Performance management for sustainability: a bibliometric analysis

Performance management (PM) is firmly rooted in the field of management control studies (Otley, 2003; Ferreira and Otley, 2009), where control is conceptualised as the process of directing the behaviour of employees and other stakeholders towards organisational objectives (Anthony, 1965; Ouchi, 1979; Malmi and Brown, 2008). Within this perspective, PM systems operate through a variety of mechanisms and devices (Bititci et al., 2012; Merchant and Otley, 2020; Noto et al., 2023), providing the structures that link measurement, evaluation and reporting to decision-making.

Over time, however, the scope of PM has expanded beyond financial efficiency and operational optimisation. The introduction of multidimensional frameworks such as the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992) paved the way for more comprehensive approaches, later extended by the triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997) and the sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC) (Figge et al., 2002), which explicitly integrated environmental and social concerns alongside economic performance. This shift has been reinforced by the rise of environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics and by the adoption of the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, with its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which have redefined what counts as “good” performance in both scholarly debates and managerial practice.

Accordingly, PM practices have been called to move beyond measuring financial results, expanding their role to include the evaluation and communication of sustainability performance, thereby linking internal decision-making with external accountability (Gray, 1992; Yongvanich and Guthrie, 2006; Schaltegger and Wagner, 2006; Bebbington and Unerman, 2018, 2020).

Despite this convergence, most research at the intersection of accounting and sustainability management has concentrated on reporting practices and standard-setting, with less systematic attention paid to how measurement and evaluation processes within PM systems are reshaped by sustainability requirements (Parker, 2005; Adams and Narayanan, 2010; Abeysekera, 2022; Giner and Luque-Vílchez, 2022). As a result, the conceptual and practical integration of sustainability into PM remains underexplored: how do organisations translate sustainability objectives into measures, embed them into evaluation routines, and connect them to managerial decision-making? This gap points to the need for a systematisation of the literature specifically focused on PM, as distinct from the broader field of sustainability accounting.

A few bibliometric and review studies have addressed sustainability in business and management, but they have typically considered broader themes such as CSR, innovation or ESG reporting (Hassini et al., 2012; Taticchi et al., 2015; Negri et al., 2021; Bota-Avram, 2023; Wang et al., 2024). To our knowledge, no bibliometric study has systematically mapped the body of research at the explicit intersection of PM and sustainability. This gap opens up an opportunity for a focused analysis that can reveal how PM-specific practices of measurement, evaluation and accountability have evolved to integrate sustainability, and how this field is structured and developing over time. In doing so, our study addresses the managerial and strategic dimensions of sustainability-oriented PM, moving beyond disclosure-focused perspectives alone.

More specifically, this study contributes to new knowledge in three ways. Firstly, it establishes that research at the intersection of PM and sustainability has evolved into a distinct and increasingly structured field, rather than remaining a dispersed set of contributions within broader sustainability accounting debates. Secondly, it shows how this field is organised around interconnected themes linking measurement, evaluation, reporting and accountability within the PM cycle. Thirdly, it highlights a broader shift from disclosure-centred approaches towards more strategic and decision-oriented understandings of sustainability within PM.

Against this backdrop, and in light of the identified gap, this study aims to provide an integrated overview of how PM and sustainability intersect at the firm and organisational level. Building on this rationale, we formulate the following research questions:

To answer these RQs, a bibliometric analysis method was used using the VOSviewer software to analyse articles published between 1993 and 2022.

The structure of this paper will proceed as follows: Section 2 provides the necessary background by integrating relevant literature and context for the study. Section 3 describes the methodological approach used to achieve the purpose of the study. Section 4 presents the results. Section 5 outlines the future research directions, and section 6 offers final remarks, discussing the study’s contributions, limitations and practical implications.

Identifying the central topics within the literature is crucial for recognising past and present research trends and establishing a foundation for defining potential future research directions (Massaro et al., 2016; Marrone et al., 2020; Moses and Hopper, 2022). In this regard, literature reviews play a pivotal role.

Recent review studies have investigated sustainability in business and management, though their emphasis has generally been on themes like CSR, disclosure or innovation, leaving the specific link with PM less developed. For instance, Hassini et al. (2012) and Taticchi et al. (2015) investigated sustainability within supply chain and performance frameworks, while Negri et al. (2021) and Bota-Avram (2023) addressed ESG disclosure and corporate governance. More recently, Wang et al. (2024) mapped sustainability-oriented innovation, showing the proliferation of cross-disciplinary approaches.

Other reviews, however, have explored different but related domains, often in isolation from one another. Table 1 summarises these contributions, outlining their main focus, methodologies and limitations.

A first stream has focused on environmental management accounting (EMA) (Swalih et al., 2024; Schaltegger et al., 2013) and its methodological extensions such as material flow cost accounting (MFCA) (Schaltegger and Zvezdov, 2015). A second has examined sustainability accounting and reporting (Burritt and Schaltegger, 2010; Spence et al., 2010; Adams and Larrinaga, 2019), alongside more specialised contributions on carbon accounting (Ascui, 2014; Gibassier et al., 2020). A third has addressed the adoption and implementation of sustainability performance management systems (PMS) (Searcy, 2016), including applications in small businesses (Buonasera et al., 2025), as well as the relationship between sustainability performance and financial outcomes (Guenther and Hoppe, 2014; Bartolacci et al., 2020).

More recent reviews have turned to the SBSC as a performance measurement and management control tool, either to guide firms towards sustainability strategies (Mio et al., 2022) or to link sustainability practices with environmental performance outcomes (Jassem et al., 2022). Parallel contributions have systematised research on sustainable supply chains (Taticchi et al., 2015; Schaltegger and Burritt, 2014; Frederico et al., 2021), focusing on performance indicators and evaluation frameworks.

Taken together, these contributions reveal two main gaps. Firstly, most reviews concentrate on specific subdomains – EMA, reporting, SBSCs or supply chains – and therefore do not provide an integrated view of PM as a system of measurement, evaluation and reporting. Secondly, they often rely on relatively narrow corpora or disciplinary silos, limiting their ability to capture the interdisciplinary nature and recent evolution of the field. As a result, the conceptual and practical integration of sustainability into PM frameworks remains insufficiently mapped. This uneven coverage points to the need for an alternative approach. Given the rapid expansion and interdisciplinary character of PM–sustainability research, its complexity is difficult to capture through narrative or systematic reviews alone, which makes a bibliometric analysis particularly valuable for mapping both the structure of the field and its evolution over time. By systematically analysing a large and diversified body of literature, bibliometrics overcomes some limitations of traditional reviews, offering a quantitative basis to identify influential works, detect structural patterns and trace thematic and temporal developments across disciplines. The core contribution of this study is therefore to apply an integrated bibliometric lens that combines citation evidence with thematic and temporal analyses, offering a stronger basis to understand the intellectual structure of the field, highlight overlaps and gaps, and inform both future research and managerial practice.

In this sense, the study goes beyond simply cataloguing related research streams by reorganising them through a PM lens, showing how sustainability is distributed across the main stages of the PM cycle and highlighting key overlaps, tensions and remaining gaps.

The study adopts a bibliometric analysis based on similarity visualisation to provide an in-depth analysis of the multidisciplinary knowledge base on the linkage between PM and sustainability (van Eck and Waltman, 2010, 2014). This method allows investigating a field or the intersection of several fields without compromising scientific rigour or excluding many publications from the investigation. In support of bibliometric studies, statistical methods have the advantage of supporting the analysis of research in a specific field (Broadus, 1987). Although bibliometric analysis cannot be considered an exhaustive method, it nevertheless appears suitable for mapping a research field and, at the same time, providing insights into its evolution. To search, screen and study scientific articles relevant to the topic under investigation, we used the PRISMA (Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses) protocol (Moher et al., 2009; Tranfield et al., 2003).

To ensure comprehensiveness and enhance the robustness of the data set, the literature search was conducted using both Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) databases (Zhao and Strotmann, 2015). These two platforms were selected because they are the largest and most authoritative sources of peer-reviewed academic literature. While Scopus offers a broader coverage, WoS provides highly curated content and complementary indexing criteria (Strozzi et al., 2017). The combination of both sources reduces the risk of database-specific bias and allows for greater coverage across disciplines, particularly valuable in multidisciplinary fields such as performance and sustainability (Farooq, 2023). Google Scholar was excluded due to its primary limitation, namely the lack of quality control and the inclusion of non-peer-reviewed and duplicate records, which undermines its reliability for systematic citation analysis (Jacsó, 2010; Aguillo, 2012). Nonetheless, it should be acknowledged that the use of Scopus and WoS may still entail biases, such as the underrepresentation of non-English studies or limited coverage of certain subject areas.

The initial search was conducted in Scopus in February 2023 and was subsequently integrated with WoS data in February 2025. Citation data were then updated in March 2025 to reflect the most recent developments and academic impact. Thanks to this update, many of the publications included in the data set had time to accrue a significantly higher number of citations, thus reducing one of the most critical limitations of bibliometric analyses – namely, the underestimation of impact for recently published works. The search draws on the following search string: “‘Performance manag*’ OR ‘Performance measur*’ OR ‘balanced scorecard’ OR bsc OR ‘key performance indicator’ OR kpi AND sustainab* OR esg”. Keyword selection was refined iteratively through discussion within the research team and consultation with external peers, ensuring both breadth and alignment with the research objectives.

Following the retrieval of an initial 5,378 documents from Scopus and 4,574 from WoS, a multi-step screening and filtering process was carried out, as explicitly detailed in Figure 1, according to the PRISMA framework, which presents the full sequence of inclusion and exclusion criteria applied throughout the identification, screening and eligibility. In particular, regarding the document type, we exclusively selected articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Further filters include searching English-only journal articles and articles in press. The time span considered is from 1993 to 2022. The starting point for the analysis was chosen considering that in 1992, Kaplan and Norton published their work on the Balanced Scorecard, which marked a milestone in management control and PMS, opening the road to focusing on multiple dimensions of performance and not exclusively on the financial one. From their pivotal contribution onward, the opportunity to include various performance dimensions has gone consolidating, embracing sustainability aspects (in the broadest meaning), such as environmental impacts and social results.

The results from both databases were then merged and deduplicated, and a further round of refinement was performed to remove articles deemed irrelevant to the topic. Some of the documents were in no way relevant to the research area investigated (for instance, in Environmental Sciences, the properties of metakaolin (MK) based concrete exposed to chloride attack). Other studies refer to topics not directly related to business and management (such as studies aimed at identifying the significant factors influencing teachers’ motivation to incorporate the SDGs into their teaching) or were not in line with the objective of our analysis (such as some studies aimed at analysing the influence of Intellectual Capital on financial sustainability of firms).

Given the multidisciplinarity of the topics, manual screening of the abstracts was conducted independently by two researchers. To evaluate the reliability of this subjective phase, a Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was calculated based on 1,865 independently coded abstracts. The resulting score of k = 0.613 indicates a substantial level of inter-rater agreement, confirming the robustness of the filtering process (Landis and Koch, 1977). At the end of the process, a final data set of 680 articles was obtained and used for the bibliometric analysis, conducted with VOSviewer software.

From the bibliometric analysis carried out, it emerges that the linkage between sustainability issues and PM is increasingly capturing the attention of scholars, making the scientific debate particularly dynamic and heated. Figure 2 illustrates this growing academic engagement, with the number of publications rising significantly over the observation period (1993–2022), and an exponential growth starting from 2018. This sharp increase in research output may be associated with several external drivers. Among these, the evolving regulatory landscape – including the European Union’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and its more recent successor, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) – has likely played a pivotal role in catalysing scholarly interest. These directives have progressively strengthened the reporting obligations on environmental and social matters for large companies, encouraging more structured approaches to sustainability performance measurement. In parallel, the widespread integration of ESG criteria in investment decision-making processes has further amplified the relevance of this research area. The heightened attention to sustainability across financial markets, corporate governance and policy domains has fostered a fertile ground for academic exploration.

This growing academic engagement is further supported by the evidence provided in Figure 3, which maps the co-occurrence of keywords and visually captures the temporal evolution of key concepts in the literature. The presence of keywords such as ESG, firm performance and SDGs in the yellow spectrum confirms a recent intensification of interest in these topics, suggesting their centrality in the most contemporary scholarly debates. In addition, the emergence of terms such as circular economy and integrated reporting points to a broadening of the sustainability discourse toward more regenerative business models and integrated frameworks that combine financial and non-financial dimensions.

The positioning of integrated reporting near keywords such as corporate governance and stakeholder theory also indicates the increasing relevance of transparency and accountability in the evolution of sustainability PM. Likewise, the inclusion of circular economy reflects a shift toward systemic thinking in sustainability, linking resource efficiency, innovation and long-term value creation. These insights reinforce the idea that performance measurement is becoming a pivotal entry point for understanding how organisations engage with sustainability, moving beyond compliance towards its role as a strategic and transformative lever.

The growing interest in the academic world is even more evident thanks to the number of journals publishing papers investigating these topics and the citations they receive. 268 journals published at least one paper, and nearly 200 (197) articles received at least ten citation (Table 2). The total number of citations is 40,978, while the average number of citations per article is 60.26. The journal with the highest average number of citations received per publication is International Journal of Production Economics (259.22), followed by the Supply Chain Management (182.60), Ecological Economics (165.29), International Journal of Production Research (133.71) and Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (140.89). For this ranking, we only considered journals with a minimum number of documents equal to five. The prominence of the most cited journals highlights how the field combines multidisciplinarity with a growing institutional and academic drive to connect sustainability discourse and performance evaluation tools. A possible explanation for their leading role lies in their editorial orientation: these journals often adopt policies that actively encourage the submission of research addressing environmental, social and ethical dimensions of management. Their openness to interdisciplinary approaches and emphasis on applied, impact-driven studies may explain their attractiveness for scholars investigating sustainability performance. This trend suggests a broader convergence between operational management, strategic governance and environmental imperatives, revealing how sustainability has become central to both corporate strategies and scholarly agendas.

Another meaningful indicator is the total number of citations received by the most influential papers in the data set. This metric helps to trace the intellectual roots of the field and highlights the foundational works that have shaped subsequent research. Among the most cited contributions are Hassini et al. (2012), Figge et al. (2002), Hubbard (2009), Tang et al. (2018) and Gunasekaran and Spalanzani (2012), as shown in Table 3. These studies have significantly contributed to framing sustainability in PM, proposing theoretical models, measurement tools and empirical applications that continue to influence the field.

As already underlined, bibliometric analysis allows us to observe the evolutionary dynamics of the various research fields. To deepen the insights, we complemented citation analysis with co-citation and bibliographic coupling, considering articles, journals and authors as units of analysis (Ferreira, 2018).

Co-citation analysis captures the intellectual structure of the field by detecting how often two items are cited together, thus reflecting established knowledge bases (Mingers and Leydesdorff, 2015). Its main limitation lies in the time required for citations to accumulate, making it more suited to observing past developments. Conversely, bibliographic coupling links documents that share common references, thereby identifying current research fronts (Zupic and Cater, 2015). Together, these techniques allow us to contrast the historical consolidation of research streams with their more recent evolutions.

The comparative analysis of the co-citations and the bibliographic coupling offers a synthesis of the main journals that in the last decade have given space to scientific contributions concerning the topics we have investigated (Table 4). Out of the 14,079 cited sources, 48 journals received more than 100 citations each, while 88 journals received more than 50 citations each. Specifically, with reference to the results of the co-citation analysis shown in Table 5, a minimum threshold of 20 citations per journal was set, a requirement met by 194.

The first journal is Journal of Cleaner Production with the highest total link strength (100,310), followed by Journal of Business Ethics (51,385) and Business Strategy and the Environment (47,039). Concerning the bibliographic coupling, a minimum threshold of five articles per journal was set, a requirement met by 25 journals out of 268. Analysis shows that the three journals with the highest bibliographic coupling index measured in terms of total link strength are, Journal of Cleaner Production (7,255), Sustainability (6,254) and Business Strategy and the Environment (4,142).

The analysis of the co-citations and bibliographic coupling also shows us the contribution of the main scientific studies to the development of the research field investigated. When analysing the 680 articles included in our data set (via co-citation analysis), and considering a minimum threshold of 5 citations, the obtained set contains 161 cited references out of the 45,655 total (Table 5). More specifically, the three most connected articles are: Seuring and Müller (2008), Bai and Sarkis (2018), and Carter and Rogers (2008).

To further examine the scientific and theoretical connections among documents, we used bibliographic coupling analysis. Considering papers with at ten five citations, the set of documents contains 511 articles (75.15% of the data set). While with at least 20 citations, the analysis shows set of connected documents containing 412 publications (60,59% of the data set). Publications with highest indices of bibliographic coupling are: Journeault (2016); Asiaei et al. (2021); Varsei et al. (2014); Taticchi et al. (2015); Nikolaou et al. (2019).

Regarding the co-citation analysis, out of the 48,915 cited authors, 95 had been cited more than 50 times, and 25 authors were cited more than 100 times, while the co-citation analysis shown in Table 6, a minimum threshold of 20 citations per author was set, a requirement met by 429.

Although many scholars are co-authors of various studies on the investigated topic (which could suggest a certain dependence on scientific contributions produced by a small number of authors), our results show a strong presence of a large number of authors of different nationalities and belonging to different scientific disciplinary areas. The main authors are Sarkis (32,692 link strength and 550 citations), Schaltegger (27,801 link strength and 592 citations) and Kaplan (19,521 link strength and 493 citations).

Bibliographic coupling analysis allows to identify the scholars who are central in the network of citations.

Out of the 1,686 authors in our data set, 57 had published at least three articles. The main scholars are: Hristov (3,495 link strength and 394 citations), Appolloni (2,861 link strength and 237 citations) and Searcy (2,470 link strength and 1,511 citations).

Given that the topics here investigated are part of a research field that has been particularly prolific in recent years, we developed a co-occurrence analysis of keywords to identify the main research trends (López‐Fernández et al., 2016). Unlike other methods, the co-occurrence analysis of keywords is less influenced by the presence of older studies in the data set. This allowed us to analyse the most recent studies more precisely and to identify the creation of new research trends. We used author keywords as the unit of analysis. Only keywords that occurred at least seven times were kept. This resulted in 44 out of 1,859 keywords. However, to avoid the presence of duplicate keywords in the data set (such as “CSR” and “Corporate social responsibility” or “ESG” and “Environmental, Social and Governance”) we exported a “.txt file” of all the keywords and proceeded to their homogenisation. The most occurring keywords in the data set are Sustainability Reporting (159 occurrences and 212 link strength), Performance Measurement (145 occurrences and 191 link strength), BSC (64 occurrences and 86 link strength), CSR (59 occurrences and 82 link strength) and Sustainable development (58 occurrences and 82 link strength).

Finally, through the graphic representation elaborated by the VOSviewer software, so-called “Network Visualization” of the co-occurrence, the analysis allowed us to identify six clusters (Figure 4):

1. Manufacturing and circular economy – red cluster;

2. Performance management, stakeholders and sustainable development – green cluster;

3. Performance measurement and sustainability indicators – blue cluster;

4. Performance evaluation and Sustainability reporting – yellow cluster;

5. CSR and Integrated reporting – purple cluster; and

6. Sustainable performance, Sustainability accounting and SDGs – light blue cluster.

In light of the research clusters mapped by our analysis, it becomes even more evident that the intersection of PM and sustainability themes inherently requires a multidisciplinary and critical perspective. Firstly, PM crosses various management disciplinary boundaries as it represents the function that connects the strategic level – e.g. corporate governance, stakeholder engagement – with the operational one – e.g. supply chain management, inventory management, operation management, etc. As such, when combined with sustainability, PM frameworks extend beyond traditional financial and operational metrics, integrating ESG factors into strategic and operational decision-making. This requires competencies ranging from accounting to management engineering. This multidisciplinary approach is essential for addressing the complex challenges posed by SDGs and CSR. The clusters identified in this analysis underscore this interdisciplinary approach by demonstrating how sustainability is increasingly embedded in various facets of PM. Therefore, this analysis categorises current research while at the same time shedding light on how sustainability measures converge with PM, emphasising the importance of adopting a comprehensive perspective that integrates both strategic and operational dimensions of sustainability within PM.

Going beyond mere quantitative results deriving from the bibliometric analysis, we critically analysed the main papers within each cluster. The detailed description provided below intends to deepen the peculiarities of each cluster and comment on its most prominent contributions. The  Appendix, through the table it contains, provides a comparative summary of the six clusters, outlining their defining keywords, dominant theories, methodological approaches and main gaps or tensions.

Public concern over the environmental impact of industrial activities has long stimulated interest in sustainable manufacturing and circular economy practices. Despite the diffusion of such approaches, production processes often fall short of the sustainability goals set by the 2030 Agenda, fuelling extensive academic debate.

Key studies within this cluster have focused on measuring and managing sustainability in manufacturing and supply chains (Gunasekaran and Spalanzani, 2012; Joung et al., 2013; Ahmadi-Gh and Bello-Pintado, 2022; Schaltegger and Burritt, 2014; Varsei et al., 2014; Cavicchi and Vagnoni, 2022). A recurring issue concerns the categorisation of indicators: while Joung et al. (2013) proposed a taxonomy to assess manufacturing activities, subsequent studies highlighted persistent limitations that hinder systematic monitoring. Moreover, environmental (Ahi and Searcy, 2015) and social (Sutherland et al., 2016) indicators are often examined in isolation, reflecting a lack of integrated approaches.

From a theoretical standpoint, this cluster demonstrates multi-theoretical and interdisciplinary integration. Ahmadi-Gh and Bello-Pintado (2022) combine transaction cost theory (TCT), Natural resource-based view (NRBV) and social exchange theory (SET) to capture the multidimensionality of sustainable manufacturing. Other studies use advanced methods such as rough set theory and DEMATEL (Bai et al., 2020) or grounded theory (GT) alongside green supply chain management (GSCM) and industrial ecology (Jain et al., 2018), to derive empirically grounded frameworks. In more applied settings, the SCOR model has been validated as a performance measurement tool in the Indian manufacturing sector (Kottala and Herbert, 2020), reinforcing the need for standardised and operationally effective frameworks in circular supply chains.

Taken together, these contributions illustrate the richness of this cluster in terms of theoretical lenses and methodological approaches. Unresolved gaps remain, however. Firstly, despite methodological diversity, there is no consensus on how to integrate environmental and social indicators into unified PMS for manufacturing. Secondly, the literature leans heavily on incremental refinements – such as expanding indicator sets or adapting existing models – while offering fewer insights into transformative redesigns of production systems in line with circular economy principles (Hansen and Schaltegger, 2018). Addressing these gaps will require research that goes beyond measurement to explore how manufacturing PMS can drive systemic sustainability transitions.

This cluster examines the integration of PM with sustainable development, with particular emphasis on the role of stakeholders. Rather than treating stakeholders as an external dimension, the literature increasingly frames their perspectives as integral to the design and evolution of PMS. The shift from performance measurement – concerned with what and how to measure results – to PM – focused on using information in decision-making (Lebas, 1995) – is here mediated by stakeholder expectations, institutional pressures and cultural dynamics.

Early contributions marked a gradual broadening of measurement frameworks. Hubbard (2009) advanced the SBSC and the Organisational Sustainability Performance Index (OSPI), extending the Balanced Scorecard beyond financial measures to include social and environmental dimensions. This reflected the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) logic of balancing economic, social and environmental goals within business decision-making. Building on this, Epstein and Widener (2011) integrated stakeholder reactions into performance evaluation by combining stakeholder theory (ST) with quantitative methods such as contingent valuation (CV) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Their work exemplifies a methodological step forward, as stakeholders’ preferences are explicitly recognised and modelled as inputs into sustainable business decisions.

Later studies highlighted how stakeholder pressures reshape internal systems. Guerci et al. (2016) identified green HRM as a mediating mechanism between external environmental demands and internal performance outcomes, underscoring the systemic nature of stakeholder influence. Hristov and Appolloni (2022) extended this perspective by linking sustainability integration to corporate culture, positioning organisational values as a driver for aligning PMS with stakeholder expectations. Hristov et al. (2022) further broadened the sustainability KPI framework into five dimensions (economic, social, environmental, cultural and organisational), reflecting the need for a more holistic conception of sustainable performance.

Other methodological innovations also emerge within this cluster. Bianchi et al. (2015) introduced System Dynamics (SD) modelling to simulate long-term trade-offs between sustainability and competitiveness, while Hristov et al. (2021) systematically reviewed the role of environmental dimensions in PMS, consolidating prior evidence and signalling gaps in empirical applications.

Overall, the Green Cluster demonstrates a progressive shift from static frameworks, such as the BSC, towards more dynamic, stakeholder-sensitive and culturally embedded approaches. As summarised in  Appendix, the cluster is characterised by an interplay of theories (ST, TBL, RBV), varied methodological tools (SBSC, CV, CBA, SD simulations), and increasingly multidimensional KPI frameworks. An area that could deserve further exploration concerns the integration between quantitative performance indicators and qualitative drivers such as culture and perceptions. Developing dynamic models that capture these interactions, for instance, may offer richer insights into how stakeholder expectations and organisational values influence sustainability-oriented PMS.

The third cluster concerns the development of measures and indicators for evaluating sustainability, a crucial aspect of corporate management in response to growing awareness of environmental and social impacts. Over time, research in this area has advanced significantly, both through the adoption of multidisciplinary approaches and through the refinement of methodologies aimed at capturing the complexity of sustainability performance. Some contributions also extend the analysis to the public sector, where the uptake of sustainability measures appears limited unless mandated and explicitly embedded within organisational strategies (Adams et al., 2014).

Among the earliest works, Singh et al. (2007) proposed a composite sustainability performance index (CSPI) that integrates economic, environmental and social dimensions, with governance and technical aspects weighted via the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). This was followed by Lee and Saen (2012), who applied data envelopment analysis (DEA) to sustainability dimensions in corporate management. Later studies combined DEA with structural equation modelling (SEM) to address earlier limitations (Dey et al., 2021), while more recent research adopted network DEA (NDEA) to analyse sustainable supply chain management (SSCM). For instance, Izadikhah et al. (2022) developed a linear programming model to overcome weaknesses in stochastic DEA, and Pachar et al. (2022) used a two-stage NDEA to explore how operational and sustainability decisions interact in shaping retail performance. These contributions illustrate the ongoing refinement of evaluation techniques, highlighting both methodological progress and the challenge of ensuring their effective translation into managerial practice.

Erol et al. (2011) and Chaker et al. (2021) exemplify the theoretical and methodological diversification within this cluster. Erol et al. propose a fuzzy-logic-based framework that incorporates entropy and fuzzy multi-attribute utility theory (FMAUT), offering tools to address uncertainty in sustainability assessment. Their model provides actionable guidance for supply chain actors but remains largely linear and segmented. By contrast, Chaker et al. (2021), drawing on Luhmann’s systems theory, advance a more systemic and dynamic conceptualisation. Their approach integrates normative and instrumental perspectives, underscoring the interdependence of sustainability dimensions and the need for adaptive management frameworks.

Viewed as a whole, these contributions signal a gradual transition from quantitative, indicator-driven approaches towards broader models that embed sustainability into strategic and systemic perspectives. At the same time, this trajectory highlights both the richness of current scholarship and its limitations, because methodologies have become increasingly sophisticated while the integration of measurement precision with organisational application remains partial. There is, therefore, room to examine more closely how advanced indicator frameworks can be made operational by incorporating organisational culture, governance mechanisms and stakeholder dynamics, thus bridging the gap between technical rigour and strategic relevance.

The Yellow cluster covers studies focused on evaluating sustainable performance and exploring how measurement systems can influence corporate reporting initiatives. Many articles address the definition and identification of performance measures (partially overlapping with the third cluster); they stand out for their deeper analysis of the implications of such measures, particularly regarding the feedback provided to managers and stakeholders through sustainability reporting initiatives.

Scholars highlight that sustainability performance evaluation should extend beyond retrospective assessments. As Searcy (2016) and Adams and Frost (2008) argue, evaluation tools are expected not only to document past outcomes but also to anticipate risks, guide strategic planning, and shape incentive systems. This orientation reflects the need for multidisciplinary approaches capable of integrating financial, social and environmental perspectives into decision-making.

Early contributions adapt the Balanced Scorecard to include TBL dimensions. Dias-Sardinha and Reijnders (2005) apply the BSC to environmental and social performance, signalling an early effort to align efficiency and eco-effectiveness within a structured evaluation framework. Similarly, Perrini and Tencati (2006) propose the Sustainability Evaluation and Reporting System (SERS), which merges GRI standards with stakeholder-focused KPIs, reinforcing transparency and accountability. Other works focus on the evaluation of the indicators themselves. Ramos and Caeiro (2010) contribute to this trend by developing a framework for evaluating sustainability indicators. Drawing on Sustainable Development Theory, the Bellagio Principles and Meta-evaluation Theory, their work introduces a dynamic process for assessing the effectiveness of the sustainability indicators themselves.

The integration of stakeholder perspectives emerges as a recurrent theme. Adams (2013) stresses the role of leadership, stakeholder engagement and institutional embedding in extending sustainability evaluation to diverse organisational contexts, while Clarkson et al. (2011) use Voluntary Disclosure Theory and socio-political perspectives to examine the interplay between environmental performance and disclosure quality. By distinguishing between “hard” and “soft” environmental disclosures and applying econometric models, their study advances a more nuanced, evidence-based approach to sustainability reporting. Methodological innovation is another hallmark of this cluster. Singh and Vinodh (2017) combine Graph Theory with Agility Theory to capture the interdependencies between organisational adaptability and sustainability. Aktaş and Demirel (2021) continue this trend by using a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making framework, using techniques such as VIKOR, TOPSIS and MAUT. Including the Entropy Method to assign weights to criteria and the Borda Count Method to aggregate results demonstrates a methodological evolution toward more precise and objective sustainability evaluations. These methods enable more precise sustainability evaluations, balancing economic, social and environmental priorities and offering decision-makers structured tools to align reporting with long-term goals.

Collectively, the studies in this cluster point to a methodological progression from adapted BSC frameworks and stakeholder-centred models to increasingly sophisticated, multi-criteria and data-driven approaches. This reflects the recognition that sustainability evaluation is not merely a reporting exercise but a strategic process with direct implications for governance and decision-making. Yet, the literature also reflects fragmentation, because methodological sophistication has advanced but its translation into organisational practices and cultural contexts remains partial. This suggests the need for further inquiry into how advanced evaluation systems can be embedded into everyday managerial routines, where reporting serves both to convey accountability and to shape sustainable strategies.

The Purple Cluster examines the intersection between CSR, sustainability disclosure and integrated reporting (IR), highlighting how reporting practices can both enhance transparency and shape PMS. Early contributions raised concerns about the value and challenges of non-financial disclosure (Cooper and Owen, 2007; Hanlon and Fleming, 2009), while later studies turned to IR as a potential integrative tool linking accounting, sustainability and strategy (de Villiers et al., 2014; Jensen and Berg, 2012; Le Roux and Pretorius, 2019). Empirical findings, however, remain mixed: while some evidence points to improved communication and accountability (Mio et al., 2016; de Villiers et al., 2017), others show tendencies toward longer, less transparent and more optimistic reports, especially in contexts of weak financial performance (Melloni et al., 2017; Sinnewe et al., 2021). This suggests that IR, while potentially improving sustainability communication, might also be strategically used by companies to mask their weaknesses.

The implementation of mandatory regimes has added another layer of complexity, with studies investigating their influence on disclosure quality, corporate performance and market value (Ioannou and Serafeim, 2017; Jackson et al., 2020; Barth et al., 2017). Yet, IR does not automatically translate into stronger ESG integration. Maniora (2017) shows how, under certain conditions, IR can even dilute ESG focus, underscoring the importance of corporate context and managerial intent. In this sense, Adams (2015) stresses that IR can serve as a genuine risk-management and strategy tool only when embedded in broader organisational commitment. The connection between IR and traditional management tools, such as the BSC, highlights the potential of an integrated approach to PM (Massingham et al., 2019; Thomson, 2015; Stent and Dowler, 2015; Atkins and Maroun, 2015). While some studies argue that adopting these tools can reduce costs and improve sustainability (de Villiers et al., 2016; Mio et al., 2016), others suggest that the benefits strongly depend on how companies choose to implement and use such tools, rather than on their mere adoption. These processes can also facilitate the disclosure of forward-looking information capable of mitigating the risks associated with such disclosures (Lakshan et al., 2021; Perego et al., 2016).

From a theoretical perspective, this cluster is grounded in stakeholder, legitimacy and institutional theories (García-Sánchez et al., 2013; Adams, 2015; Atkins and Maroun, 2015), enriched by complementary frameworks such as impression management (Melloni et al., 2017), sensemaking (Perego et al., 2016) and integrated thinking (Dumay and Dai, 2017; Maroun et al., 2023). Methodologically, the field shows increasing diversity: econometric and panel data analyses (García-Sánchez et al., 2013; Barth et al., 2017), textual analysis with software tools (Melloni et al., 2017), qualitative interviews (De Villiers et al., 2016) and digital innovations such as XBRL-based approaches (Seele, 2016).

Overall, this cluster reveals significant methodological progress and growing interdisciplinarity. Yet, questions remain about how IR is used in practice – whether as a genuine integrative mechanism for embedding ESG into PMS or as a symbolic tool for impression management. Moreover, the interaction between IR and managerial control instruments (such as the BSC) is still underexplored, leaving scope for research that clarifies how disclosure frameworks connect with performance evaluation and decision-making routines.

The light blue cluster highlights how social accountability has evolved from compliance-oriented disclosure to a more strategic component of sustainable PM. Early work by Schaltegger and Wagner (2006) proposed an integrated framework combining ST, the TBL and the SBSC, laying the groundwork for connecting accountability to managerial control. Later, Schaltegger and Zvezdov (2015) shifted attention to the role of accountants as information gatekeepers, illustrating how sustainability data access emerges from a combination of technical expertise and organisational power dynamics.

More recent contributions explore the interplay between performance measurement and global agendas such as the SDGs. The literature gathered in this cluster goes beyond merely describing the adoption of SDGs in accounting practices; it underscores how this integration represents a crucial step toward more responsible and sustainable business management, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. Bebbington and Unerman (2020) argue that the SDGs provide a new enabling context for accounting research, pushing the field beyond financial priorities toward ESG integration. More recently, some studies have questioned the adequacy of current materiality practices, suggesting that the coexistence of GRI and SASB guidelines creates confusion in sustainability measurement (Jørgensen et al., 2022). Others have highlighted that despite advances in GRI reporting, many companies still struggle to map their activities to the SDGs clearly (Perello-Marin et al., 2022), revealing, in specific cases, a low level of CSR institutionalisation and, consequently, weak strategic alignment with the SDGs (Costa et al., 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed these weaknesses. Goyal and Dangwal (2022) show that external shocks revealed gaps in corporate resilience and highlighted the fragility of SDG integration in practice. At the same time, Alexander et al. (2022) provide a more forward-looking lens by combining decision theory with the theory of “wicked problems”. Their approach suggests that sustainability challenges require hybrid solutions – simultaneously participatory and technocratic – to address the multifaceted tensions surrounding SDGs.

This stream of research shows how accountability has progressively expanded: from linking sustainability to managerial tools, to examining reporting standards, institutionalisation and crisis responsiveness. The literature converges on the idea that measuring and reporting against sustainability goals is necessary but not sufficient. However, open questions remain on how reporting standards can be harmonised, how CSR practices can evolve from symbolic adoption to genuine strategic embedding, and how resilience can be built when external shocks reveal weaknesses in SDG alignment.

Based on the results of our analysis, we have identified several research questions that deserve further attention from accounting and management scholars. Although there is a growing interest in the topic under investigation, numerous issues remain yet unresolved – ranging from the very definition of sustainability (or sustainable) performance to the methods used to measure, assess, and manage it.

Table 7 summarises these opportunities for future research, building on both the bibliometric analysis and the open issues highlighted in the six clusters. The first column of the table categorises research according to the level of analysis, which we have grouped into three main levels. The first level pertains to the concept of performance itself. The second concerns the overall PM cycle, while the third addresses specific PM activities – namely, measurement, evaluation and reporting. This classification helps identify broader fields of study and related literature that may enrich the discourse on PM for sustainability.

Each level is linked to a corresponding research stream. At Level 1, Redefining performance to address sustainability invites scholars to revisit the meaning of “good” performance, aligning it with societal as well as organisational demands for sustainability. Level 2, “Managing sustainability performance”, focuses on the development of tools that support decision-making processes and guide organisational behaviour toward the achievement of sustainability goals. Finally, Level 3, “Measuring, evaluating and reporting sustainability performance”, go in depth into the technical and practical aspects of performance measurement and reporting, including both methodological challenges and their impacts on internal and external stakeholders.

To facilitate a comprehensive understanding of these research streams, the third column of Table 7 provides a non-exhaustive list of potential research questions that future studies could address. The fourth column links each level and corresponding research stream to the thematic clusters identified in our bibliometric literature review, thereby highlighting the consistency and relevance of the proposed directions for future research. By doing so, the framework organises existing contributions while at the same time pointing to underexplored issues – such as the integration of qualitative and cultural drivers into PM, the balance between incremental and transformative approaches, and the effectiveness of reporting systems in shaping decision-making – that may guide the next phase of scholarship.

This paper offers an integrated reading of how research at the intersection of PM and sustainability has unfolded across 680 articles. By organising the field into six clusters and tracing their relationships over time, the evidence suggests a gradual move beyond a primarily disclosure-oriented focus towards a more substantive role for sustainability within the PM cycle. Considered across the clusters, the field shows a steady integration of ESG and SDG concerns into measurement, evaluation and reporting for decision-making, increasingly supported by methodological pluralism and strategy-oriented approaches.

Regarding to RQ1, the citation evidence highlights a set of leading journals and contributions within a broader, diversified landscape; over time, the number of articles and contributing authors has grown markedly, and the most-cited items point to high-impact publications by an increasingly authoritative authorship base. For RQ2, the thematic analysis suggests six clusters that can be read as organising two partly intertwined streams – done oriented to measurement techniques and indicator design, the other to evaluation and reporting – together with a gradient from communication-oriented CSR/IR work towards more strategy-centred studies linked to the SDGs. Addressing RQ3, the temporal analysis shows pronounced growth and topic evolution, with ESG, integrated reporting and circular-economy notions becoming more central in the most recent period. Taken together, these responses to the three research questions reveal a field that is simultaneously expanding in volume, diversifying in themes and converging towards strategy-driven approaches to sustainability-oriented PM.

In practical terms, the mapping helps orient the design of performance systems that integrate sustainability into strategic and operational routines. It indicates where indicator sets and efficiency techniques can be coupled with evaluation and reporting frameworks to develop integrated sustainability KPIs, align target-setting and feedback processes with stakeholder expectations, and inform corporate reporting systems that connect managerial dashboards with external accountability. Sectoral patterns also suggest tailoring PMS to industry specificities when translating ESG and SDG priorities into organisational practices.

Across the clusters, however, persistent gaps emerge. In the Red and Blue clusters, there is still limited integration of environmental and social indicators into unified PMS. In the Yellow and Green clusters, tensions remain around embedding cultural and qualitative dimensions alongside quantitative metrics. In the purple and light blue clusters, the challenge is distinguishing symbolic disclosure from substantive accountability, particularly in relation to IR and SDG alignment.

A further insight from our mapping concerns how sustainability is integrated within PM. Much of the literature has advanced through incremental adjustments – such as extending indicator sets or refining reporting practices – rather than through transformative reconfigurations of PM itself. We share Hansen and Schaltegger’s (2018) view that this dynamic reflects a persistent imbalance: incremental approaches dominate because they are easier to operationalise, yet transformative redesigns are essential to support systemic sustainability transitions. An underexplored question is how PM can be rethought as a lever for systemic change, enabling governance mechanisms, decision-making routines and strategic logics that move beyond performance optimisation toward genuine organisational and societal transformation.

Limitations should be acknowledged. The data set draws on Scopus and Web of Science and is restricted to English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles, which may exclude relevant contributions published in other languages. In addition, keyword-based retrieval and database coverage may omit pertinent work, while citation-based indicators are susceptible to time-lag – mitigated, though not eliminated, by the 2025 update. These constraints do not undermine the robustness of the analysis but advise caution when interpreting influence and topical salience.

Another consideration concerns the theoretical framing. While frameworks such as ST, legitimacy theory and the RBV have been referenced in the clusters, they were not systematically integrated into the bibliometric interpretation – a deliberate choice given the study’s aim to provide a structural overview rather than to test specific models. Future work could usefully combine bibliometrics with approaches such as topic modelling or meta-analysis to uncover latent themes, link them to theory and synthesise empirical findings. Looking ahead, Table 7 outlines a coherent programme that builds on these patterns and encourages closer theoretical integration and sector-attuned designs. As regulatory requirements and climate-risk disclosures intensify, there is a compelling case for engaged and empirical research on how sustainability-aligned PM systems are built and used: how integrated KPIs travel from dashboards into decisions, how reporting systems inform governance, how tensions between efficiency and societal expectations are mediated, and how transformative approaches might be operationalised in practice. This is both a challenge and a call to action for scholars and practitioners to advance the design and use of PM systems that respond effectively to sustainability imperatives.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.