Environmental management accounting and sustainability context in the management commitment–performance relationship: a meta-analysis

The increasing emphasis on sustainable development and performance optimization has placed management commitment at the forefront of organizational strategies. Management commitment, defined as a proactive leadership approach to aligning resources and strategic objectives, has been widely recognized as an important driver of organizational performance. Prior studies suggest that committed leadership can enhance financial, operational, and environmental outcomes by supporting strategic initiatives and resource allocation (Colwell and Joshi, 2013; Dixon-Fowler et al., 2017; Haldorai et al., 2022; Kitsis and Chen, 2021; Madrid-Guijarro and Duréndez, 2024). Despite these insights, empirical findings regarding the strength and consistency of the management commitment–performance relationship remain mixed. While many studies report positive associations between management commitment and organizational outcomes, others suggest that the effectiveness of managerial commitment may vary depending on contextual conditions such as institutional environments, stakeholder pressures, regulatory requirements, and internal management systems (Bansal and Roth, 2000; Haldorai et al., 2022; Lisi, 2015; Tzempelikos, 2015). These contextual factors influence how managerial intentions are translated into organizational outcomes by shaping both external expectations and internal organizational capabilities. As a result, uncertainty remains regarding the extent to which management commitment consistently contributes to organizational performance across different contexts. Addressing this uncertainty is important for both theory and practice, as it helps clarify whether leadership commitment represents a universally effective driver of performance or whether its impact depends on specific organizational and environmental conditions.

One potential contextual factor is the sustainability environment in which organizations operate. The global shift toward sustainability has increased the importance of understanding how country-level sustainability conditions shape organizational practices and performance outcomes. Sustainability at the national level influences regulatory frameworks, stakeholder expectations, and resource availability, thereby shaping the strategic priorities of firms (Bansal and Roth, 2000). However, empirical research examining whether national sustainability conditions influence the effectiveness of management commitment remains limited. This study, therefore, considers the sustainability context as a potential factor associated with variation in the management commitment–performance relationship. Another issue concerns differences across performance dimensions. While financial and operational outcomes have traditionally dominated research on organizational performance, environmental performance has received increasing attention in response to growing sustainability pressures. Leadership commitment may play a particularly important role in advancing environmental initiatives, which often require proactive managerial support and long-term strategic investments (Kitsis and Chen, 2021). However, empirical evidence comparing the influence of management commitment across environmental and non-environmental performance outcomes remains limited, leaving uncertainty regarding whether managerial commitment affects these dimensions differently.

Firm size may also shape how managerial commitment translates into performance outcomes. Larger organizations often benefit from greater resources, formalized structures, and specialized capabilities that can support the implementation of management-led initiatives. In contrast, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) typically rely more directly on leadership involvement and flexible decision-making to drive performance improvements (Madrid-Guijarro and Duréndez, 2024). These differences suggest that organizational scale may influence the extent to which management commitment contributes to performance outcomes, yet systematic comparisons across firm sizes remain limited. In addition to external context and organizational characteristics, management control systems may also influence how managerial commitment translates into performance. Environmental management accounting (EMA) provides tools that help organizations integrate environmental considerations into decision-making processes by identifying environmental costs, supporting resource allocation, and monitoring sustainability initiatives (Burritt et al., 2002; Gunarathne et al., 2023; Latan et al., 2018; Spencer et al., 2013). By providing structured environmental information for managerial decision-making, EMA may help organizations operationalize sustainability strategies and align managerial intentions with measurable outcomes. However, evidence on whether EMA-related study characteristics are associated with differences in the management commitment–performance relationship remains limited.

To address these gaps, this study conducts a meta-analysis of the relationship between management commitment and organizational performance. Meta-analysis provides a quantitative approach for synthesizing findings across empirical studies and examining sources of variation in effect sizes (Hansen et al., 2022). By aggregating evidence from prior research, meta-analysis enables a more systematic assessment of the strength and consistency of the management commitment–performance relationship while also allowing potential contextual factors to be examined. Building on prior meta-analytic work examining managerial commitment and performance-related outcomes (Jackson et al., 2013; El Makrini and Chaibi, 2015; Shonte and Ji, 2022), this study investigates whether country-level sustainability conditions, performance type, firm size, and EMA-related study groupings are associated with differences in the magnitude of the management commitment–performance relationship. In doing so, the study integrates the sustainability context by drawing on indicators from the World Economic Forum's Future of Growth Report 2024 to derive a national sustainability index. This study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, it advances understanding of the management commitment–performance relationship by synthesizing evidence across countries, industries, and organizational contexts. Second, it evaluates whether the sustainability context and EMA-related study characteristics are associated with variation in the magnitude of the focal relationship. Third, it offers a performance-specific perspective by comparing environmental and non-environmental outcomes. Finally, it examines whether organizational scale is associated with differences in the observed relationship between management commitment and performance. Figure 1 provides the conceptual framework of the study.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical background and develops the research hypotheses. Section 3 describes the research methodology, while Section 4 reports the empirical results. Section 5 discusses the findings and outlines their theoretical and practical implications. The final section concludes the paper by highlighting limitations and suggesting directions for future research.

Management commitment to sustainability has increasingly been recognized as an important factor influencing organizational performance. Prior research has examined this relationship through several theoretical perspectives, including the resource-based view (RBV), institutional theory, and stakeholder theory. These perspectives provide complementary explanations for how sustainability-oriented managerial practices can contribute to organizational outcomes.

From the perspective of the RBV, firms achieve sustainable competitive advantage through the effective development and deployment of valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources (Barney, 1991). Sustainability-oriented practices such as eco-efficiency, green innovation, and responsible resource management can constitute strategic resources that enhance both operational efficiency and reputational value (Hart, 1995). Firms demonstrating strong management commitment to sustainability often allocate resources toward environmental and social initiatives, which may improve financial and operational performance through cost reduction, innovation, and market differentiation (Karim et al., 2024; López-Gamero et al., 2009). Institutional theory provides a complementary explanation by emphasizing the role of external pressures in shaping organizational behavior (Dimaggio and Powell, 1983). Regulatory requirements, normative expectations, and societal pressures increasingly encourage firms to adopt sustainability practices. Organizations that demonstrate commitment to sustainability often respond to these pressures by implementing environmental policies, adopting sustainability standards, and engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities. Such responses can enhance organizational legitimacy and stakeholder trust, which in turn may contribute to improved organizational performance (Asiaei et al., 2021; Benitez-Amado and Walczuch, 2012).

Stakeholder theory further highlights the importance of aligning organizational strategies with the expectations of key stakeholder groups (Clarkson, 1995). Firms that proactively address the concerns of stakeholders, including regulators, communities, customers, and environmental advocacy groups, may strengthen their reputational standing and long-term competitiveness. By integrating sustainability considerations into managerial decision-making and organizational practices, firms can enhance stakeholder relationships and support long-term value creation (Hart and Milstein, 2003). Overall, these perspectives suggest that management commitment to sustainability can play an important role in shaping organizational performance. However, the strength of this relationship may vary across organizational and institutional contexts, as differences in regulatory environments, stakeholder expectations, and internal organizational capabilities can influence how managerial commitment translates into performance outcomes. This motivates further examination of the management commitment–performance relationship and the conditions under which it may vary.

Management commitment has long been recognized as a fundamental element influencing organizational performance. In organizational research, management commitment generally refers to the extent to which top management actively supports strategic objectives through leadership involvement, resource allocation, and policy implementation (Abdulameer and Mohammed, 2024; Basana et al., 2022; Chawewong and Naipinit, 2023; Colwell and Joshi, 2013; Opoku et al., 2024). These dimensions reflect the degree to which managerial leadership aligns organizational priorities, mobilizes resources, and promotes operational effectiveness. As such, management commitment plays an important role in shaping how organizations pursue strategic goals and achieve performance outcomes across environmental and non-environmental domains (Daniel, 2023; Kanyepe et al., 2023; Newton et al., 2024; Shahzad et al., 2024; Uddin and Akhter, 2022; Warie et al., 2024).

A substantial body of empirical research reports a positive association between management commitment and firm performance across diverse organizational contexts. For example, Al Rawashdeh et al. (2024) highlight the importance of top management commitment in facilitating the adoption of circular economy practices, demonstrating how leadership support strengthens organizational competitiveness and resilience. Similarly, Kitsis and Chen (2021) show that top management commitment enables firms to translate stakeholder pressures into effective green supply chain practices, resulting in improved environmental and economic outcomes. Tzempelikos (2015) further emphasizes that active managerial involvement enhances relationship quality in key account management, which contributes to improved financial performance by strengthening trust and strategic collaboration with partners. These findings collectively indicate that management commitment acts as a catalyst for strategic implementation and operational alignment, thereby contributing to improved organizational outcomes (Ivandianto and Tarigan, 2020; Tarigan et al., 2020; Vu and Dang, 2021).

Evidence from industry-specific studies also supports this relationship. In the manufacturing sector, management commitment to practices such as total quality management has been associated with improvements in operational efficiency and product quality, both of which contribute to enhanced firm performance (Alsmairat et al., 2024; Nugroho et al., 2024; Ralahallo et al., 2024; Wijaya et al., 2023). Similarly, in service-oriented industries, management commitment to customer service excellence has been linked to higher levels of customer satisfaction and loyalty, which are important drivers of organizational growth and profitability (Tanuwijaya et al., 2021; Tzempelikos, 2015).

Although existing studies broadly support a positive relationship between management commitment and organizational performance, the magnitude and consistency of this relationship may vary across contexts, organizational characteristics, and performance dimensions. Individual empirical studies often focus on specific industries, countries, or performance indicators, which can lead to variation in reported findings. These differences highlight the need for a systematic synthesis of existing evidence. Meta-analysis provides an appropriate approach to integrate prior empirical findings and to assess the overall strength of the relationship across studies. Building on this reasoning, the following hypothesis is proposed:

The relationship between management commitment and firm performance may vary across institutional contexts, particularly in environments characterized by different levels of sustainability development. Sustainability broadly encompasses environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations that shape organizational strategies and stakeholder expectations. Firms operating in countries with more advanced sustainability frameworks are often exposed to stronger regulatory requirements, greater stakeholder scrutiny, and heightened expectations regarding ESG performance (Eccles et al., 2014; Rukh Shabbir et al., 2024). These institutional conditions can influence how organizations implement sustainability-related strategies and how managerial commitment is translated into organizational outcomes.

In such contexts, management commitment may play an important role in aligning organizational practices with sustainability expectations. When managers actively support sustainability initiatives and allocate resources toward environmental and social objectives, firms may strengthen stakeholder trust, enhance legitimacy, and improve their competitive positioning (Tzempelikos, 2015). Prior research suggests that sustainability-oriented environments can encourage firms to develop capabilities related to innovation, operational efficiency, and responsible resource management, which may contribute to improved organizational outcomes (Ahmed et al., 2023; Gallo, 2023; Gull et al., 2023; Hossain et al., 2022; Rahman et al., 2023). However, the influence of management commitment may differ across national sustainability contexts. In countries with more developed sustainability frameworks, supportive institutional structures, regulatory systems, and stakeholder expectations may facilitate the implementation of sustainability-related initiatives. Conversely, in contexts where sustainability frameworks are less developed, organizations may face institutional constraints or weaker incentives that influence how managerial commitment is translated into performance outcomes. These differences suggest that national sustainability conditions may shape the relationship between management commitment and firm performance.

Accordingly, sustainability conditions at the country level may represent an important contextual factor in understanding variation in the management commitment–performance relationship. Building on this reasoning, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Although the role of management commitment in shaping organizational performance is well established in prior research, the extent to which this relationship differs across performance dimensions remains an important area of inquiry. In particular, environmental performance has received increasing attention as firms face growing pressure to address sustainability challenges. Environmental performance refers to a firm's ability to reduce its ecological impact through sustainable practices, compliance with environmental regulations, and the adoption of environmentally responsible technologies (Hart, 1995; Klassen and McLaughlin, 1996).

Prior studies suggest that management commitment plays an important role in advancing environmental initiatives and sustainability-related outcomes. Strong managerial support can facilitate the adoption of environmental technologies, the implementation of sustainability practices, and the integration of environmental considerations into strategic decision-making (Dixon-Fowler et al., 2017; Haldorai et al., 2022; Kitsis and Chen, 2021; Memon et al., 2022). For example, Yusliza et al. (2019) report that managerial support for environmental technologies improves operational performance by reducing waste and emissions. Similarly, Singh (2020) shows that firms with proactive environmental management practices, supported by committed leadership, achieve stronger environmental and financial outcomes. Aragón-Correa et al. (2008) also highlight the role of managerial commitment in promoting green innovation, which contributes to improved environmental performance and competitive positioning.

Despite these insights, the influence of management commitment may vary depending on the type of performance outcome being considered. Environmental performance often involves sustainability initiatives, technological innovation, and compliance with environmental regulations, which may require stronger managerial engagement and resource allocation. At the same time, financial and operational performance may be influenced by a broader set of organizational and market factors. These differences suggest that the strength of the relationship between management commitment and performance may vary across performance types.

Accordingly, performance type may represent an important factor in explaining variation in the management commitment–performance relationship. Based on this reasoning, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Firm size introduces differences in resource availability, organizational structure, and managerial decision-making processes, which may influence how management commitment translates into performance outcomes. Larger firms typically have greater access to financial, human, and technological resources, enabling them to leverage managerial commitment more effectively when implementing strategic initiatives, allocating resources, and coordinating cross-functional activities (Darmasaputra Leksono et al., 2020). In contrast, smaller firms may face resource constraints that limit their ability to fully capitalize on managerial initiatives, even when strong leadership commitment is present (Ralahallo et al., 2024). At the same time, smaller organizations may benefit from greater organizational flexibility and closer managerial oversight. Their relatively simple structures and shorter decision-making processes may allow managerial commitment to be translated more directly into operational actions. This suggests that firm size may influence how managerial actions affect organizational outcomes, although the direction of this influence is not necessarily uniform across contexts (Tzempelikos, 2015).

Empirical evidence on the interaction between firm size and performance outcomes provides mixed findings. For instance, Delmas and Toffel (2012) report that larger firms may benefit more from management commitment to environmental initiatives because they possess greater capacity to invest in sustainability innovations. In contrast, Aragón-Correa et al. (2008) observe that smaller firms may achieve stronger performance gains from managerial commitment to strategic innovation due to their agility and entrepreneurial culture. Similarly, Mintzberg (1993) argues that the hierarchical complexity of large organizations often requires formalized processes to translate managerial commitment into effective organizational actions, whereas smaller firms rely more on direct managerial influence.

Despite the growing literature on management commitment and organizational performance, relatively few studies explicitly examine whether firm size shapes the relationship between these variables. Existing studies often focus on specific firm types or industries, leaving a limited understanding of how organizational scale may influence the strength of the management commitment–performance relationship. Based on this reasoning, the following hypothesis is proposed:

EMA integrates environmental and financial information into organizational decision-making processes, thereby supporting sustainability-oriented management practices (Asiaei et al., 2026). By identifying and quantifying environmental costs and facilitating more efficient resource allocation, EMA provides managers with information that can guide the implementation and monitoring of environmental initiatives (Gunarathne et al., 2023; Schaltegger, 2018; Solovida and Latan, 2017). Through these functions, EMA can enhance organizational awareness of environmental impacts and support the integration of sustainability considerations into strategic and operational decisions.

Prior research highlights the role of EMA in translating sustainability-oriented managerial intentions into operational practices (Christine et al., 2019; Latan et al., 2018). From the perspective of the RBV, internal organizational systems that support information processing and decision-making may represent important capabilities that enable firms to respond effectively to environmental challenges (Hart, 1995). In this context, EMA can serve as an informational infrastructure that supports managerial commitment by providing tools for measuring environmental performance, identifying improvement opportunities, and aligning sustainability objectives with organizational processes.

However, although existing studies emphasize the direct and mediating roles of EMA in supporting environmental strategies (Amir et al., 2020; Appiah et al., 2020; Somjai et al., 2020), less attention has been given to whether EMA influences the strength of the relationship between management commitment and organizational performance. In other words, while managerial commitment provides strategic direction, the presence of structured accounting systems such as EMA may influence how effectively these intentions are implemented within organizations. Accordingly, EMA may represent an internal organizational factor that shapes how management commitment is translated into performance outcomes across different organizational contexts. Based on this reasoning, the following hypothesis is proposed:

The main aim of this research is to examine the relationship between management commitment and organizational performance. To identify relevant studies, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple academic databases, including ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Wiley, ProQuest, ABI/Inform, and Google Scholar. The search strategy used combinations of keywords related to management commitment and organizational performance. Specifically, the following search string was applied: (“management commitment” or “manager commitment” or “leadership commitment” or “environmental commitment” or “sustainability commitment” or “eco-commitment”) and (“firm performance” or “organizational performance” or “financial performance” or “environmental performance” or “sustainability performance” or “growth” or “business success”). Only peer-reviewed journal articles published in English were included. The search covered studies published between 2013 and 2024.

Based on the work of Schmidt and Hunter (2016), this study adopted the following steps to conduct the meta-analysis. First, because of the major question of this research, which is whether there is a link between management commitment and organizational performance, all papers must consider this relationship as one of the hypotheses. Secondly, all papers should be available in full-text format. Thirdly, the research exploring the link between management commitment and performance should include a measure of correlation, represented by “r” or similar statistics. Alternatives to the correlation coefficient may include the t-value (t) or the beta coefficient (β). Reporting these statistics is essential for performing meta-analytical evaluations. To convert t-value or beta coefficient (β) to r correlation following formula has been used (Schmidt and Hunter, 2016):

Following the search procedures and inclusion criteria listed above, we considered 957 publications. In the next step, the authors analyzed the titles and abstracts of these papers to find if the publications included management commitment and performance. This concluded with 84 papers. Additionally, we read the chosen articles to figure out that the papers specifically considered the relationship between these two variables and provided statistical quantitative results. Finally, we identified 47 papers equals 14,163 observations, which are eligible, and they included the following journals as a publisher: Management Accounting Research, Business Strategy and the Environment, Journal of Business Ethics, Tourism Management, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, etc. Figure 2 provides a PRISMA flow diagram and an overview of the systematic literature review. Also, Table 1 details the final sample involved in this study, which covers 12 years (2013–2024).

The correlation coefficient and sample size must be collected to conduct the meta-analysis research that is provided by studies under the demographic and statistical information. Furthermore, this paper has one independent variable, one dependent variable, four moderating variables, and two control variables.

Independent variable: Management Commitment refers to the dedication, support, and proactive involvement of senior management in achieving organizational goals, particularly in implementing strategic initiatives, promoting change, and ensuring compliance with organizational policies and procedures (Ahire et al., 1996). It is reflected through the allocation of resources, clear communication of priorities, and consistent demonstration of leadership behaviors that align with the organization's objectives (Yukl, 2012). Across the included studies, management commitment was typically measured using survey-based constructs capturing leadership support, resource allocation, and managerial involvement in sustainability or operational initiatives.

Dependent variable: Organizational Performance refers to organizational achievements based on its goals and objectives that could involve different aspects of performance like financial, environmental, and operational performance (Zeng et al., 2024). This concept of organizational performance has been used in the center of most accounting, business and management studies (Asiaei et al., 2020; Hizarci-Payne et al., 2021; Lu and Taylor, 2016). For the purpose of coding, organizational performance measures reported in the studies were categorized into three main types: financial performance, operational performance, and environmental performance.

Moderating variables: Sustainability at the country level was measured using indicators from the World Economic Forum's Future of Growth Report (World Economic Forum, 2024), which has been widely used in prior cross-country research (Barani et al., 2025; Xie et al., 2023). Two dimensions from the report were used to construct the sustainability index: Sustainability, which captures the extent to which economic activity remains within ecological limits, and Resilience, which reflects a country's capacity to withstand and adapt to economic, environmental, and social shocks. These two dimensions capture complementary aspects of sustainable development and national adaptability. Following prior meta-analytic studies, the sustainability index was calculated using equal weighting of the two dimensions:

Countries were then classified into high- and low-sustainability contexts using the median value of the index across the sample.

Performance Type is another moderating factor that is used in this research. Performance type was coded into two categories. Environmental performance included measures such as emission reduction, environmental efficiency, pollution control, and sustainability outcomes. Non-environmental performance included financial and operational indicators such as profitability, sales growth, productivity, and operational efficiency. When studies reported multiple performance indicators, the effect size was classified based on the primary performance outcome examined in the study. Furthermore, Firm size was coded as a moderating variable by distinguishing between large firms and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). EMA was coded as a moderator by distinguishing between studies that explicitly included EMA-related variables in their empirical models and those that did not. Studies incorporating EMA measures were coded as “included,” whereas studies without EMA variables were coded as “excluded.” This classification enabled comparison of effect sizes across studies depending on whether EMA was considered in the research design.

Two control variables have been used to avoid exogenous influences on firms' performance. First, we adopted publication year as a dummy variable to control for any time effects (Barani et al., 2026; Kraft and Bausch, 2018; Xie et al., 2023). We categorized the studies into pre-2020 and post-2020 publications. Journal quality was also included as a control variable, as studies published in higher-ranked journals may report more conservative effect sizes due to more rigorous review processes. The present study follows quartiles (Q1-Q4) to categorize the studies that journals with Q1 rank add in high-quality and others in low-quality (Barani, 2026; Barroso-Méndez et al., 2024; Velte, 2022).

This study used the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software package (CMA) based on the method introduced by Hedges and Olkin (2014). Bivariate meta-analytic procedures were adopted to examine the relationship between management commitment and performance. Firstly, the effect size (r) was transferred into Fisher's z coefficients, while weighing the effect sizes by their variances helped to correct the sampling error (Hedges and Olkin, 2014). The aggregation of corrected individual effect sizes into an overall effect size has been done in the next stage. Like other studies in meta-analysis (Barani, 2026; Barani et al., 2026; George et al., 2019; Xie et al., 2023), this study used the random effects model instead of the fixed effects model. A random-effects model was adopted because it assumes that true effect sizes may vary across studies due to differences in contexts, samples, and measurement approaches. Next, two common methods, the Q-value test and the I2-value test, were adopted to measure the heterogeneity (Higgins and Thompson, 2002). I² represents the proportion of observed variance attributable to real differences in effects rather than sampling error, with values around 25%, 50%, and 75% often interpreted as low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. The results of the Q-value and I2-value are presented in Table 2, which indicates that there is a heterogeneity between management commitment and performance (Q = 1,646.46, p < 0.01; and I2 = 96.6). This means that a large part of the variance was caused by factors other than sampling error (Sarooghi et al., 2015). These findings also confirm that the random effect size is more suitable for this study (Higgins and Thompson, 2002).

In the next step, moderating effects were examined using subgroup analyses. Subgroup analyses assess whether effect sizes differ significantly across subgroups. This study relies on the between-group heterogeneity statistic (Qb); a statistically significant Qb indicates that the variable functions as a moderator. (Hedges and Olkin, 2014).

Based on Schmidt and Hunter (2016) two methods can be used to be sure about the reliability of results in terms of publication bias: funnel plot and file drawer analysis. Firstly, the fail-safe N analysis was performed to check if the significant results from the studies were possibly overestimated (Lu and Taylor, 2016). Table 2 indicates that the number of all fail-safes is larger than the adopted numbers used to calculate the mean effect size, which means there is no serious concern about the file drawer problem (Xie et al., 2023). The funnel plot was used as the second method for publication bias. This method indicates that the dispersion of the small sample can be larger than that of the large sample, where you can find small samples at the bottom of the plots and large samples at the top (Schmidt and Hunter, 2016). In this study, most samples are at the top of the plot while distributed on both sides of the midline (Figure 3), which means there is no publication bias (Xie et al., 2023).

Table 3 presents the results of the bivariate meta-analysis examining the overall relationship between management commitment and performance. Based on 57 effect sizes derived from 47 independent studies (k = 57) and a total sample size of 14,163, the analysis reveals a significant positive association, with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.412. The 95% confidence interval (CI) ranges from 0.334 to 0.485, indicating a consistent and moderately strong effect across studies. The z-value of 9.444 (p < 0.01) confirms the statistical robustness of this relationship. These results underscore the substantial and reliable role of management commitment in driving organizational performance. The relatively narrow confidence interval and high level of significance suggest that stronger management commitment is consistently associated with higher levels of organizational performance across studies.

The moderating effect of the sustainability level, performance type, and company size on the relationship between management commitment and performance was examined through a meta-analysis. Table 4 presents the results, including the mean correlation coefficient (r), the 95% confidence intervals (lower and upper bounds), p-values, T-values, and the Qb statistic representing between-group heterogeneity.

Table 4 reports subgroup estimates for countries with high versus low sustainability levels. In high-sustainability countries, the association between management commitment and performance is positive and statistically significant (r = 0.4101; 95% CI: 0.3230–0.4902; p < 0.001; T = 8.48). In low-sustainability countries, the association is likewise positive and statistically significant (r = 0.4237; 95% CI: 0.2823–0.5471; p < 0.001; T = 5.47). Importantly, the between-group test indicates no statistically meaningful difference between subgroup means (Qb = 0.03; p > 0.05), providing no evidence that country-level sustainability moderates the management commitment–performance relationship.

The subgroup analysis examines whether the management commitment–performance association differs by performance type (environmental vs. non-environmental). As reported in Table 4, management commitment is positively and significantly related to environmental performance (r = 0.4746; 95% CI: 0.3407–0.5896; p < 0.001; T = 6.28) and to non-environmental performance (r = 0.3603; 95% CI: 0.2710–0.4435; p < 0.001; T = 7.44). Although the mean effect is directionally larger for environmental outcomes, the between-group test does not indicate a statistically meaningful difference (Qb = 2.06; p > 0.10). Accordingly, the results indicate a consistent positive associationacross both performance types, without statistical support for moderation by performance type.

The subgroup analysis examines whether firm size moderates the relationship between management commitment and performance by comparing large firms and SMEs. As reported in Table 4, the association is positive and statistically significant for large organizations (r = 0.3195; 95% CI: 0.1787–0.4475; p < 0.001; T = 4.31) and for SMEs (r = 0.3631; 95% CI: 0.2789–0.4417; p < 0.001; T = 7.94). While the point estimate is directionally higher for SMEs, the between-group test does not provide statistical evidence of a subgroup difference (Qb = 3.75; p > 0.05), indicating that firm size does not significantly moderate the management commitment–performance relationship. In this regard, the findings indicate a consistently positive relationship for both large firms and SMEs, and any suggestion that SMEs have a substantially stronger effect should be viewed as indicative rather than definitive.

This subgroup analysis examines whether the management commitment–performance association differs depending on whether EMA is included in the study. As reported in Table 4, studies that include EMA show a positive and statistically significant association (r = 0.5356; 95% CI: 0.2435–0.7386; p < 0.001; T = 3.35). Studies that do not include EMA also report a positive and statistically significant association (r = 0.3961; 95% CI: 0.3153–0.4713; p < 0.001; T = 8.86). Although the pooled estimate is directionally larger when EMA is included, the between-group test indicates that this difference is not statistically meaningful (Qb = 0.94; p > 0.05), providing no evidence that EMA moderates (i.e. strengthens) the management commitment–performance relationship in this meta-analysis.

The subgroup analysis presented in Table 4 examines the influence of two control variables, publication year and journal quality, on the relationship between management commitment and performance. With respect to publication year, studies published after 2020 report a slightly stronger effect size (r = 0.4219) compared to those published before 2020 (r = 0.3898). Both effects are statistically significant (p = 0.000), with T-values of 7.81 and 5.20, respectively. However, the between-group heterogeneity statistic (Qb = 0.15) indicates that the difference between subgroups is not statistically significant.Regarding journal quality, the findings reveal that studies published in lower-quality journals report a marginally stronger effect (r = 0.4291) than those in high-quality journals (r = 0.3866), with both relationships remaining statistically significant (p < 0.001). T-values for high- and low-quality studies are 5.60 and 7.72, respectively, and the heterogeneity statistic (Qb = 0.29) suggests limited variance between the two groups. Overall, while slight differences exist, neither publication year nor journal quality substantially moderates the observed relationship, confirming the robustness of the main effect across these control dimensions.

To further investigate the relationship between management commitment and performance, a supplemental meta-analysis was conducted by categorizing studies into developed and developing countries (Table 5). The results indicate a significant positive relationship in both contexts, though stronger in developing countries (r = 0.4301) than in developed ones (r = 0.3472). The substantial heterogeneity (Qb = 1557.476 in developing vs. Qb = 59.479 in developed countries) suggests greater variability in the developing country subgroup, potentially due to institutional or contextual diversity.

Regarding sustainability levels, subgroup data are available only for developing countries; effect sizes are very similar for high-sustainability (r = 0.4300; Qb = 0.015) and low-sustainability (r = 0.4237), indicating minimal between-group heterogeneity across sustainability levels within that subset. For performance type, environmental performance shows higher point estimates than non-environmental performance in both developed (r = 0.3914 vs. 0.2768; Qb = 1.142) and developing (r = 0.4949 vs. 0.3793; Qb = 1.546) countries. For firm size, the developed-country subgroup shows a higher point estimate for SMEs (r = 0.6430) than for large firms (r = 0.2945), with a comparatively large reported Qb for this comparison (Qb = 58.08), whereas developing countries show nearly identical estimates for large firms (r = 0.3416) and SMEs (r = 0.3428), alongside a smaller reported Qb (Qb = 4.271). Finally, EMA-based estimates are uneven across economic groups: in developing countries, EMA-included studies report r = 0.5356 (Qb = 0.716) and EMA-excluded studies report r = 0.4133, while in developed countries, only EMA-excluded studies are available (r = 0.3472).

Two robustness checks were conducted to assess the stability of the findings. First, a leave-one-out procedure was employed as a sensitivity analysis (Rudolph et al., 2020). This approach is recommended to examine whether the overall results change when a single study is removed from the estimation of the mean effect size (Viechtbauer and Cheung, 2010). Figure 4 presents the results of the leave-one-out analysis. The findings show no significant changes in the 95% confidence interval of the mean effect size when individual studies are excluded. These results indicate that the relationship between management commitment and performance is robust.

In the second step, this paper addressed concerns about outliers, defining them as effect sizes exceeding two standard deviations above or below the mean effect size (Xie et al., 2023). Four studies, which have substantial r sizes 0.930, 0.885, 0.884, and 0.777, were deleted from the model. Findings from Tables 6 and 7 provide evidence that in the absence of these papers, there is no considerable difference in results. These results further support the robustness of the positive association between management commitment and performance.

This research examines whether sustainability level, performance type, firm size, and EMA influence the relationship between management commitment and organizational performance. Compared with prior narrative reviews and single-study evidence, this study provides a quantitative synthesis of the management commitment–performance relationship. More specifically, it examines whether effect sizes vary across key contextual conditions that may influence the importance of management commitment for organizational performance. This research draws on the RBV theory, institutional theory, and stakeholder theory to examine whether contextual and organizational factors influence the strength of the relationship between management commitment and performance. By synthesizing evidence across studies, the analysis contributes to a broader understanding of how management commitment supports organizational improvement and helps firms design more effective sustainability-oriented strategies. The results of the meta-analysis confirm a positive and statistically significant relationship between management commitment and organizational performance. Drawing on a substantial cumulative sample (N = 14,163) across 47 studies, the estimated effect size indicates that stronger management commitment is consistently associated with improved performance outcomes. This finding aligns with prior research suggesting that integrating sustainability-oriented practices into managerial systems can support environmental, financial, and broader organizational outcomes (Ayele and Singh, 2024; Dixon-Fowler et al., 2017; Kitsis and Chen, 2021; Latan et al., 2018; Madrid-Guijarro and Duréndez, 2024; Ramaseshan et al., 2013; Tzempelikos, 2015). Overall, the consistency and statistical strength of the evidence suggest that management commitment represents an important strategic capability for organizations seeking to improve performance, particularly in contexts where sustainability considerations play an increasing role in shaping managerial priorities. The subgroup results show only small differences between high- and low-sustainability countries, and the very small between-group heterogeneity statistic indicates limited cross-context variation. Consequently, there is little statistical evidence that country-level sustainability moderates the relationship between management commitment and organizational performance, while the positive main effect remains robust and broadly observable across contexts (Newton et al., 2024). This finding is broadly consistent with arguments suggesting that stronger sustainability mandates may encourage greater organizational responsiveness and performance by providing supportive resources, norms, and legitimacy that help align managerial commitment with sustainability goals (Ahmed et al., 2023; Brammer et al., 2012; Chawewong and Naipinit, 2023). In lower-sustainability countries, the relationship remains positive and statistically significant, although the estimated effect size is slightly smaller, suggesting that firms may face greater constraints in translating managerial commitment into performance gains. This interpretation aligns with prior evidence indicating that contextual barriers, such as organizational resistance, limited supervisory support, and weak reward systems, can hinder the implementation of sustainability-oriented practices (Cantor et al., 2012). It also supports the view that environmental uncertainty can reduce the effectiveness of managerial decision-making (Singh, 2020). Nevertheless, structured management practices may help mitigate such uncertainty by providing frameworks that support coordination and strengthen managerial interventions at organizational and network levels. Regarding the third hypothesis, the results provide insight into whether performance type moderates the relationship between management commitment and organizational performance. Although the subgroup mean effect is directionally larger for environmental performance than for non-environmental performance, the between-group test does not provide statistical evidence that this difference is significant. Accordingly, the findings indicate a consistent positive association across both performance types, with limited evidence that performance type systematically alters the strength of the relationship. The directionally stronger association with environmental performance is broadly consistent with prior research suggesting that sustainability initiatives often rely on visible managerial support. In such contexts, managerial commitment and related internal practices (e.g. eco-design initiatives and incentive systems) may operate through mediating mechanisms that enhance green supply chain effectiveness and improve environmental and operational outcomes (Zhu et al., 2012). This interpretation also aligns with arguments that active managerial involvement helps build stronger relationships and a culture of commitment and trust, which can support resource efficiency and reduce operational impacts (Tzempelikos, 2015). Because environmental outcomes are highly salient to external stakeholders, commitment to environmentally oriented operations may translate more directly into reputational benefits, regulatory compliance, and competitive positioning, thereby reinforcing both environmental and economic outcomes (Kitsis and Chen, 2021). By contrast, the smaller effect observed for non-environmental performance suggests that impacts on financial or broader operational outcomes may be more indirect and depend on additional organizational mechanisms and managerial practices (Siagian and Tarigan, 2021).The results show that management commitment is positively associated with organizational performance in both large firms and SMEs, with subgroup effects that are similar in magnitude and no statistically supported difference between size categories. Thus, although managerial commitment appears beneficial across firm sizes, there is limited evidence that firm size systematically alters the strength of the commitment–performance relationship. This pattern is consistent with the view that performance outcomes depend not only on managerial commitment but also on resources, leadership approaches, and strategic alignment, which may vary between SMEs and larger firms (Madrid-Guijarro and Duréndez, 2024). Large firms may be better positioned to adopt sophisticated environmental measurement and management systems due to greater financial and human resources (Lisi, 2015). At the same time, the comparable positive association observed for SMEs suggests that managerial commitment can still generate performance benefits even under tighter resource constraints, potentially because leaders in smaller firms are more directly involved in day-to-day implementation and operational decision-making.

The findings also highlight the role of EMA as a potentially important internal mechanism through which organizations translate sustainability-oriented managerial intentions into operational practices (Lisi, 2015). However, this interpretation must be approached cautiously. Although studies that include EMA report a directionally larger mean association between management commitment and organizational performance than studies that do not include EMA, the between-group test does not provide statistical support for a meaningful subgroup difference. Therefore, the evidence does not allow a definitive conclusion that EMA strengthens the management commitment–performance relationship; rather, it indicates that the positive relationship between commitment and performance is present in both EMA and non-EMA study groupings, with the EMA pattern remaining suggestive rather than conclusive.

Nevertheless, EMA remains theoretically and practically relevant because it integrates environmental costs, performance indicators, and resource utilization into managerial routines, thereby supporting more informed decision-making (Cho et al., 2022; Zou et al., 2019) and helping convert sustainability aspirations into measurable outcomes (Christine et al., 2019; Latan et al., 2018). EMA may also reduce the risk that managerial commitment remains largely symbolic by aligning environmental objectives with internal processes and decision systems and by providing timely, decision-relevant information that enables proactive actions, resource efficiency, and greater organizational transparency (Amir et al., 2020; Appiah et al., 2020). By strengthening measurement, monitoring, and accountability, EMA can support strategic responsiveness and coordination around sustainability initiatives (Lisi, 2015; Somjai et al., 2020), potentially fostering innovation, stakeholder trust, and competitive positioning, while acknowledging that the moderating effect is not statistically confirmed in this meta-analysis.

This study deepens understanding of how management commitment to sustainability relates to firm performance by integrating insights from the RBV theory, institutional theory, and stakeholder theory. From an RBV perspective, sustainability-oriented practices can represent valuable organizational resources, while EMA can function as an internal capability that embeds environmental considerations into managerial and financial processes, thereby supporting the implementation of sustainability initiatives (Ahmed et al., 2023; Christine et al., 2019; Haldorai et al., 2022; Latan et al., 2018). The meta-analysis further shows that the relationship between management commitment and performance remains consistently positive across studies, suggesting that managerial commitment represents a broadly valuable organizational capability for supporting performance outcomes.

From an institutional perspective, organizations operate under varying regulatory pressures and legitimacy expectations that may shape sustainability-related practices. However, the subgroup results provide limited evidence that national sustainability contexts systematically alter the strength of the management commitment–performance relationship. This suggests that, although institutional environments influence organizational behavior, the benefits associated with managerial commitment appear to remain relatively stable across different sustainability contexts (Colwell and Joshi, 2013; Madrid-Guijarro and Duréndez, 2024). Even in the absence of a confirmed moderating effect, EMA can still function as an internal infrastructure that supports credible organizational responses to external institutional pressures.

Finally, from a stakeholder perspective, organizations are increasingly expected to demonstrate accountability to a broad range of stakeholders, including regulators, communities, and investors. Despite differences in stakeholder scrutiny across firm sizes, the meta-analysis indicates that the relationship between management commitment and performance remains positive for both large firms and SMEs, with limited subgroup differences. This finding aligns with prior research highlighting the importance of sustainability initiatives, legitimacy, and stakeholder engagement in shaping organizational outcomes (Dixon-Fowler et al., 2017; Wei et al., 2023). In this context, EMA may help organizations demonstrate accountability through quantifiable environmental information and transparent reporting practices, while the association between management commitment and environmental performance appears directionally stronger than for non-environmental outcomes (Newton et al., 2024).

The study offers several practical implications for managers and policymakers. First, organizations seeking to improve performance should treat management commitment as a strategic lever. Senior leaders can enhance organizational outcomes by visibly supporting sustainability initiatives, allocating attention and resources, and aligning managerial priorities with organizational objectives to strengthen accountability and performance improvement (Zhu et al., 2012), particularly in complex environments where sustained leadership engagement can support innovation, efficiency, and competitiveness (Ahmed et al., 2023).

Second, EMA can function as an implementation infrastructure that helps translate sustainability intentions into operational practice. By systematically tracking environmental costs, resource use, and performance indicators, EMA can enable more data-driven decision-making and strengthen internal accountability. However, the meta-analytic subgroup results provide limited statistical evidence that EMA consistently changes the magnitude of the management commitment–performance relationship. Therefore, EMA should primarily be viewed as an enabling system that supports the execution and monitoring of sustainability initiatives rather than as a proven amplifier of managerial commitment.

Third, because subgroup estimates in high- and low-sustainability contexts are broadly comparable, the benefits of management commitment appear to extend across different national sustainability environments. Nevertheless, in countries with stronger sustainability expectations, the value of aligning managerial commitment with national sustainability priorities becomes more pronounced. Organizations may therefore benefit from strengthening governance structures, sustainability training, and transparent reporting practices that align managerial actions with stakeholder expectations (Yusliza et al., 2019). In this context, EMA can provide an informational basis for credible compliance and disclosure practices, which is particularly important for multinational firms operating across diverse institutional environments.

Fourth, organizations can embed management commitment into formal organizational systems, such as governance mechanisms, performance evaluation frameworks, and leadership development programs, to ensure that sustainability commitments extend beyond symbolic endorsement. Leadership development initiatives can reinforce managerial engagement in strategy implementation and performance improvement (Tzempelikos, 2015), while EMA can support this process by institutionalizing sustainability metrics within monitoring and evaluation routines.

Finally, the results indicate that environmental performance outcomes show a directionally stronger association with management commitment than non-environmental outcomes. This suggests that environmental initiatives may be particularly responsive to visible leadership support. Managers can therefore prioritize environmental goals within strategic planning and resource allocation processes, using EMA to align operational practices and track measurable sustainability progress. Policymakers can further support these efforts by introducing incentives, recognition programs, or targeted support mechanisms that encourage managerial engagement and the adoption of decision-relevant environmental accounting and measurement practices aimed at improving both performance and sustainability outcomes.

While this meta-analysis provides comprehensive insights into the relationship between management commitment and organizational performance, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, a key limitation concerns the country-level sustainability measure used in the study. Following the World Economic Forum (World Economic Forum, 2024) framework, we derived a composite “Sustainability Index” by combining the “Sustainability” and “Resilience” pillars with equal weights. However, this aggregation was constructed by the authors and is not provided or validated as a single index in the WEF report. Accordingly, the findings related to sustainability-level subgroup comparisons should be interpreted with caution. Future research could employ theoretically grounded weighting schemes or use alternative, validated sustainability indicators to reassess cross-country differences.

Second, the meta-analytic approach necessarily combines studies conducted across diverse sectors and cultural contexts. While this enables a broader synthesis of evidence, it may also overlook industry-specific or regional differences that could influence the strength or nature of the relationships examined. Future studies could therefore conduct industry-specific or regionally focused meta-analyses to provide more context-sensitive insights. Third, the operationalization of “management commitment” varies across the included studies. Different studies rely on diverse measurement approaches and quantitative indicators, which may introduce measurement inconsistencies and affect the comparability of results. Developing more standardized measurement constructs in future empirical studies would improve comparability and strengthen theoretical clarity in this research stream.

Fourth, the classification of firm size presents another limitation. Definitions of SMEs and large firms vary across countries and industries, and some studies did not clearly report the criteria used to distinguish firm size (e.g. number of employees or revenue). In such cases, classification relied on contextual information such as industry characteristics or average firm size. Additionally, when studies included both SMEs and large firms but reported aggregated results, classification was based on dominant characteristics. These limitations may affect the precision of subgroup analyses and the interpretation of firm-size-related effects. Another limitation relates to the statistical reporting of primary studies. Some studies did not directly report correlation coefficients and instead presented other statistics, such as beta coefficients or t-values, requiring statistical conversions to estimate effect sizes. Although established conversion procedures were applied and consistency checks were conducted, these transformations may still introduce estimation errors that could influence the meta-analytic results.

Finally, while the present study establishes a robust association between management commitment and organizational performance, future research could further explore additional contextual and organizational factors that may shape this relationship. For example, variables such as industry dynamics, technological change, organizational culture, or leadership styles may influence how managerial commitment translates into performance outcomes. Longitudinal studies could also provide insights into how these relationships evolve over time and help identify critical stages where management commitment has the strongest impact. In addition, examining potential mediating mechanisms, such as employee engagement, innovation capacity, or sustainability practices, may further deepen understanding of the pathways through which management commitment contributes to organizational performance.

This study did not involve any human participants or animals. The data used in this research were derived from secondary sources, including published studies and publicly available datasets.

Since the study did not involve human participants, informed consent was not applicable.