health services.

Developed countries, or high-income economies, have advanced economies with high GNI per capita, robust infrastructure, and technological innovation. They feature well-established education and healthcare systems, high standards of living, and low poverty rates. Development indicators include high GDP, technological sophistication, low unemployment, and a service-oriented economy. In contrast, developing countries, or middle-income economies, are transitioning from agrarian to industrial or service-based economies. While their GNI per capita is higher than low-income countries, they face challenges like poverty, inequality, and limited access to education and healthcare. These nations are investing in technology, education, and healthcare for long-term growth.

Indonesia, a major Southeast Asian economy with a growing industrial base in sectors like mining, oil and gas, and agriculture, has faced environmental challenges due to its reliance on resource extraction. Since committing to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, the government has prioritized environmental preservation, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and green growth in its policies. The paper highlights that 88% of Indonesian firms now issue sustainability reports, reflecting a shift towards transparency and sustainable practices, with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) becoming a key standard. The Financial Services Authority (OJK) supports this push through new Sustainability Report Guidelines. However, Indonesia still faces significant challenges, including inconsistent regulatory enforcement, a lack of awareness among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and limited access to green finance, which hampers the scaling of sustainability initiatives. Additionally, cultural and institutional resistance in sectors like resource extraction conflicts with sustainability goals, limiting broader implementation. These barriers underscore the need for stronger regulations, increased awareness, and better access to green finance to drive sustainable development across the country.

Several so-called grand theories or foundational theories of management have made significant contributions to the development of sustainability theory. Boards are defined more precisely according to agency theory as an integral part of corporate governance processes and frameworks. Grand theories are referred to as foundational or major theories in management and sustainability research that provide comprehensive frameworks for understanding complex phenomena. These theories are widely recognized and serve as the bedrock for developing and testing research in the field. Within the context of the paper, these grand theories help explain the mechanisms through which corporate sustainability performance (CSP) is shaped and influenced by various factors, such as governance structures, stakeholder engagement, and resource management. Weber et al. (1949) outlines how grand theories serve as explanatory frameworks for understanding the broader structures and processes that shape social and organizational behavior. His work laid the groundwork for many social theories, including those used in management and organizational studies, especially in terms of governance and ethical decision-making.

According to agency theory, a company can reap benefits from a system of top management responsible for carrying out ongoing social responsibility (Chams and García-Blandón, 2019). Corporate social performance (CSP), also known as corporate sustainability performance, is an outcome of good corporate governance (GCG) according to agency theory. This study applies the upper-echelon theory to demonstrate that the decisions of top-level executives influence CSP. According to the upper echelons theory, which was put forth by Hambrick and Mason in 1984, senior executives’ traits are examined in various domains, including their educational background and prior work experience. According to Papadimitri et al. (2020), knowledge and innate intelligence are the two main components of a well-rounded education. When it comes to corporate ethics and governance, stakeholder theory and sustainability work in tandem; according to stakeholder theory, all a company’s stakeholders, not just shareholders, should have their interests and welfare taken into account. Employees, consumers, suppliers, communities, and even nature itself can be considered stakeholders if the company’s activities have an impact on them. As we learnt before, the end goal of any firm’s transformation efforts should be to generate profit and ensure the longevity of the organization. This theory emphasizes the importance of striking a balance between the demands and interests of these various groups to achieve these objectives. It is related to the circular economy hypothesis, a significant theory. This economic model is designed to minimize waste while maintaining the availability of resources, unlike the more conventional linear economy, which is based on the ‘take-make-dispose’ paradigm of production. Improving resource efficiency, recycling more, and reusing materials are key tenets of the circular economy, which aims to extend the lifespan of products and materials. The circular economy can generate new companies and jobs in the recycling, remanufacturing, and repair sectors, thereby driving economic growth. Concurrently, it helps achieve the sustainability objectives of both economic development and environmental conservation by reducing environmental deterioration.

Understanding the efficacy, impact, and difficulties of sustainability has been greatly aided by the prior rigorous literature review on CSP. Nevertheless, there are a few areas that may benefit from some criticism in order to deepen our understanding of this topic. Additionally, the majority of evaluations focus on sustainability programs and their impact on enhancing financial results for businesses. Despite the importance of this topic, there has been a notable lack of research on CSP and its role in driving innovation and enhancing business performance within the context of economic development. Review papers have concluded that no single research study has successfully synthesized the categorization of these two components. Incorporating various theoretical frameworks and interdisciplinary viewpoints, these investigations should also identify areas where further research is necessary.

Focusing on the organization of current studies in line with innovative trends, we aim to establish a comprehensive understanding of the concepts and theories surrounding CSP in various countries. For this purpose, we compiled a list of all studies conducted over the last decade that covered various aspects of CSP in developing, developed, and mixed nations, and we also provided some suggestions for where the field should move forward. The following is an outline of the paper’s remaining sections: Sects. 2. The literature review and methodology employed in this paper are summarized in this section. Analysis and subsequent results are presented in the section 3. The stage for the conclusion in Sect. 4 provides a thorough framework and an agenda for future research in addition to identifying research needs.

2 Methodology

This paper conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) using Scopus as the primary database, due to its comprehensive citation records and rigorous indexing standards. “Corporate Sustainability Performance” was used within the “article title, abstract, or keywords” field in Scopus, this suggests the focus was on studies related to CSP in various economic contexts, including developed, developing, and underdeveloped countries. For conducting a Systematic Literature Review (SLR), several leading databases are commonly used to ensure comprehensive and high-quality data. Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) are the most widely regarded due to their extensive coverage of peer-reviewed journals and citation analysis tools, making them invaluable for tracking research trends and evaluating the impact of studies. Dimensions is an emerging alternative, offering broader coverage with access to grants, patents, and clinical trials, which makes it highly suitable for interdisciplinary research, especially in sustainability. Google Scholar is useful for discovering a wide range of scholarly content, including grey literature, but lacks the citation analysis rigor found in Scopus and WoS. Other databases like PubMed and the Cochrane Library are crucial for health-related research, while ERIC is essential for education-focused SLRs. Combining these databases can enhance the breadth and depth of an SLR, ensuring a thorough review of the relevant literature across different academic and practical domains.

The paper outlines the process of evaluating and selecting studies based on the PRISMA methodology. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are clearly defined following the PRISMA guidelines for systematic literature reviews. The process began with identifying relevant studies based on the search phrase “Corporate Sustainability Performance” used within the “article title, abstract, or keywords” field in Scopus from 2015 to 2025. Initially, 420 papers were identified as potentially relevant to the subject. After screening the titles, abstracts, and keywords, 96 papers were excluded primarily due to irrelevance to corporate sustainability performance (CSP). Ultimately, 236 publications were included for further analysis, ensuring that the material reviewed was both focused and relevant to the research objectives.

Göcke et al. (2022) state that this research is divided into two parts: examination and discussion of data accompanied by a comprehensive literature review. According to Moher et al. (2009), the present investigation followed the PRISMA guidelines for meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Because it is a thorough and well-established systematic review methodology, PRISMA is a valid choice for this investigation. Articles that used PRISMA had higher reporting and methodological quality than those that did not, according to research by Panic et al. (2013). The latest SPAR-4-SLR architecture incorporates PRISMA, a reliable and consistent systematic review method, up to phase 4 (Sauer and Seuring, 2023). Although it is not the most cutting-edge approach, it effectively achieves the goals of this work by identifying relevant papers for review and conducting a thorough search. This section lays out the steps necessary to conduct a systematic literature review:

1. Determination of criteria, restrictions, and keywords

2. Evaluate relevant articles

3. Looking for articles in selected works and any omissions

4. Going over the chosen publications’ titles, abstracts, and keywords

5. Making a record of the steps used to extract the items from each article

6. Examining visualization, categorization, and network analysis

The research was conducted in Scopus due to its extensive citation records and rigorous indexing standards (Bergman, 2012; Rocha et al., 2020). There are certain limits to Google Scholar, despite its widespread use as an academic research tool on the internet. A major gripe is the flood of results it often produces when searching for specific terms; these results can include articles that have been copied and pasted from other sources, as well as publications that have been published in predatory journals. Access a wide range of scientific literature, including peer-reviewed journals, through Scopus, a comprehensive bibliographic database. Because it uses a rigorous selection method to include journals in its database, this site is trusted for literature searches. In terms of social science literature coverage, Scopus surpasses other databases, according to Norris and Oppenheim (2007) and Chadegani et al. (2013). Their analysis suggests that Scopus has the potential to surpass the Web of Science as the premier tool for evaluating the impact of social science studies.

In comparison to the Web of Science, Scopus offers a more in-depth and complicated analysis (Meho and Rogers, 2008). It goes beyond counting citations alone to provide a more sophisticated assessment by including other criteria. This methodology enables a comprehensive evaluation of academics’ impact and accomplishments within their respective domains. According to Cai et al. (2021), when it comes to databases reviewed by panel research in the social sciences, Scopus is often considered one of the largest. According to Farrukh et al. (2020a, 2020b) and Wu et al. (2021), the resource has been effectively utilized in both quantitative and empirical studies. For those working in the social sciences, Scopus is now a must-have resource. The superior quality assurance standards of Scopus make it the go-to database for researchers, according to Paul et al. (2021) and Sauer and Seuring (2023).

2.1 Search strategy and quality assessments

Ninety per cent of SLRs on management were published in the recent decade, according to Sauer and Seuring (2023). Additionally, academics often limit the time spent searching for relevant results in systematic reviews for various reasons. By doing so, we can be confident that the review is up-to-date and covers all relevant studies. Updating an earlier evaluation is another justification for limiting the search duration. New research published since the last review can be identified by focusing on a specific time range, which allows us to incorporate it into the current analysis. To further reduce the likelihood of including irrelevant or out-of-date research in the review, it is recommended to limit the search period. Researchers can eliminate studies that do not pertain to their research issue or that do not reflect current practices or understanding by limiting their emphasis to studies conducted within the last several years.

The number of articles was reduced to 247 after applying the specified criteria. The building of a complete table and the support of an extensive content analysis were made possible by an exhaustive assessment of the titles and abstracts of these papers. After further review, 96 publications were removed, primarily because they were not very relevant to the topic of corporate sustainability performance. According to the PRISMA Diagram in Figure 1, 236 articles were ultimately included in the curated database. This screening process ensures that the material to be examined is focused and relevant. Using the data collected, a statistical analysis was carried out to determine the following: the number of publications about CSP per year and trends in that regard, the study countries, the methodologies used, the leading journals that dealt with the subject, the category of countries that were analyzed, the types of innovations, theoretical frameworks, the most prolific authors on CSP, and the most cited papers.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Identification, screening, and inclusion steps.

Qualitative analysis was the next step in the research, utilizing theme analysis after identifying pertinent papers using the PRISMA protocol approach. Subsequently, hypothesis network analysis was incorporated, a method not often used in systematic literature reviews. According to Paul et al. (2021), the Assessing Component of the SPAR-4-SLR Method is part of the thematic analysis phase. To organize the data systematically, the theme analysis employed the Concept Matrix technique (Webster and Watson, 2002). This method makes it easier to organize data, which makes analysis more efficient and manageable. We also used hypothesis-based network analysis to find connections between system variables. We were able to discover a new study model that clarifies the interrelationships among the variables’ antecedents, mediators, and effects by taking an all-encompassing approach (Halder et al., 2021). To find gaps in the existing literature and to lay the groundwork for future research suggestions, we will examine the Concept Matrix and the hypothesis structure. Using the research gap methodology proposed by Miles (2017), this study aims to fill knowledge gaps by identifying previously unexplored areas in the field. According to Miles (2017), Müller-Bloch and Kranz (2015) developed a research gap model based on the paradigm proposed by Robinson et al. (2011). Incorporating a critical perspective rather than criticism, the study uses Cooper (1988) Taxonomy of Literature Review to synthesize knowledge. This approach also uses a historical framework to organize new findings and synthesize existing information.

2.2 Evidence synthesis plan and data extraction

From 2015 to 2025, the data was gathered from January to June. “Corporate Sustainability Performance” was the search phrase used inside Scopus’s “article title, abstract, or keywords” criterion, in line with the suggestion made by Lim et al. (2022) to use a single keyword search for all review domains globally. All articles discussing sustainability performance through innovation or other programs were considered when selecting the research keywords. Even without filters, 420 papers were identified as relevant to the subject.

3 Result and discussion

In this paper, the 236 selected studies were systematically organized to facilitate analysis, categorized by key parameters such as publication year, which tracked CSP research trends from 2015 to 2025; study country, identifying geographical patterns and research gaps across different economic contexts; research methods, distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative approaches; theoretical frameworks, such as Stakeholder Theory and Resource-Based View, to understand the intellectual grounding; industries covered, which highlighted sectors (e.g., manufacturing, energy, tech) focusing on sustainability practices; and types of innovation, like technological or product innovation, linked to CSP. This categorization helped identify trends, patterns, and gaps in the literature, forming a foundation for subsequent statistical and thematic analyses. As noted by Fisch and Block (2018) and Jhawar et al. (2024), the goal of a systematic literature review is to profile research and synthesize knowledge, with the conclusion describing the causes, effects, and mediators of the evolving trend in sustainability performance.

The results of the study show a significant increase in the adoption of corporate sustainability reports, with 88% of Indonesian firms issuing sustainability reports, reflecting a shift towards more holistic business practices. However, the study also identifies barriers to effective implementation, such as inconsistent regulatory enforcement, lack of awareness among SMEs, and limited access to green finance, which hinder widespread adoption of sustainability strategies. These findings are directly linked to the conclusion, which emphasizes that for businesses to achieve long-term success, they must overcome these challenges by strengthening regulatory frameworks, providing incentives, and raising awareness about the benefits of sustainability. The conclusion reinforces the importance of integrating corporate sustainability performance (CSP) into core business strategies, highlighting its role in fostering long-term value creation and sustainable profitability. Without this integration, businesses risk reputational damage and increased operational risks, ultimately hindering their ability to compete in the long term.

3.1 Records identified for the review

Scopus is one of the largest and most respected databases, indexing over 70 million articles across disciplines such as science, technology, medicine, and social sciences. As of 2025, Scopus remains a leading academic database, but emerging platforms like Dimensions and Google Scholar offer complementary strengths, particularly for sustainability research. It offers comprehensive citation tracking and analysis, making it invaluable for studies requiring a quantitative review of publication trends, citation patterns, and academic influence. Its wide range of journals and interdisciplinary focus make Scopus highly suitable for systematic reviews, particularly in fields like sustainability and other applied areas, where diverse perspectives and comprehensive coverage are essential for robust analysis.

Publications about CSP from 2003 to 2025 are shown graphically in Figure 2. Between 2015 and 2021, there were minor changes in the publication of the CSP theme. Between 2022 and 2024, there was a substantial increase, which coincided with the post-COVID-19 pandemic global context. The previous 3 years have been the most fruitful period for working on a CSP paper in the past decade. Based on the maximum volume of papers reported thus far, the subject of CSP has reached its academic peak in the first quarter of 2025. According to the KPMG International (2022), the rapid implementation of sustainability initiatives and the increasing importance of sustainability reporting across various industries are closely correlated with expansion.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Year of publication.

After seeing the substantial impact these sustainability initiatives have on company bottom lines, an increasing number of companies and academic institutions are turning to digital platforms to implement their goals. All countries need to implement integrated development plans and institutional reforms for sustainable development, according to the evidence (Gatto, 2020; Hatcher, 1999; OECD, 2015).

Over the last decade, Indonesian companies have demonstrated a growing awareness and adoption of sustainability practices, driven by government regulations, investor demands, and increasing public concern about environmental and social issues. More firms, both state-owned and private, are incorporating sustainability into their strategic planning and reporting. There is an increasing trend among Indonesian firms to align their sustainability disclosures with international standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). Indonesia’s Financial Services Authority (OJK) has also encouraged listed companies to enhance their sustainability reporting, promoting transparency and accountability by developing the PwC Singapore (2023). This guideline will become an official regulatory requirement, encouraging Indonesian companies to implement and report on sustainability practices aligned with international frameworks (Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1. Major publishing journal.

3.2 Theoretical foundation

Experts in urban and metropolitan policy and research have been striving to implement the concepts of sustainable development in cities and metropolitan areas since the 1987 Brundtland Commission report popularized the idea worldwide. The idea of sustainable development has stood the test of time because it provides policymakers with a straightforward and intuitive framework that can easily adjust to changing social and economic priorities, technology landscapes, and individual goals. Because it calls for comprehensive solutions that safeguard the interests of future generations and suggests a holistic perspective on the economy and ecology, it is attractive to both advocates and academics. Efforts to incorporate this notion into urban policy procedures have persisted for almost 20 years despite significant political, economic, social, institutional, and technological obstacles. This is a clear indication of the concept’s potency and usefulness. Based on Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) and Goldman and Gorham (2006), it is evident that the concept of sustainability is a critical factor in businesses’ success. The literature presents diverse perspectives on the relationship between a company’s sustainability and financial performance. Orlitzky et al. (2003) established that business virtue, evidenced by social responsibility and environmental responsibility, primarily yields positive outcomes. Researchers at the University of Oxford analyzed 190 academic publications on business sustainability. They determined that Environmental, Social, and Business Governance (ESG) performance improves operational outcomes, reduces capital expenditures, and promotes stock market performance (Clark and Monk, 2017). Clarkson et al. (2013) demonstrated that companies mitigating environmental impacts experienced improved financial performance, as evidenced by enhanced cash flow, reduced leverage, and increased growth. Consequently, environmental stewardship benefits businesses, as demonstrated by Esty and Cort (2017).

3.2.1 Stakeholder theory

In the context of sustainability in management, Stakeholder Theory provides a valuable framework for companies to align their business strategies with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) while addressing the diverse needs of multiple stakeholder groups. Unlike traditional models that prioritize shareholders alone, this theory argues that businesses have a responsibility to serve all stakeholders—including employees, customers, communities, and the environment. By adopting this broader perspective, companies are encouraged to make sustainable decisions that generate benefits not only for themselves but also for society as a whole. This approach has important implications, prompting firms to engage in ethical sourcing, ensure fair labor practices, and uphold environmental stewardship as integral parts of their operations.

3.2.2 Agency theory

Agency Theory examines the relationship between principals—such as owners or shareholders—and agents, typically managers or executives within a firm. It focuses on challenges that arise from conflicts of interest, information asymmetry, and the alignment of goals between these parties. A key aspect of addressing these challenges is ensuring that managers’ incentives are aligned with sustainability goals, which helps mitigate principal-agent conflicts. However, measuring and reporting sustainability performance remains complex, creating information gaps between managers who control the data and owners or stakeholders responsible for evaluating it. Agency Theory thus plays a crucial role in shaping corporate governance practices, including board oversight, linking executive compensation to sustainability metrics, and fostering stakeholder engagement to ensure accountability.

3.2.3 Resource based value

This perspective highlights that firms can achieve a sustainable competitive advantage by developing environmentally friendly resources and capabilities. For example, companies that invest in renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, or hydropower, can reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. Additionally, adopting eco-efficient production methods—such as low-waste and energy-saving manufacturing processes—helps minimize environmental impact while improving efficiency. Sustainable innovation also plays a vital role, with firms creating products such as biodegradable packaging and electric vehicles or embracing circular economy models that prioritize reuse and resource conservation. Together, these strategies enable businesses to align profitability with environmental responsibility.

3.2.4 Institutional theory

Institutional theory sheds insight on how legislative, normative, and cultural elements impact corporate strategies, explaining why firms embrace sustainable practices within the framework of managerial sustainability. Regulations, societal expectations, and competitive dynamics all put pressure on organizations to launch sustainability programs. Consequently, businesses incorporate sustainability initiatives not just to meet regulatory mandates but also to win over stakeholders and improve their standing in the industry. This idea underscores the importance of external factors in shaping a business’s pursuit of sustainability.

3.3 CSP in industries practices

Corporate sustainability performance (CSP) is defined in various ways; however, it can be best described as a strategy for corporations to strike a balance among economic profit, environmental responsibility, social responsibility, and other stakeholder interests (Jiang et al., 2018). CSP integrates the principles of sustainable development into core business strategies and operations, balancing financial performance with environmental stewardship and social responsibility.

In industry, Corporate Sustainability Performance (CSP) typically involves several key practices. These include reducing carbon footprints and energy consumption to minimize environmental impact, as well as using resources efficiently and managing waste responsibly. Companies also focus on ensuring fair labor practices and actively engaging with the communities in which they operate. Innovation plays a crucial role in enabling businesses to develop sustainable products and services that meet the evolving demands of the market and society. Additionally, transparent reporting and accountability are essential, often achieved through recognized sustainability frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), which help communicate progress to stakeholders.

Implementing and maintaining a strong Corporate Sustainability Performance (CSP) presents diverse challenges, depending on the industry, due to differences in environmental impacts, regulatory landscapes, stakeholder pressures, and operational complexities. Particularly, CSP implementation in Indonesia faces several challenges, including inconsistent regulatory enforcement, limited awareness, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and a prevailing focus on short-term profits over long-term sustainability. Complex supply chains hinder responsible sourcing, while inadequate measurement and reporting systems affect transparency. Organizational resistance and limited stakeholder engagement reduce effectiveness, which is further compounded by restricted access to green finance and technology. Additionally, Indonesia’s diverse environmental and social contexts necessitate tailored solutions, making the adoption of CSP more complex. These challenges underscore the need for enhanced governance, education, and financial support to promote sustainability in Indonesian businesses.

There are many challenges and opportunities in achieving Carbon Neutrality, one example of which is Apple Inc.’s commitment to carbon neutrality across its entire business and manufacturing supply chain by 2030. They invest heavily in renewable energy and circular economy principles, such as product recycling programs. Moreover, in its Sustainability Report, Apple publishes annual Environmental Progress Reports that detail energy use, materials recovery, and the reduction of hazardous substances. Another example from an Indonesian local company is PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia Tbk (Telkom Indonesia), which actively reduces its carbon footprint by optimizing energy use in its network infrastructure and offices, investing in renewable energy, and implementing waste management programs. The company has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with national targets. Telkom invests in green technologies, such as energy-efficient data centers and smart city solutions, to support Indonesia’s sustainable urban development. The company integrates sustainability into its corporate governance framework, publishing annual sustainability reports that are aligned with the GRI standards, ensuring transparency and fostering stakeholder engagement.

3.4 Country of study

Among the top 10 countries in terms of empirical studies, China exhibits the highest volume of research, comprising 34 studies (Figure 3). Additionally, 23 studies were conducted in various countries globally. According to Berger et al. (2013), the world’s two largest economies are the US and China. Research on CSP is crucial for understanding how sustainability is integrated into corporate plans, as nations with large markets and great business opportunities are involved.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Theory mapping.

The European Union ranked third, with 10 research studies conducted across countries, while the USA ranked fourth in terms of the number of studies. The subsequent rankings are as follows: Turkey, with 9 studies; India and Saudi Arabia, with 8 studies each; and Taiwan, Indonesia, and Malaysia, each with 6 studies. Bangladesh, Pakistan, Jordan, Australia, and Brazil each had five studies. Additionally, the United Kingdom, Ghana, Romania, and Spain each conducted four studies. Approximately 44.2% of the research was conducted in developed countries. In developing countries, the figure is approximately 40.8%, while studies that compare developed and developing nations indicate a difference of 15%. The findings demonstrate that the majority of the study is conducted in developed nations (refer to Figure 4).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Sustainability focus strategy.

Identifying the gap in research on CSP, which predominantly occurs in developed countries, is crucial. Sustainability emerged as a strategy in developed countries, originating with the Triple Bottom Line concept in Denmark.

Subsequently, it expanded globally to developing nations, influenced by the sustainability strategies of multinational corporations implemented in their branches within these regions. The development of sustainability plans that meet the needs and wants of customers in underdeveloped countries may be hindered by this. Markets in developing nations are often prominent and promising, which can lead to fast economic expansion. Companies and brands in these nations may miss out on sustainability opportunities to capitalize on current market trends due to a lack of study on CSP. To better understand sustainability across cultures, further research is needed in developing nations. This research should include precise information and analysis, as well as capture cultural nuances in how sustainability is applied strategically.

Additionally, profiling the country of study offers further analysis to examine alongside country citation (see Figure 5). Several countries excel in both research volume and citation count, totaling 1,631 citations. The United States has the second-highest citation rate. Several reasons contribute to its prominence, including the United States’s well-developed research infrastructure, vast amounts of money allocated to sustainability research, the persistence of many top companies, and a sizable consumer market that encourages creative approaches to sustainability. China, on the other hand, ranked third with 544 citations despite being the top site for CSP research. This suggests that China is not widely recognized internationally. This disparity may be a reflection of the research community’s engagement with Chinese studies, which is influenced by variables such as language barriers, the regional focus of studies, or the narrowness of study subjects that lack broad applicability (Li and Cornelis, 2018). Romania is not one of the top 10 countries for study locations, but it has attracted considerable attention in terms of citations, ranking fifth with 345. Despite these countries’ relatively low citation counts, the research they produce is of high quality and deserves widespread recognition and application in the academic world (Figures 6–9).

Figure 5

Figure 5. Innovation strategy.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Empirical country.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Type of countries group.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Country citation.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Types of articles and methods used.

3.5 Criticism and conceptual refinement

CSP has gained prominence as a framework integrating environmental, social, and economic dimensions into corporate strategy. However, it faces several criticisms and ongoing conceptual refinements. One major critique concerns its measurement and standardization. CSP lacks universally accepted metrics, leading to inconsistent and sometimes incomparable reporting across companies and industries. This variability undermines the reliability of CSP assessments and enables “greenwashing,” where firms overstate sustainability efforts without substantive impact. Another criticism addresses the business case for sustainability, questioning whether CSP genuinely drives superior financial performance or merely serves as a reputational tool. Critics argue that some firms prioritize symbolic compliance over deep integration of sustainability, treating CSP as a marketing tool rather than a transformative strategy. This superficial adoption limits CSP’s potential to effect meaningful environmental and social change.

To establish the conceptual framework for the study, VOSviewer maps visualize key themes and their relationships in sustainability-related research. From 246 articles that are reviewed in this paper, we filtered to 3 times commonly used words and chose the top 15 most frequent words that are mentioned. It found that the central terms of the network are “sustainability” and “sustainable development,” highlighting their pivotal role in the discourse. These nodes are strongly connected to concepts such as “decision making,” “economic and social effects,” and “commerce,” indicating a focus on integrating sustainability into business decisions and understanding its broader economic and societal impacts. The cluster also links to “climate change,” emphasizing environmental concerns as a core aspect of sustainability studies. Another distinct cluster centers around “human,” “humans,” “COVID-19,” and “supply chain management,” illustrating emerging interests in the pandemic’s impact on human systems and supply chains within the field of sustainability research. The connections between these clusters suggest interdisciplinary integration, where environmental, social, and economic dimensions intertwine with health and logistics challenges. Overall, the map reflects the multifaceted nature of sustainability research, balancing ecological issues with human and economic factors to support informed decision-making for sustainable futures.

Conceptually, CSP has evolved from a narrow focus on corporate social responsibility (CSR) to a more strategic and integrated approach emphasizing long-term value creation for multiple stakeholders. Scholars call for a greater emphasis on dynamic capabilities—how firms adapt, innovate, and integrate sustainability into their core operations rather than treating it as an add-on. This shift encourages organizations to view CSP as a continuous learning process aligned with evolving societal expectations. Recent refinement also involves expanding the stakeholder perspective beyond shareholders to include communities, employees, and ecosystems, recognizing complex interdependencies. Additionally, emerging research advocates for integrating systems thinking and addressing trade-offs between sustainability dimensions, moving toward holistic and context-sensitive Comprehensive Sustainability Planning (CSP) frameworks.

Overall, while CSP remains a vital concept for sustainable business, its conceptual clarity and practical application continue to develop through critical debate and multidisciplinary research (Figure 10).

Figure 10

Figure 10. Keyword mapping.

4 Conclusion

The paper reveals several significant results, particularly regarding the surge in CSP research post-COVID-19, reflecting a broader societal shift towards sustainability. The increase in studies from 2022 to 2024 suggests that the pandemic accelerated the recognition of sustainability as both a corporate responsibility and a key performance driver. The research also highlights a concentration of CSP studies in developed countries, such as those in North America, Europe, and Asia, with relatively little focus on developing and underdeveloped countries, despite the latter being crucial to global sustainability efforts. This geographical disparity points to an opportunity for more research in regions like Africa and Latin America, where sustainability challenges are unique and often underexplored. The study also identifies that while technological innovation drives sustainability in developed countries, process innovations are more prevalent in developing nations, addressing local needs like sustainable agriculture or affordable energy solutions.

Additionally, this paper highlights the growing use of theoretical frameworks such as Resource-Based View (RBV) and Stakeholder Theory in CSP research. These frameworks underscore the importance of both internal resources and the broader social impact of sustainability strategies. However, the paper notes that Institutional Theory, which could explain how national regulations and cultural norms shape corporate sustainability practices, is underutilized. It also identifies significant barriers to CSP in developing regions, including inconsistent regulatory enforcement, limited access to green technologies, and a focus on short-term profits over long-term sustainability. The paper concludes by urging governments to play a more active role in fostering sustainability through stronger regulatory frameworks and financial incentives, while also calling for further research on regional differences in CSP adoption, particularly in underdeveloped countries.

In relation to the concept of triple bottom line, in this paper highlights how corporate sustainability performance (CSP) is viewed through these three dimensions, emphasizing that companies need to balance profitability, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship to achieve long-term sustainability. For example, companies are seen adopting practices that aim to reduce their carbon footprint (environmental), promote fair labor practices (social), and improve their financial performance (economic). The study uses these three dimensions to assess CSP across various countries with differing levels of economic development. By using CSP practices discussed in section 3.3, comprehensive approach is being reviewed.

In Section 3 “Results and Discussion,” one of the most interesting findings is the growing disparity in corporate sustainability performance (CSP) between developed and developing countries, particularly in Indonesia. While CSP research has grown significantly in developed nations, there is a clear gap in both research and the adoption of sustainability practices in developing countries. Despite Indonesia’s rapid economic growth and increasing adoption of sustainability reporting, the country faces significant barriers to fully integrating sustainability into corporate practices, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). These barriers include inconsistent regulatory enforcement, limited access to green finance, and a lack of awareness about the long-term benefits of sustainability. The study suggests that although Indonesia has made progress, particularly with the rise in sustainability reports, it still faces challenges in aligning corporate strategies with global sustainability standards. The gap between developed and developing countries in adopting effective sustainability strategies remains a key issue. This highlights the need for more targeted policies and incentives to foster sustainability in emerging markets like Indonesia, ensuring that the country can overcome these barriers and promote sustainable business practices across all sectors, particularly for SMEs.

Companies in Indonesia must now integrate corporate sustainability into their strategies to remain competitive, building trust with investors, consumers, and regulators. With 88% of firms issuing sustainability reports, the adoption of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and green growth signals a shift toward long-term business models that prioritize environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and good governance. Without embedding sustainability into core practices, firms risk reputational damage, regulatory penalties, and increased operational costs, which would ultimately hinder their ability to succeed in the future. The KPMG report states that 67% of companies globally, including those in Indonesia, recognize the importance of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors in corporate performance. This data further demonstrates how sustainability is becoming a critical component for long-term business success, as more firms align with international sustainability standards.

5 Contribution and future research

This paper’s significant contribution lies in its systematic literature review (SLR) of corporate sustainability performance (CSP) across countries at varying stages of economic development. By focusing on developed, developing, and underdeveloped nations, it addresses a key gap in existing research, which has predominantly centred on developed economies. The paper offers a comprehensive comparative analysis of how economic development influences corporate sustainability strategies and outcomes, providing insights into the challenges and opportunities businesses face in different national contexts. It also explores the role of innovation in achieving sustainability goals, particularly in developing and underdeveloped countries where innovation faces unique barriers.

Furthermore, the study identifies key drivers such as government regulations, market demand, and technological advancements, alongside barriers like poverty, infrastructure deficits, and limited access to green technologies. These findings provide practical insights for multinational corporations and policymakers, offering guidance on adapting sustainability strategies across diverse economic regions. The paper also integrates management theories such as Resource-Based Theory, Stakeholder Theory, and Institutional Theory to frame its analysis, deepening the understanding of how sustainability is shaped by economic, institutional, and organizational factors. It concludes by proposing a future research agenda, emphasizing the need for further exploration into the intersection of corporate sustainability and economic development, particularly in underdeveloped regions.

Author contributions

EM: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SBA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Berger, R., Choi, C. J., and Herstein, R. (2013). China’s social market economy. Int. J. Asian Bus. Inf. Manag. 4, 21–30. doi: 10.4018/jabim.2013010103

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bergman, E. M. L. (2012). Finding citations to social work literature: the relative benefits of using web of science, Scopus, or Google scholar. J. Acad. Librariansh. 38, 370–379. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.002

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cai, T., Tony Cai, T., and Guo, Z. (2021). Optimal statistical inference for individualized treatment effects in high-dimensional models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat Methodol. 83, 669–719. doi: 10.1111/rssb.12426

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., et al. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: web of science and Scopus databases. Asian Soc. Sci. 9:18–23. doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n5p18

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chams, N., and García-Blandón, J. (2019). On the importance of sustainable human resource management for the adoption of sustainable development goals. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141, 109–122. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.006

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clark, G. L., and Monk, A. H. B. (2017). Institutional investors in global markets Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198793212.001.0001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clarkson, P., Fang, X., Li, Y., and Gordon, R. (2013). The relevance of environmental disclosures: are such disclosures incrementally informative? J. Account. Public Policy 32, 410–431. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2013.06.008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowl. Soc. 1:104. doi: 10.1007/bf03177550

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

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

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Esty, D., and Cort, T. (2017). Corporate sustainability metrics: what investors need and don’t get. J. Environ. Investing 8, 11–53.

Google Scholar

Farrukh, M., Meng, F., Raza, A., and Tahir, M. S. (2020a). Twenty-seven years of sustainable development journal: a bibliometric analysis. Sustain. Dev. 28, 1725–1737. doi: 10.1002/sd.2120

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Farrukh, M., Meng, F., Wu, Y., and Nawaz, K. (2020b). Twenty-eight years of business strategy and the environment research: a bibliometric analysis. Bus. Strat. Environ. 29, 2572–2582.

Google Scholar

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

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gatto, A. (2020). A pluralistic approach to economic and business sustainability: a critical meta-synthesis of foundations, metrics, and evidence of human and local development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 27, 1525–1539. doi: 10.1002/csr.1912

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Göcke, L., Hülsebusch, K., and Menter, M. (2022). The legitimacy of corporate entrepreneurship: a structured literature review. Manag. Rev. Q. 72, 385–416.

Google Scholar

Goldman, T., and Gorham, R. (2006). Sustainable urban transport: four innovative directions. Technol. Soc. 28, 261–273. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Halder, D., Pradhan, D., and Chaudhuri, H. R. (2021). Forty-five years of celebrity credibility and endorsement literature: review and learnings. J. Bus. Res. 125, 397–415.

Google Scholar

Hatcher, R. L. (1999). Sustainable development-OECD policy approaches for the 21st century. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 1:96.

Google Scholar

Jhawar, A., Varshney, S., and Kumar, P. (2024). Sponsorship disclosure on social media: literature review and future research agenda. Manag. Rev. Q. 74, 1589–1617.

Google Scholar

Jiang, Q., Liu, Z., Liu, W., Li, T., Cong, W., Zhang, H., et al. (2018). A principal component analysis based three-dimensional sustainability assessment model to evaluate corporate sustainable performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187, 625–637. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.255,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

KPMG International 2022 Big shifts, small steps: Survey of sustainability reporting 2022. Available online at: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/se/pdf/komm/2022/Global-Survey-of-Sustainability-Reporting-2022.pdf

Google Scholar

Li, D., and Cornelis, G. (2018). How do researchers perceive research misbehaviors? A transcultural case study of Chinese and Flemish researchers. Account. Res. 25, 350–369. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2018.1507824,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., and Ali, F. (2022). Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute.’. Serv. Ind. J. 42, 481–513. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2022.2047941

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Meho, L. I., and Rogers, Y. (2008). Citation counting, citation ranking, and h-index of human-computer interaction researchers: a comparison of Scopus and web of science. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59, 1711–1726. doi: 10.1002/asi.20874

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Miles, D. A. (2017). “A taxonomy of research gaps: identifying and defining the seven research gaps” in Doctoral student workshop: Finding research gaps-research methods and strategies, Journal of Research Methods and Strategies. vol. 1 (Dallas, Texas), 1–10.

Google Scholar

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Br. Med. J. 339, 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Müller-Bloch, C., and Kranz, J. 2015. A framework for rigorously identifying research gaps in qualitative literature reviews. ICIS 2015 Proceedings. 2. Available online at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2015/proceedings/ResearchMethods/2

Google Scholar

Norris, M., and Oppenheim, C. (2007). Comparing alternatives to the web of science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature. J. Informetr. 1, 161–169. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2006.12.001

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

OECD (2015). Better policies for development 2015 : OECD Publishing.

Google Scholar

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., and Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organ. Stud. 24, 403–441. doi: 10.1177/0170840603024003910

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Panic, N., Leoncini, E., de Belvis, G., Ricciardi, W., and Boccia, S. (2013). Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One 8:e83138. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083138,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Papadimitri, P., Pasiouras, F., Tasiou, M., and Ventouri, A. (2020). The effects of board of directors’ education on firms’ credit ratings. J. Bus. Res. 116, 294–313. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.059

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Paul, J., Lim, W. M., O’Cass, A., Hao, A. W., and Bresciani, S. (2021). Scientific procedures and rationales for systematic literature reviews (SPAR-4-SLR). Int. J. Consum. Stud. 45, O1–O16. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12695

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

PwC Singapore 2023 Sustainability report PwC Singapore - financial year 2023

Google Scholar

Robinson, K. A., Saldanha, I. J., and Mckoy, N. A. (2011). Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64, 1325–1330. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.009,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rocha, A. D., Garcia, S., Santos, A. B., Eduardo, J. C. C., Mesquita, C. T., Lugon, J. R., et al. (2020). No race-ethnicity adjustment in CKD-EPI equations is required for estimating glomerular filtration rate in the Brazilian population. Int. J. Nephrol. 2020, 1–9. doi: 10.1155/2020/2141038,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sauer, P. C., and Seuring, S. (2023). How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions. Rev. Manag. Sci. 17, 1899–1933. doi: 10.1007/s11846-023-00668-3

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Weber, M., Shils, E., and Finch, H. A. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences : Free Press.

Google Scholar

Webster, J., and Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q., xiii–xxiii.

Google Scholar

Wu, Y., Farrukh, M., Raza, A., Meng, F., and Alam, I. (2021). Framing the evolution of the corporate social responsibility and environmental management journal. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 28, 1397–1411. doi: 10.1002/csr.2127

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar