1. Introduction
To work for a lasting future and obtain competitive advantages, sustainability and the balance between economic, social, and environmental issues must be present in the organizational management and business sectors. The company’s sustainability orientation refers to its efforts to create long-term value by considering its business activities’ social, environmental, and economic impacts [1,2].
According to Elkinton [3], a change in organizations’ processes and values is necessary to introduce sustainable development, understood as a whole, in which the parts are interrelated and must be based on equity and deep respect for their participants. Economic, social, and environmental factors are the three essential pillars of sustainability. Economic sustainability refers to consistent growth and profitability; social sustainability refers to resolving social concerns; and environmental sustainability refers to ecosystems and the environmental effect of corporate operations [4,5].
A sustainable company is economically viable, sociably beneficial, and environmentally responsible. Accordingly, the company’s sustainability is measured when, apart from achieving its proposed objectives and maximizing its value, it has short-, medium-, and long-term viability to contribute to sustainable development within the community and the environment surrounding it [6,7,8,9]. Adhering to nature protection and adopting environmental responsibility, increasing focus on social and environmental performance, and the company’s economic performance have become concerns for organizations [10].
In the opinion of Altin and Yilmaz [11], sustainability is a significant concept that companies should consider, including environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Two factors lead businesses to prepare these reports for the development of sustainability. First, stakeholders can access comprehensive and transparent information about the company’s status. Secondly, it is very important for businesses due to their environmental and social contributions. Today, the understanding of achieving economic growth only by increasing production is still being determined. Society and companies have become more sensitive to the environment. Ensuring the participation of all businesses in sustainability reporting is essential for the continuity of the reports. All parts of society need to understand the benefits of sustainability in terms of its use in environmental and social ways.
Social and environmental issues are increasingly recognized as strategic in the organization, as they foster new opportunities for creating value by developing competitive advantages capable of differentiating companies from their current and potential competitors. Implementing and developing new technologies, strategies, and tools for managing social and environmental issues and achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDS) seems to be an indisputable issue.
Accounting itself has evolved from a merely technical practice to a form of social and moral accountability concerned with the sustainable use of resources [12]. The inadequacy of traditional accounting in meeting the information needs for corporate sustainability has led to the emergence of a new concept of sustainability accounting [13]. Sustainability accounting is a vital tool for organizations to account for their social and environmental impacts, and its development and adoption present both challenges and opportunities for corporate sustainability [14]. Sustainability accounting is still at an early stage of development. The challenges of integrating sustainability into accounting frameworks are several, such as the lack of involvement of most companies in sustainability accounting, which makes it difficult to build a more balanced relationship between business and environmental and social issues [15].
Management accountants have a pivotal role in introducing new forms of accounting and reporting to support decision-making processes, highlighting the need for their more significant involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting [16]. An accounting practice for measuring sustainability includes management control systems (MCS) as they integrate financial and non-financial issues, presenting a long-term vision and concern. These tools help integrate financial issues with sustainability issues, becoming a pillar for creating integrated reporting. These reports are fundamental to achieving the SDGs through an integrated vision of sustainability in the company’s strategy [17]. However, it is not always easy to create integrated reports that meet the requirements of transparency and accuracy, given the continuous evolution of standards and guidance.
Pizzi et al. [18] conducted a bibliometric investigation and systematic review to analyze the relationship between management research and the SDGs. The study aims to identify how management research contributes to achieving the SDGs and to map the landscape of existing research in this area. By examining a comprehensive dataset from major bibliographic databases, the authors identified key trends, influential papers, research clusters, and gaps in the literature. The study highlights that while there is growing attention to the SDGs in management research, integrating these goals into management practices is still emerging. Key themes include sustainable business practices, corporate social responsibility (CSR), environmental management, and social innovation. The authors also emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary approaches and the need for more empirical research to understand how management practices can effectively contribute to the SDGs.
Schaltegger and Wagner [19] explain that integrating sustainability performance metrics into MCS helps organizations balance financial and non-financial goals.
In organizations, it is not always easy to transition from traditional MCS to MCS that effectively supports the formulation and implementation of sustainability strategies. The MCS proposed by Malmi and Brown [20], focused on formal and informal control mechanisms, has been an example of success in integration, measurement, and commitment to sustainability [21,22].
However, several difficulties are encountered in the economic and financial quantification of sustainable development policies, leading to the development or adaptation of management tools [23,24,25]. Adams and Frost [24] found that MCS facilitates collecting and reporting sustainability data, aligning with GRI standards. Burritt and Schaltegger [26] describe how MCS helps in implementing standardized sustainability reporting frameworks. Epstein and Roy [27] argue that MCS provides critical data for strategic sustainability planning and decision-making. This implies a change in mentality and behavior patterns in organizations. MCS must adapt to and support such changes to create real value, generate lasting value, and develop a business that remains over time. Developing the concept of corporate sustainability involves several management control tools to define strategies aimed at society and not just at the market. For Zsóka and Vajkai [28] and Maas et al. [29], corporate sustainability requires integrative sustainability measurement and management rather than isolated applications of different tools, to become more proactive and transparent in their sustainability activity management.
Only a few organizations implement MCS that addresses all sustainability issues, and social issues are addressed less often [30]. The company’s culture and values are the main drivers of integrating all sustainability issues. These include procedures and standards that guide all employees to help understand and disseminate the organization’s culture and empower teams to be independent in their daily tasks, helping them recognize the consequences of their decisions [21]. Thus, combining strategic planning with the mentality and culture of organizations is essential to promoting sustainable development.
In the opinion of Riccaboni and Leone [31], Yu and Rowe [32], Crutzen and Herzig [33], and Crutzen et al. [34], when shaping processes for formulating and implementing sustainability strategies, it is expected that MCS can play a crucial role, given their high ability to support decision-making. For Latif et al. [35], management accounting systems for addressing sustainability challenges have been an emerging trend, particularly in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). According to these authors, changing the business environment requires modifying or developing new systems. MCS are useful for integrating sustainability principles into business strategy, policies, and operational practices [36,37,38].
In this topic, Corsi and Arru [39] affirm that sustainability management control tools prevail over formal ones. The study highlights sustainability management control tools and their use in Italy by the most sustainable companies, concluding by paying attention to some tools praised in the literature as well as their knowledge and use. In addition, there is a significant gap between the effectiveness that is intended to be achieved and that which is achieved. Although sustainability management focuses on the external perspective, sustainability management control tools can provide improvements in disclosure and sustainability management. It is necessary to reinforce formal sustainability control tools by disseminating knowledge about implementing these tools and encouraging sponsorship from top levels of management.
Organizations have implemented sustainability management control tools that measure and communicate social, environmental, and financial performance to enhance management, guide employee behavior, and support decision-making processes. Additionally, these tools improve the reliability of sustainability disclosures, enabling more effective communication with external parties and fostering greater stakeholder engagement [39]. For Pramono et al. [1], companies can also obtain additional benefits from sustainability management control tools, such as boosting the company’s credibility and reputation and enhancing employee satisfaction and engagement. According to Traxler et al. [40], if organizations have a sustainability report but do not implement proper control mechanisms for sustainability, they run the risk of their efforts being perceived, at best, as a well-intentioned attempt at reputation-building. Beusch et al. [41] argue that organizations can manage sustainability by changing management control practices. The authors added that communication among managers across organizational levels and functions helps address challenges related to the technical and organizational integration of sustainability within a company’s value chain. Additionally, the extent to which strategic-level managers emphasize external sustainability drivers affects the company’s ability to develop and market sustainability-related products and services. Finally, a dedicated CEO and strategic-level management can prevent the marginalization of sustainability by actively communicating their commitment through thorough dialogues across management tiers. For Caputo et al. [42], sustainability control systems mustn’t be kept separate from traditional Performance Management Systems (PMSs) to embed sustainability into the core of an organization.
Integrating sustainable MCS into operations is important to ensure the company’s business runs effectively and efficiently [43,44]. Then, according to Pramono [1], by integrating control systems, organizations can ensure their operations remain environmentally friendly and sustainable. MCS can play an essential role in constructing sustainability indicators, mainly due to the availability of adequate and manageable information that guides organizations [45]. MCS can also support sustainability and integrated reporting [46,47,48]. The study by Ussahawanitchakit [49] shows that MCS positively impacts organizational renewal and firm sustainability. For the author, MCS can help firms survive and sustain themselves in highly variable environments. To gain a sustainable competitive advantage, superior performance, and long-term sustainability, firms’ executives can pay attention to MCS’s development, utilization, maintenance, and improvement.
MCS is also used to measure and monitor the performance of intellectual capital. Intellectual capital in the context of sustainable development encompasses human capital, structural capital, and relational capital and has been identified as a driver for achieving the SDGs and promoting the sustainable and innovative development of organizations [50]. Intellectual capital drives innovation and efficiency, promoting sustainable business practices and improving the organization’s reputation and market value.
Rahi et al. [51] and Kerr et al. [52] affirm a growing number of literature reviews on sustainability and MCS separately. Still, more research should focus on the relationships between management control and sustainability reporting. The authors found that qualitative case studies, interviews, and commentary papers dominate the field and that sustainability results from numerous sustainable strategies rather than a mere successful application of MCS. They identified many authors who widely advocated for a few effective control tools capable of incorporating sustainability strategies and helping to develop managerial motivation in sustainable directions. Bui and Villiers [47] added that only some studies have examined sustainability in MCS using a comprehensive framework. MCS can promote sustainability for these authors by guiding and shaping organizational practices, actors’ behavior, and support strategies. According to Traxler et al. [40], studies investigating the interplay of sustainability and MCS are still at an early stage. However, a broad consensus exists on the need for progress in corporate sustainability by interlinking reporting and control.
A comprehensive view of the linkages between sustainability information measurement and MCS and a framework highlighting these linkages need to be included. MCS has focused on environmental and sustainability issues, leaving open how sustainability management control is incorporated into the context of management methods in an organization [29]. MCS ensures the implementation of successful sustainability strategies into the organization’s core operations [53]. Corsi and Arru [39] added that few empirical studies have focused on using sustainability management control tools to develop a corporate sustainability strategy and foster a commitment to sustainability.
The integration of sustainability into MCS is a critical area of research that has not been fully explored or effectively implemented in practice and presents several gaps that need addressing. The theoretical frameworks for integrating sustainability into MCS are fragmented. There is no consensus on how sustainability should be conceptualized within MCS, leading to diverse and sometimes conflicting approaches [53]. Existing MCS often emphasize financial controls and overlook sustainability’s environmental and social dimensions. There is a need for frameworks that equally weigh all three pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental, social) [54]. Empirical studies that provide evidence on the effectiveness of integrating sustainability into MCS are limited. There is a need for more empirical research to validate theoretical models and frameworks [55].
Pizzi [18] highlights the importance of bibliometric analysis in identifying the structure and dynamics of research fields, aiding in the visualization of knowledge landscapes and research fronts.
Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and bibliometric analysis are valuable methodologies in sustainability accounting research, as they address several critical needs and gaps in the literature. By employing SLR and bibliometric analysis, researchers can comprehensively assess the existing literature, identify trends and gaps, and develop robust frameworks and methodologies for effectively integrating sustainability into MCS.
In sustainability accounting research, combining SLR and bibliometric analysis can be particularly powerful. SLR can provide an in-depth understanding of the research landscape, while bibliometric analysis can offer quantitative evidence of trends and influential works. Together, they provide a holistic view of the field, facilitating more informed and impactful research [11,18,30,33,40,50,51,56,57,58].
Bebbington et al. [59] provide a comprehensive review of the literature on sustainability accounting and accountability. The study uses SLR to identify key themes and gaps in the literature, offering a critical analysis of how accounting practices can support sustainability goals. They identified the need for greater integration of sustainability metrics in traditional accounting systems and highlighted the role of MCS in driving sustainability performance.
The study of Hahn and Kühnen [60] conducts an SLR to summarize the determinants of sustainability reporting, providing a thorough overview of trends, theoretical approaches, and research opportunities. The authors emphasized the influence of regulatory frameworks, stakeholder pressure, and organizational characteristics on sustainability reporting practices.
Traxler et al. [40] conducted a systematic exploratory literature review to examine the interplay between sustainability reporting and MCS. The study aims to identify how MCS supports sustainability reporting practices and how these reporting practices, in turn, influence management control. By analyzing existing literature, the authors uncover key themes, research gaps, and future directions for integrating sustainability reporting and MCS. The review highlights that MCS plays a crucial role in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of sustainability reports. MCS facilitates the collection, analysis, and reporting of sustainability data, which enhances transparency and accountability. Furthermore, sustainability reporting can provide feedback that informs and improves MCS, creating a virtuous cycle that supports continuous improvement in sustainability performance.
Rao and Shukla [61] conducted a bibliometric analysis to understand the integration of sustainability within strategic control systems. It maps out the development and thematic evolution of the research, identifying key trends and gaps. The analysis shows that most studies focus on the environmental aspects of sustainability, with fewer addressing social and economic dimensions. The study highlights the importance of integrating sustainability into all aspects of strategic control to achieve comprehensive sustainability goals.
Altin and Yilmaz [11] conducted a bibliometric analysis to explore the research trends, key themes, and influential works in sustainability accounting and reporting. By examining data from major academic databases such as Web of Science and Scopus, they identified the most cited articles, prolific authors, prominent journals, and research institutions. Their analysis revealed significant growth in the literature on sustainability accounting and reporting over recent years. Key themes included the integration of environmental and social performance metrics, the development of sustainability reporting frameworks, and the impact of sustainability reporting on corporate performance and stakeholder engagement. The study also highlighted the importance of interdisciplinary research and the need for standardized reporting practices to enhance comparability and transparency.
While studies on MCS for sustainability focus specifically on how internal control systems integrate and promote sustainability within organizational operations, other sustainability accounting topics often emphasize external reporting, stakeholder communication, and compliance with standards. Both areas are crucial, but MCS for sustainability tends to be more inward-focused, dealing with internal processes and decision-making, other sustainability accounting topics are more outward-focused, dealing with transparency, reporting, and stakeholder relations.
In this context, this study aims to analyze, with bibliometric techniques, international publications on the relationship between MCS and sustainability. This study seeks to add to the literature on sustainability and MCS by identifying trends in evolution and future research opportunities. This approach not only advances academic understanding but also provides practical insights for organizations striving to achieve sustainability goals.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Type of Analysis and Purpose
The present study is descriptive, presenting the observation, classification, analysis, and interpretation of articles to map the characteristics of the scientific production of articles about MCS and sustainability. The type of analysis is bibliometrics, which consists of a quantitative technique applied to analyze the scientific output of a topic, its effects, and its contributions during the time frame investigated [62].
In recent years, studies that apply bibliometric research have increased as a powerful tool for evaluating scientific outputs and identifying current and future research trends. The bibliometric method is a recognized research technique for the statistical and numerical assessment of scientific literature [63]. The bibliometric analysis is based on data collection transparency, the definition of criteria for selecting articles, and the application of statistical methods.
Bibliometric analysis arises from organizing and quantifying academic information from specific areas. Therefore, it is important to classify published materials in a specific research area to identify their main trends. This provides greater precision and adequacy of the data observed and their behavior in research phenomena [64,65].
Bibliometric analysis helps understand a theme by broadly identifying, describing, and mapping its attributes [66]. In this sense, it is a technique that analyzes all publications on a given subject from different sources of knowledge and aims to quantify and analyze all production over a period of time. The quantitative approach uses quantification in processing data using statistical techniques [67,68].
The main objective of our study is to analyze international publications about the relationship between MCS and sustainability, identify trends in evolution, and identify future research opportunities. As such, this study maps the scientific literature related to MCS and sustainability through a bibliometric analysis using quantitative tools, following previous studies [18,56,69].
Sustainability accounting is inherently multidisciplinary, involving economics, environmental science, social sciences, and more, and the field has evolved significantly over the years. Bibliometric analysis can identify emerging trends, influential works, and key researchers in the field. This helps map the evolution of research themes and highlights underexplored areas that require further investigation. Through co-citation and keyword analysis, bibliometric techniques can reveal clusters of research topics and methodological approaches, providing a clearer understanding of how different aspects of sustainability are integrated into MCS.
Researchers can uncover emerging trends and declining areas of interest through bibliometric techniques such as co-word analysis, thematic mapping, and citation analysis. This can direct future research efforts towards burgeoning areas with high relevance and potential impact.
The output was obtained through the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus (SCO) databases, considered in the literature to be the most used and most recognized scientific databases [70].
2.2. Data Collection (and Organization) Procedures
Data on “Management Control Systems” and “Sustainability” was collected in January 2024 from WoS and SCO databases across various scientific and social science indexes for publications up to December 2023. These keywords were entered into the search engine in the “Topic” section, i.e., the keywords used were only localized in the following sections of the articles: “Article title, Abstract, Keywords”. Data underwent cleaning to address inconsistencies between databases (punctuation, spacing, etc.) before bibliometric and content analysis (using R Bibliometrix 3.0 for network analysis).
It should be noted that only documents corresponding to scientific articles were included in the outputs, excluding books, proceedings, and other documents. Initially, 139 articles were obtained from the WOS search and 73 from the SCO search. The data collected was downloaded in Bibtex format for later reading in the R Studio software (version 1.2.5042), which was used to eliminate duplicates and create a unified database that resulted in a final output of 157 articles (Figure 1).
3. Results
3.1. Final Database
We analyzed 157 peer-reviewed articles (2009–2023) focusing on management control and sustainability (Table 1). This selection ensured high scientific rigor [71,72].
A surge of research is exploring how MCS can be leveraged for sustainability. Since 2009, a substantial body of work has emerged, with 157 articles published across 69 journals by 2023. This research effort involved 357 authors, utilizing a diverse range of keywords (545) and drawing upon a vast knowledge base (7074 references). Collaboration is becoming the norm, with an average of 2.69 co-authors per article.
3.2. Trend Topics
Table 2 shows the frequency of keywords related to MCS and sustainability used in academic publications between 2009 and 2023. The keywords are organized by category, and the table shows the number of times each keyword has been used in each category.
The table shows the frequency of different ‘Trend Topics’ in research papers over some time. Year Q1 refers to the first quarter of a year (typically January to March). Year Average represents the average year in which a ‘Trend Topic’ appeared across the data set. Year Q3 refers to the third quarter of a year (typically July to September).
These metrics (Year Q1, Year Average, Year Q3) are relevant to understanding trends over time. Overall, the table provides a valuable overview of the research on MCS and sustainability. It can identify trends, compare research approaches, and generate new research ideas.
3.3. Distribution of Authors, Journals, and Research Topics
Figure 2 shows, in its first column (AU), the authors who published their research on MCS and sustainability. The principal authors who have worked in this area are Dorothea Maria Bowyer, Charl de Villiers, and Jan Alpenberg. In the center column (SO), we have the journals where these research papers have been published. We can see that the journal with the highest number of publications on this subject is sustainability (21 articles), which is a Quartile 1 journal with h-index 169 and impact factor SJR = 0.67, followed by the Journal of Cleaner Production (17 articles), which is a Quartile 1 journal with h-index 309 and impact factor SJR = 2.06, and the Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal (10 articles). Finally, the right-hand column (DE) shows the main topics investigated. The most researched topics are sustainability, MCS, management control, and CSR.
3.4. Annual Scientific Production
Table 3 shows the number of articles published annually from 2009 to 2023. The years are listed in the first column, and the number of articles published each year is listed in the second column.
The number of articles published each year varies from 0 to 28. The highest number of articles was published in 2021, with 28. The lowest number of articles was published in 2011, with 0.
3.5. Scientific Production by Country
Table 4 lists countries by the number of documents per country. Italy has the highest number of documents per country, with 49 documents. The second country with the highest number of documents per country is Australia, with 46 documents. The third one is the United Kingdom, which has 35 documents. The fourth one is Germany, with 31 documents. The fifth one is Malaysia, with 30 documents. The countries with the fewest documents per country are Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Russia, and South Korea (all with 1 document). The other countries with the fewest documents per country are Indonesia, Ireland, Qatar, Slovenia, Thailand (all with two documents), China, Denmark, and Pakistan (all with three documents).
The table also shows that most countries have between 3 and 20 documents. Only five countries have more than 30 documents: Italy (49), Australia (46), the United Kingdom (35), Germany (31), and Malaysia (30).
3.6. Network of Research Topics
We see five interconnected clusters when we analyze the network linking the research topics. The brown cluster is related to sustainability management, the green cluster refers to CSR, the red cluster deals with MCS, the blue cluster deals with Environmental Management, and finally, the orange cluster deals with Environmental Management Systems (Figure 3).
3.7. Network of Authors, Themes, and Research Contents
Figure 4 shows the most relevant authors, namely Wijethilake, Asiaei, Battaglia, Villiers, and Abdel-Maksoud, and the network of interconnections between them.
4. Discussion and Implications
Our study aims to advance knowledge in the field of MCS for sustainability by addressing key gaps and providing comprehensive insights through a bibliometric analysis. This allows us to identify and map the evolution of research trends in MCS for sustainability.
After eliminating duplicate articles, a unified database with 157 articles was analyzed. The number of articles published annually (from 2009 to 2023) has generally increased. Our database has been around for 15 years. In the first seven years, the average productivity was 2.14 articles per year, while in the following eight years, the average productivity was 17.75 articles per year, which shows an exponential growth in publications. There were a few years when the number of articles published decreased, such as in 2011 and 2020 (see Table 3). However, the overall trend has been upward. In our opinion, the years 2019, 2021, and 2022 are at the top of the leaderboard because they serve as pivotal years that reflect pre-pandemic conditions, pandemic response, and post-pandemic recovery, respectively, with significant strides in healthcare, sustainability, digital transformation, using and adapting MCS, and economic resilience.
The increasing frequency of keywords related to sustainability in academic publications (see Table 2) reveals a growing interest in using MCS to promote sustainability. The rise in sustainability-related keywords in academic publications definitely suggests a growing focus on this area. This aligns with the increasing global concern for environmental and social issues. The rise in sustainability-related keywords suggests researchers are increasingly recognizing the potential of MCS in this domain. This could lead to the development of new MCS methods specifically tailored to sustainability problems [36,38].
In this way, our study is in line with other studies [36,37,38] that consider how MCS helps integrate sustainability into business strategy, policies, and operational practices.
Among our database, the most common keywords are “sustainability”, “management control”, and “control systems” (see Table 2). This suggests that these are the core concepts being explored in the research on this topic. The use of keywords related to environmental performance has increased, suggesting a growing focus on using MCS to measure and improve environmental performance. Using keywords related to corporate social responsibility (CSR) has also increased, indicating a growing interest in using MCS to integrate CSR into business strategy. Various keywords are used to explore the topic of MCS and sustainability, suggesting a complex and multifaceted area of research. On the other hand, the use of keywords related to management accounting has decreased over time, indicating a growing focus on the practical application of MCS to promote sustainability. The use of keywords related to performance measurement has increased over time, suggesting a growing interest in using MCS to measure the effectiveness of sustainability initiatives.
Analyzing the number of documents per country, we found that only five countries have more than 30 documents: Italy, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Malaysia (see Table 4). In our opinion, these countries are at the top of the leaderboard because of a combination of factors that highlight the strengths and significant achievements of these countries in various domains: Economic and Technological Advancements (namely their robust industrial sectors and advancements in manufacturing and engineering and their investment in sustainability practices); Policy and Governance (namely strong regulatory frameworks that support innovation and business growth and strategic economic policies that enhance competitiveness); Education and Human Capital (namely their world-class universities and research institutions); Strategic International Collaborations (namely partnerships that enhance their global influence and capabilities). A more global analysis of the database revealed that the countries in Table 4 belong to a variety of continents, including Europe, Asia, North America, South America, Africa, and Oceania. This reflects the global nature of scientific research and the involvement of researchers from all over the world in addressing important scientific questions. It is interesting to note that most of the countries in the table are from Europe and Asia. This could be due to several factors, such as the long history of scientific research in these regions, the large populations on these continents, and the strong government support for science and technology in many European and Asian countries. Overall, the data in the table provides a snapshot of the global landscape of scientific research. It shows that researchers from all over the world are making important contributions to our understanding of the world around us.
The network linking the research topics allows us to identify several clusters (see Figure 3). One is related to sustainability management (brown cluster). Sustainability management is the process of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling organizational resources to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This includes activities such as setting sustainability goals, tracking progress, and identifying opportunities for improvement [73,74,75,76,77]. Another cluster refers to CSR (green cluster), which refers to the business practices undertaken to manage their impact on society and the environment. This can include activities such as donating to charity, reducing pollution, and promoting employee diversity [74,78,79,80]. The red cluster deals with MCS, which acts as a framework that helps assess an organization’s performance against set objectives, monitoring progress, and identifying areas for improvement [46,53,81,82,83]. The cluster that deals with Environmental Management (blue cluster) refers to the process of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling activities to ensure that an organization’s operations do not cause unacceptable environmental damage. This includes activities such as identifying and assessing environmental risks, developing, and implementing environmental controls, and monitoring compliance with environmental regulations [26,84,85,86,87]. Finally, the orange cluster deals with Environmental Management Systems, which are a set of procedures and practices that organizations can use to manage their environmental impact. They can help organizations identify and assess environmental risks, develop and implement environmental controls, and monitor compliance with environmental regulations [82,84,85,86,88].
Most prestigious authors (such as Wijethilake, Asiaei, Battaglia, Villiers, and Abdel-Maksoud) (see Figure 4) address relevant topics in the field of MCS and sustainability that can provide policymakers and practitioners with robust and evidence-based insights. This can lead to more effective and sustainable decision-making. For example, Wijethilake et al. [44] examined the role of MCS in the strategic response to institutional pressures for sustainability. Wijethilake and Lama [89] investigated the impact of top management commitment and stakeholder pressure on the relationship between core values and sustainability risk management. Wijethilake and Upadhaya [90] examined the relationship between market factors and sustainability learning capabilities. Rupasinghe and Wijethilake [91] examined sustainability control systems as moderators in the relationship between leanness and supply chain sustainability. Wijethilake et al. [92] examined MCS enablers and controllers as moderators of the relationship between environmental innovation strategy and organizational performance. Wijesinghe et al. [93] explored how organizations adopt, implement, and sustain health and safety strategies.
Asiaei et al. [94] explore the extent to which companies rely on sustainability MCS to translate CSR into superior performance, based on the premise of the natural resource orchestration perspective. Asiaei et al. [74] proposed a model in which sustainability performance measurement measures the relationship between CSR and organizational performance. Asiaei et al. [95] examined the extent to which companies emphasize using environmental performance measurement to translate green intellectual capital into better organizational performance in terms of economic and environmental performance.
Battaglia et al. [96] investigated the relationship between business orientation towards sustainability, read through the lens of viable systems, and the operational and local dimensions of sustainable development goals, and Battaglia et al. [97] analyzed how the development and use of sustainability control systems could promote the integration of sustainability into organizational strategy.
Villiers et al. [73] showed the advantages of integrating sustainability reports into MCS, specifically the balanced scorecard. In turn, Kerr et al. [52] analyzed how three different organizations integrated sustainability reports into MCS and concluded that integrating sustainability reports into MCS is advantageous for organizations in that it allows them to operationalize sustainability objectives, broaden stakeholder responsibility, intensify interactions with stakeholders, formalize the organization’s convictions, and improve internal communication of sustainability measures. Bui and Villiers [98] identified internal and external uses and objectives of controls for different types of carbon, and Bui et al. [99] considered that carbon accounting and management tools can, along with other traditional management controls, help with strategic carbon management and highlight the role of sustainability managers. Finally, Bui et al. [100] analyzed the relationship between strategy and accounting performance. Henri and Journeault [101] survey results indicate that firms with integrated MCS and sustainability accounting practices perform better on sustainability metrics.
The study of Abdel-Maksoud et al. [102] investigated whether stakeholder pressure directly intensifies the degree of utilization of eco-control systems, thus indirectly affecting economic and environmental performance, and concluded that there was no significant relationship between stakeholder pressure groups and company performance (economic or environmental) and a relationship between eco-control incentives and environmental performance.
This highlights the progression from early theoretical frameworks to contemporary empirical studies, providing a historical context for current research.
The identified research trends and gaps guide future research efforts, ensuring that they address unexplored areas and emerging themes. Employing bibliometric analysis provides objective, quantifiable insights into the structure and dynamics of the research field.
Sustainability accounting research often aims to inform policy and practice [17]. In this sense, our study advances the field of MCS for sustainability goals by providing a comprehensive mapping of existing literature, identifying critical gaps, enhancing methodological rigor, and offering practical and policy-relevant insights. By addressing these aspects, the study contributes to academic knowledge and provides valuable guidance for practitioners and policymakers aiming to integrate sustainability into MCS. Policymakers and practitioners can use evidence-based insights to make more informed decisions regarding sustainability initiatives and MCS integration.
Within contemporary challenges, the study of these topics is fundamental for professionals and organizations to ensure the measurement and control of sustainable issues to promote ethics, transparency, and accountability. Thus, ensuring the long-term success of a better world.
5. Conclusions
MCS plays a crucial role in integrating sustainability principles and practices within organizations. Due to increasing environmental and social pressures, sustainability has become a key concern for businesses, and MCS can support sustainability initiatives.
MCS can help organizations translate their sustainability strategies into action by directing the actions of all organization members towards achieving the environmental, social, and government objectives in addition to the economic ones. Further, the MCS assists in monitoring the organization’s progress towards environmental, social, and government issues and targets, and they help develop a sustainability culture in organizations [22]. MCS are instrumental in driving and sustaining organizational efforts toward environmental and social responsibility. By integrating sustainability considerations into management processes, organizations can effectively manage risks, seize opportunities, and create long-term value for all stakeholders [53].
This study contributes to research on accounting for achieving the SDGs. Thus, this study aimed to analyze international publications about the relationship between MCS and sustainability, identify trends in evolution, and identify future research opportunities. Based on bibliometric techniques, the interconnection between MCS and sustainability is consolidating as a central theme in the contemporary business landscape. In this sense, the search for a balance between economic, social, and environmental objectives requires a holistic approach, where control systems play a fundamental role in promoting sustainable practices. In this sense, the integration of MCS and sustainability requires commitment, adaptability, and constant improvement. Companies that embrace this integration will be better prepared to face the challenges of the future and build a more sustainable future for everyone.
Our bibliometric analysis allowed us to draw some important conclusions. The first relates to the fact that this is a pertinent and emerging topic in academic and business circles. Secondly, the countries with the highest levels of scientific production are Italy, Australia, the UK, Germany, and Malaysia. It is also worth noting that 2019, 2021, and 2022 had the highest scientific production. The growing number of publications in recent years shows that this area of knowledge has gained relevance in the last five years of research. This research has focused on five main research clusters: “Sustainability Management, Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental Management, Environmental Management Systems and Management Control Systems”. The research has focused on these four main themes. Finally, it is important to highlight these five clusters of research themes and, consequently, five clusters of groups of research authors whose main themes are related to the clusters found in the research. Concerning CSR, Tapjour et al. [57], in their review of theoretical frameworks, methodologies, and theoretical gaps in 317 papers in this area, concluded that CSR has been recognized and widely used in companies or organizations.
Despite the valuable contributions of our study to the field of MCS and sustainability, several limitations need to be acknowledged. These limitations highlight areas where further research is needed and provide context for interpreting the findings of our study.
Our study relies on specific inclusion criteria for selecting literature, which might exclude relevant studies that do not meet these criteria. For instance, only documents corresponding to scientific articles were included in the outputs. The exclusion of certain types of literature may introduce bias and limit the comprehensiveness of our review.
While our study identifies theoretical and empirical gaps, it does not conduct primary empirical research to validate the proposed frameworks or findings. Our conclusions are based on secondary data from existing studies.
Bibliometric analysis is dependent on the databases used. This study has limitations since it only focused on the WoS and Scopus databases. Different databases may have varying coverage, potentially leading to incomplete analysis.
Concerning future research directions, similar to Maas et al. [29], it is important to study how organizations collect, analyze, and disseminate internal information about sustainability, what tools are used, how they organize their internal processes, and how different sustainability accounting, management control, internal communication tools, and integrated reports work together.
Research on implementing specific MCS in organizations, such as sustainability-balanced scorecards, has increased in recent years. In this sense, future research should also develop a bibliometric study to understand the scientific production on this topic. Like Altin and Yilmaz [11], other suggestions for future research include longitudinal analysis, which is a great way to see how the field has evolved and identify any trends or patterns. We also suggest investigating the role of technology in accounting for sustainability.
In the study of Brahmi et al. [103], the authors suggest that in future research, it is important to understand how policymakers can ensure that green financial inclusion initiatives are implemented throughout the countries. Similarly, we believe it is also essential to perceive how policymakers can ensure that MCS can support sustainability practices/initiatives.
Conceptualization, P.Q. and H.C.O.; methodology, P.Q., R.S. and H.C.O.; software, R.S.; validation, P.Q., R.S. and H.C.O.; formal analysis, P.Q. and H.C.O.; investigation, P.Q., R.S. and H.C.O.; writing—original draft preparation, P.Q. and H.C.O.; writing—review and editing, P.Q., R.S. and H.C.O.; visualization, P.Q. and H.C.O.; supervision, P.Q. and H.C.O.; project administration, P.Q. and H.C.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Data are contained within the article.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Descriptive information of the final database.
| Main Information about Database | Results |
|---|---|
| Timespan | 2009:2023 |
| Sources (journals, books, etc.) | 69 |
| Documents | 157 |
| Annual growth rate % | 21.9 |
| Document average age | 4.85 |
| Average citations per document | 24.43 |
| References | 7074 |
| Document Contents | |
| Keywords plus (ID) | 472 |
| Author’s keywords (DE) | 545 |
| Authors | |
| Authors | 357 |
| Authors of single-authored documents | 19 |
| Authors Collaboration | |
| Single-authored documents | 22 |
| Co-authors per document | 2.69 |
| International co-authorships % | 32.48 |
| Document Types | |
| Articles | 157 |
Trend Topics.
| Trend Topics | Frequency | Year Q1 | Year Average | Year Q3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| control systems | 8 | 2014 | 2016 | 2022 |
| sustainability reporting | 9 | 2016 | 2017 | 2019 |
| management | 7 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
| control | 6 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
| sustainability | 45 | 2017 | 2019 | 2021 |
| management control systems | 28 | 2017 | 2019 | 2021 |
| systems | 9 | 2018 | 2019 | 2021 |
| corporate social responsibility | 17 | 2016 | 2020 | 2021 |
| balanced scorecard | 6 | 2016 | 2020 | 2021 |
| management control | 16 | 2019 | 2021 | 2023 |
| management control system | 13 | 2017 | 2021 | 2021 |
| environmental performance | 12 | 2018 | 2021 | 2023 |
Annual scientific production.
| Year | Number of Articles | Year | Number of Articles |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 1 | 2017 | 14 |
| 2010 | 1 | 2018 | 14 |
| 2011 | 0 | 2019 | 18 |
| 2012 | 2 | 2020 | 12 |
| 2013 | 2 | 2021 | 28 |
| 2014 | 4 | 2022 | 23 |
| 2015 | 5 | 2023 | 16 |
| 2016 | 17 |
Scientific production by country.
| Country | Number of Documents | Country | Number of Documents |
|---|---|---|---|
| Italy | 49 | South Africa | 5 |
| Australia | 46 | Iran | 4 |
| UK | 35 | Poland | 4 |
| Germany | 31 | Saudi Arabia | 4 |
| Malaysia | 30 | Vietnam | 4 |
| Sweden | 29 | China | 3 |
| Canada | 20 | Denmark | 3 |
| New Zealand | 20 | Pakistan | 3 |
| Portugal | 18 | Indonesia | 2 |
| France | 15 | Ireland | 2 |
| Spain | 13 | Qatar | 2 |
| Japan | 11 | Slovenia | 2 |
| The Netherlands | 10 | Thailand | 2 |
| Sri Lanka | 9 | Egypt | 1 |
| Austria | 8 | Morocco | 1 |
| Brazil | 8 | Nigeria | 1 |
| Finland | 8 | Norway | 1 |
| USA | 8 | Peru | 1 |
| Belgium | 7 | Russia | 1 |
| Switzerland | 6 | South Korea | 1 |
| Lithuania | 5 |
References
1. Pramono, J.; Suwarno, S.; Amyar, F.; Friska, R. The Effect of Environmental Management Accounting and Control System Integration on Sustainability Orientation through Sectoral Green Economy Mediation. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy; 2023; 13, pp. 348-354. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.14781]
2. Wu, G. Effects of Socially Responsible Supplier Development and Sustainability-Oriented Innovation on Sustainable Development: Empirical Evidence from SMEs. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2017; 24, pp. 661-675. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1435]
3. Elkinton, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business (Conscientious Commerce); Capstone Publishing Limited: Oxford, UK, 1997.
4. Lamberton, G. Sustainability accounting—A brief history and conceptual framework. Account. Forum; 2005; 29, pp. 7-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2004.11.001]
5. Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2002; 11, pp. 130-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.323]
6. Yusoh, N.N.A.M.; Mat, T.Z.T.; Abdullah, A. Environmental management accounting system adoption and sustainability performance: Triple bottom line approach. Manag. Account. Rev.; 2023; 22, pp. 233-267.
7. Nagirikandalage, P.; Kooli, K.; Binsardi, A. Exploring the evolvement of environmental management accounting practices for achieving SMEs’ sustainability in an emerging economy. Int. J. Account. Audit. Perform. Eval.; 2023; 19, pp. 203-219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJAAPE.2023.132404]
8. Latif, S.; Salleh, S.; Ghani, M.; Ahmad, B. Management accounting systems and economic sustainability: A qualitative inquiry of SMEs in Pakistan. Asian Rev. Account.; 2023; 31, pp. 367-386. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ARA-05-2022-0123]
9. Jiao, X.; Zhang, P.; He, L.; Li, Z. Business sustainability for competitive advantage: Identifying the role of green intellectual capital, environmental management accounting and energy efficiency. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja; 2023; 36, pp. 1-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2125035]
10. Malik, S.; Cao, Y.; Mughal, Y.H.; Kundi, G.M.; Mughal, M.H.; Ramayah, T. Pathways towards Sustainability in Organizations: Empirical Evidence on the Role of Green Human Resource Management Practices and Green Intellectual Capital. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 3228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12083228]
11. Altin, M.; Yilmaz, R. Bibliometric Analysis of Sustainability Accounting and Reporting. J. Account. Tax. Stud.; 2023; 16, pp. 1-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.29067/muvu.1192389]
12. Carnegie, G.; Parker, L.; Tsahuridu, E. It’s 2020: What is Accounting Today?. Aust. Account. Rev.; 2021; 31, pp. 65-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/auar.12325]
13. Sabuncu, B. Sustainability accounting in Turkey. Ethics Sustain. Account. Financ.; 2021; 2, pp. 207-218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1928-4_12]
14. Laine, M.; Tregidga, H.; Unerman, J. Sustainability Accounting and Accountability; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781003185611]
15. Passetti, E.; Cinquini, L.; Marelli, A.; Tenucci, A. Sustainability accounting in action: Lights and shadows in the Italian context. Br. Account. Rev.; 2014; 46, pp. 295-308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2014.05.002]
16. Ascani, I.; Ciccola, R.; Chiucchi, M. A structured literature review about the role of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 2357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13042357]
17. Ahmed, M. The relationship between corporate governance mechanisms and integrated reporting practices and their impact on sustainable development goals: Evidence from South Africa. Medit. Account. Res.; 2023; 31, pp. 1919-1965. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-06-2022-1706]
18. Pizzi, S.; Caputo, A.; Corvino, A.; Venturelli, A. Management research and the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs): A bibliometric investigation and systematic review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 276, 124033. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124033]
19. Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. Integrative Management of Sustainability Performance, Measurement and Reporting. Int. J. Account. Audit. Perform. Eval.; 2006; 3, pp. 1-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJAAPE.2006.010098]
20. Malmi, T.; Brown, D. Management control systems as a package: Opportunities, challenges and research directions. Manag. Account. Res.; 2008; 19, pp. 287-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2008.09.003]
21. Florêncio, M.; Oliveira, L.; Oliveira, H.C. Management Control Systems and the Integration of the Sustainable Development Goals into Business Models. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 2246. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15032246]
22. Ferretti, P.; Gonnella, C.; Martino, P. Integrating sustainability in management control systems: An exploratory study on Italian banks. Meditari Account. Res.; 2024; 32, pp. 1-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-2023-1954]
23. Quesado, P.; Rodrigues, L.L.; Aibar-Guzmán, B. O Balanced Scorecard e a Gestão Ambiental: Um Estudo no Sector Público e Privado Português. ABCustos; 2013; 8, pp. 30-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47179/abcustos.v8i1.212]
24. Adams, C.A.; Frost, G.R. Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Account. Forum; 2008; 32, pp. 288-302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2008.05.002]
25. Schaltegger, S.; Burritt, R.; Petersen, H. An Introduction to Corporate Environmental Management: Striving for Sustainability. Manag. Environ. Qual.; 2003; 14, pp. 541-542. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/meq.2003.14.4.541.4]
26. Burritt, R.; Schaltegger, S. Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend?. Account. Audit. Account. J.; 2010; 23, pp. 829-846. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513571011080144]
27. Epstein, M.; Roy, M.J. Sustainability in Action: Identifying and Measuring the Key Performance Drivers. Long Range Plan.; 2001; 34, pp. 585-604. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00084-X]
28. Zsóka, Á.; Vajkai, É. Corporate sustainability reporting: Scrutinising the requirements of comparability, transparency and reflection of sustainability performance. Soc. Econ.; 2018; 40, pp. 19-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1556/204.2018.40.1.3]
29. Maas, K.; Schaltegger, S.; Crutzen, N. Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 136, pp. 237-248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.008]
30. Lueg, R.; Radlach, R. Managing sustainable development with management control systems: A literature review. Eur. Manag. J.; 2016; 34, pp. 158-171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.11.005]
31. Riccaboni, A.; Leone, E. Implementing strategies through management control systems: The case of sustainability. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag.; 2010; 59, pp. 130-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410401011014221]
32. Yu, S.; Rowe, A.L. Emerging phenomenon of corporate social and environmental reporting in China. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J.; 2017; 8, pp. 386-415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2016-0064]
33. Crutzen, N.; Herzig, C. A review of the empirical research in management control, strategy and sustainability. Accounting and Control for Sustainability (Studies in Managerial and Financial Accounting); Songini, L.; Pistoni, A.; Herzig, C. Emerald Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2013; Volume 26, pp. 165-195.
34. Crutzen, N.; Zvezdov, D.; Schaltegger, S. Sustainability and management control. Exploring and theorizing control patterns in large European firms. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 143, pp. 1291-1301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.135]
35. Latif, S.; Salleh, S.I.M.; Ghani, M.A.; Ahmad, B. Developing Management Accounting Systems as a Change Process for Economic Sustainability: A Case of Sportswear Manufacturing SME. South Asian J. Bus. Manag. Cases; 2023; 12, pp. 207-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/22779779231182727]
36. Castellano, N.; Felden, C. Management Control Systems for Sustainability and Sustainability of Management Control Systems. Manag. Control; 2021; 2, pp. 5-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3280/maco2021-002001]
37. Narayanan, V.; Boyce, G. Exploring the transformative potential of management control systems in organisational change towards sustainability. Account. Audit. Account. J.; 2019; 32, pp. 1210-1239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2016-2536]
38. Mahmoudian, F.; Nazari, J.A.; Herremans, I.M. Sustainability control system components, reporting and performance. Corp. Gov.; 2022; 22, pp. 633-652. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2020-0208]
39. Corsi, K.; Arru, B. Role and implementation of sustainability management control tools: Critical aspects in the Italian context. Account. Audit. Account. J.; 2020; 34, pp. 29-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2019-3887]
40. Traxler, A.A.; Schrack, D.; Greiling, D. Sustainability reporting and management control—A systematic exploratory literature review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 276, 122725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122725]
41. Beusch, P.; Frisk, J.E.; Rosén, M.; Dilla, W. Management control for sustainability: Towards integrated systems. Manag. Account. Res.; 2022; 54, 100777. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2021.100777]
42. Caputo, F.; Veltri, S.; Venturelli, A. Sustainability Strategy and Management Control Systems in Family Firms. Evidence from a Case Study. Sustainability; 2017; 9, 977. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su9060977]
43. Wijethilake, C. Proactive sustainability strategy and corporate sustainability performance: The mediating effect of sustainability control systems. J. Environ. Manag.; 2017; 196, pp. 569-582. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.057]
44. Wijethilake, C.; Munir, R.; Appuhami, R. Strategic responses to institutional pressures for sustainability: The role of management control systems. Account. Audit. Account. J.; 2017; 30, pp. 1677-1710. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2015-2144]
45. Suárez Jiménez, A.; Roig, M.C. Management Accounting at the Service of Organizations’ Sustainability. Impact on Environment and Health. 2014; Available online: http://cofinhabana.fcf.uh.cu (accessed on 3 March 2024).
46. Arjalies, D.L.; Mundy, J. The use of management control systems to manage CSR strategy—A levers of control perspective. Manag. Account. Res.; 2013; 24, pp. 284-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.06.003]
47. Bui, B.; De Villiers, C. Management control systems to support sustainability and integrated reporting. Sustainability Accounting and Integrated Reporting; De Villiers, C.; Maroun, W. Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2017; pp. 121-148.
48. Ditillo, A.; Lisi, I.E. Exploring Sustainability Control Systems’ Integration: The Relevance of Sustainability Orientation. J. Manag. Account. Res.; 2016; 28, pp. 125-148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51469]
49. Ussahawanitchakit, P. Management control systems and firm sustainability: Evidence from textile and apparel businesses in Thailand. Asian Acad. Manag. J.; 2017; 22, pp. 185-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21315/aamj2017.22.2.7]
50. Alvino, F.; Di Vaio, A.; Hassan, R.; Palladino, R. Intellectual capital and sustainable development: A systematic literature review. J. Intellect. Cap.; 2020; 22, pp. 76-94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-11-2019-0259]
51. Rahi, A.F.; Johansson, J.; Fagerström, A.; Blomkvist, M. Sustainability Reporting and Management Control System: A Structured Literature Review. J. Risk Financ. Manag.; 2022; 15, 562. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15120562]
52. Kerr, J.; Rouse, P.; Villiers, C. Sustainability reporting integrated into management control systems. Pac. Account. Rev.; 2015; 27, pp. 189-207. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PAR-08-2012-0034]
53. Gond, J.P.; Grubnic, S.; Herzig, C.; Moon, J. Configuring management control systems: Theorizing the integration of strategy and sustainability. Manag. Account. Res.; 2012; 23, pp. 205-223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.06.003]
54. Burritt, R.L.; Schaltegger, S.; Zvezdov, D. Carbon management accounting: Explaining practice in leading German companies. Aust. Account. Rev.; 2011; 21, pp. 80-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00121.x]
55. Journeault, M. The influence of the eco-control package on environmental and economic performance: A natural resource-based approach. J. Manag. Account. Res.; 2016; 28, pp. 149-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51476]
56. Dabić, M.; Maley, J.; Dana, L.P.; Novak, I.; Pellegrini, M.M.; Caputo, A. Pathways of SME internationalization: A bibliometric and systematic review. Small Bus. Econ.; 2020; 55, pp. 705-725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00181-6]
57. Tajpour, M.; Farsi, J.Y.; Mohsen, B. A Review of Corporate Social Responsibility Literature and Future Directions. Exploring Business Ecosystems and Innovation Capacity Building in Global Economics; Joshi, M.; Brahmi, M.; Aldieri, L.; Vinci, C. IGI Global: Pennsylvania, EUA, 2023; pp. 48-65.
58. Tu Le, O.T.; Hong Le, A.T.; Thanh Vu, T.T.; Cam Tran, T.T.; Van Nguyen, C. Management control systems for sustainable development: A bibliographic study. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2024; 11, 2296699. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2296699]
59. Bebbington, J.; Unerman, J.; O’Dwyer, B. Introduction to sustainability accounting and accountability. Sustainability Accounting and Accountability; Laine, M.; Tregidga, H. Routledge: London, UK, 2010.
60. Hahn, R.; Kühnen, M. Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. J. Clean. Prod.; 2013; 59, pp. 5-21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.005]
61. Rao, P.; Shukla, A. Sustainability in Strategic Control: A Bibliometric Review Analysis. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2023; 32, pp. 3902-3914. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.3344]
62. Araújo, C. Bibliometria: Evolução histórica e questões atuais. Em Questão; 2016; 12, pp. 11-32.
63. Solanki, S.; Singh, S.; Joshi, M. A Bibliometric Analysis of the International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy: 2013–2022. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy; 2023; 13, pp. 260-270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.14704]
64. Dzikowski, P. A bibliometric analysis of born global firms. J. Bus. Res.; 2018; 85, pp. 281-294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.054]
65. Merigó, J.M.; Cancino, C.A.; Coronado, F.; Urbano, D. Academic research in innovation: A country analysis. Scient; 2016; 108, pp. 559-593. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1984-4]
66. Bufrem, L.; Prates, Y. O saber científico registrado e as práticas de mensuração da informação. Ciência Informação; 2005; 34, pp. 9-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-19652005000200002]
67. Lievrouw, L.A. The Invisible College Reconsidered. Community Resour.; 1989; 16, pp. 615-628. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365089016005004]
68. Richardson, R.; Peres, J. Pesquisa Social: Métodos e Técnicas; Atlas: São Paulo, Brazil, 1989.
69. Cabezas-Clavijo, A.; Milanés-Guisado, Y.; Alba-Ruiz, R.; Delgado-Vázquez, Á.M. The need to develop tailored tools for improving the quality of thematic bibliometric analysis: Evidence from papers published in Sustainability and Scientometrics. J. Data Inf. Sci.; 2023; 8, pp. 10-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2023-0021]
70. Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scient; 2021; 126, pp. 5113-5142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5]
71. Ravenscroft, J.; Liakata, M.; Clare, A.; Duma, D. Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: An assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements. PLoS ONE; 2017; 12, e0173152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173152] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28278243]
72. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res.; 2021; 133, pp. 285-296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070]
73. Villiers, C.; Rouse, P.; Kerr, J. A new conceptual model of influences driving sustainability based on case evidence of the integration of corporate sustainability management control and reporting. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 136, pp. 78-85. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.107]
74. Asiaei, K.; Bontis, N.; Barani, O.; Jusoh, R. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability performance measurement systems: Implications for organizational performance. J. Manag. Control; 2021; 32, pp. 85-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00187-021-00317-4]
75. Martin-Rios, C.; Poretti, C.; Derchi, G.B. Three Anchoring Managerial Mechanisms to Embed Sustainability in Service Organizations. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 265. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14010265]
76. Garcia, S.; Cintra, Y.; Torres, R.; Lima, F.G. Corporate sustainability management: A proposed multi-criteria model to support balanced decision-making. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 136, pp. 181-196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.110]
77. Hassan, A. Verbal tones in sustainability assurance statements: An empirical exploration of explanatory factors. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J.; 2019; 10, pp. 427-450. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-06-2017-0051]
78. Asiaei, K.; O’Connor, N.G.; Moghaddam, M.; Bontis, N.; Sidhu, J. Corporate social responsibility and performance measurement systems in Iran: A levers of control perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2023; 30, pp. 574-588. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.2375]
79. Hosoda, M. Management control systems and corporate social responsibility: Perspectives from a Japanese small company. Corp. Gov.; 2018; 18, pp. 68-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-05-2017-0105]
80. Huang, X.B.; Watson, L. Corporate social responsibility research in accounting. J. Account. Lit.; 2015; 34, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2015.03.001]
81. Guenther, E.; Endrikat, J.; Guenther, T.W. Environmental management control systems: A conceptualization and a review of the empirical evidence. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 136, pp. 147-171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.043]
82. Einhorn, S.; Fietz, B.; Guenther, T.W.; Guenther, E. The relationship of organizational culture with management control systems and environmental management control systems. Rev. Manag. Sci.; 2023; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00687-0]
83. Cheffi, W.; Zahir-ul-Hassan, M.K.; Farooq, M.O.; Baqrain, A.; Mansour, M.M.H. Ethical leadership, management control systems and circular economy in SMEs in an emerging economy, the UAE. J. Bus. Res.; 2023; 156, 113513. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113513]
84. Christensen, B.; Himme, A. Improving environmental management accounting: How to use statistics to better determine energy consumption. J. Manag. Control; 2017; 28, pp. 227-243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00187-016-0239-0]
85. Johnstone, L. The means to substantive performance improvements—Environmental management control systems in ISO 14001– certified SMEs. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J.; 2022; 13, pp. 1082-1108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-11-2021-0456]
86. Rehman, S.U.; Bhatti, A.; Kraus, S.; Ferreira, J.J.M. The role of environmental management control systems for ecological sustainability and sustainable performance. Manag. Decis.; 2021; 59, pp. 2217-2237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2020-0800]
87. Ioannou, I.; Li, S.X.; Serafeim, G. The Effect of Target Difficulty on Target Completion: The Case of Reducing Carbon Emissions. Account. Rev.; 2016; 91, pp. 1467-1492. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2308/accr-51307]
88. Ong, T.S.; Magsi, H.B.; Burgess, T.F. Organisational culture, environmental management control systems, environmental performance of Pakistani manufacturing industry. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag.; 2019; 68, pp. 1293-1322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-05-2018-0187]
89. Wijethilake, C.; Lama, T. Sustainability core values and sustainability risk management: Moderating effects of top management commitment and stakeholder pressure. Bus. Strat. Environ.; 2019; 28, pp. 143-154. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2245]
90. Wijethilake, C.; Upadhaya, B. Market drivers of sustainability and sustainability learning capabilities: The moderating role of sustainability control systems. Bus. Strat. Environ.; 2020; 29, pp. 2297-2309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2503]
91. Rupasinghe, H.D.; Wijethilake, C. The impact of leanness on supply chain sustainability: Examining the role of sustainability control systems. Corp. Gov.; 2020; 21, pp. 410-432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-06-2020-0217]
92. Wijethilake, C.; Munir, R.; Appuhami, R. Environmental Innovation Strategy and Organizational Performance: Enabling and Controlling Uses of Management Control Systems. J. Bus. Ethics; 2018; 151, pp. 1139-1160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3259-7]
93. Wijesinghe, D.; Jayakumar, V.; Gunarathne, N.; Samudrage, D. Implementing health and safety strategies for business sustainability: The use of management controls systems. Saf. Sci.; 2023; 164, 106183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106183]
94. Asiaei, K.; Bontis, N.; Barani, O.; Moghaddam, M.; Sidhu, J. The role of sustainability control systems in translating CSR into performance in Iran. Manag. Decis.; 2022; 60, pp. 1438-1468. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2020-1510]
95. Asiaei, K.; Jusoh, R.; Barani, O.; Asiaei, A. How does green intellectual capital boost performance? The mediating role of environmental performance measurement systems. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2022; 31, pp. 1587-1606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2971]
96. Battaglia, M.; Annesi, N.; Calabrese, M.; Frey, M. Do agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development Goals act at local and operational levels? Evidence from a case study in a large energy company in Italy. Bus. Strategy Dev.; 2020; 3, pp. 603-614. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.125]
97. Battaglia, M.; Passetti, E.; Bianchi, L.; Frey, M. Managing for integration: A longitudinal analysis of management control for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 136, pp. 213-225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.108]
98. Bui, B.; Villiers, C. Carbon emissions management control systems: Field study evidence. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 166, pp. 1283-1294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.150]
99. Bui, B.; Wang, Z.; Tekathen, M. Carbon toolmaking: Responding to multiple interacting logics in carbon management. Account. Audit. Account. J.; 2023; 37, pp. 227-256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2021-5353]
100. Bui, B.; Houqe, M.N.; Zahir-ul-Hassan, M.K. Moderating effect of carbon accounting systems on strategy and carbon performance: A CDP analysis. J. Manag. Control; 2022; 33, pp. 483-524. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00187-022-00346-7]
101. Henri, J.; Journeault, M. Eco-control: The influence of management control systems on environmental and economic performance. Account. Organ. Soc.; 2010; 35, pp. 63-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.02.001]
102. Abdel-Maksoud, A.; Jabbour, M.; Abdel-Kader, M. Stakeholder pressure, eco-control systems, and firms’ performance: Empirical evidence from UK manufacturers. Account. Forum; 2021; 45, pp. 30-57. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2020.1827697]
103. Brahmi, M.; Espisoto, L.; Parziale, A.; Dhayal, K.; Agrawal, S.; Giri, A.; Loan, N. The Role of Greener Innovations in Promoting Financial Inclusion to Achieve Carbon Neutrality: An Integrative Review. Economies; 2023; 11, 194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/economies11070194]
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Silva, Rui 2
; Helena Costa Oliveira 3
1 Research Centre on Accounting and Taxation, Polytechnic University of Cávado and Ave, 4750-810 Barcelos, Portugal
2 Department of Economy, Sociology and Management, University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal;
3 Centro de Estudos Organizacionais e Sociais, Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administração do Porto, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, 4465-004 Porto, Portugal;