Gurmani Chadha

Purpose: This study aims to conduct a comprehensive scientometric review of social sustainability in supply chains, analyzing 970 articles published between 2002 and 2024 from Web of Science (WoS). The research addresses the critical gap in understanding social sustainability aspects compared to environmental dimensions in supply chain literature. Design/methodology/approach: The study uses CiteSpace software to create structure-based visualizations and networks, analyzing prominent authors, documents, keywords, journals, countries and institutions in the field. The methodology involves systematic review and bibliometric analysis of the literature to identify key themes and patterns in social sustainability based supply chain research Findings: The analysis reveals that research is predominantly concentrated in tier-1 and high-GDP nations. Key industries focusing on social sustainability include agriculture, food and beverage, transportation and logistics, manufacturing, fashion and retail sectors. These sectors primarily address issues such as labor regulations, fair wages and local community involvement and diversity. The study identifies major motor themes through co-citation and cluster analysis. Research limitations/implications: The study is limited to articles indexed in WoS, potentially excluding relevant research from other databases. Future research directions should focus on advancing social supply chain management, integrating emerging technologies such as Blockchain, sensors and digital transformation, improving risk management, implementing fuzzy logic decision-making and enhancing transparency. Practical implications: The findings provide organizations with insights into implementing social sustainability practices across supply chains. The study offers guidance for industry practitioners on addressing social challenges and integrating sustainable practices into their operations, particularly in areas of labor rights, community engagement and technological integration. Social implications: The research highlights the importance of addressing social sustainability in global supply chains and its impact on local communities, labor conditions and societal well-being. It emphasizes the need for greater attention to social aspects of sustainability, particularly in developing nations and lower-tier supply chain partners. Originality/value: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study presents the first large-scale scientometric analysis of social sustainability in supply chains, offering a comprehensive overview of the field’s evolution from 2002 to 2024. It provides valuable insights for policymakers, firms, society and academia while establishing a roadmap for future research and practical implementation of social sustainability in supply chains.

With time, adaptation finance (AF) has become an essential instrument for achieving the objective of capacity building and safeguarding vulnerable nations from the damaging effects of climate change. While global dialogue has focused on mitigation strategies, growing recognition of the irreversibility of certain climate impacts has intensified attention on how societies can be financially equipped to adapt to a changing climate. In this context, the AF domain is experiencing increased interest from both practitioners and academics; however, there is a lack of comprehensive studies mapping this area of knowledge. The present research addresses this gap by utilizing three methodological approaches to map the intellectual and social framework of the AF field. A scientometric analysis was conducted using CiteSpace software to create networks of authors, countries, keywords, and institutions involved in AF publications, highlighting the predominance of contributions from developed nations, with limited research participation from developing countries. Second, cluster analysis was performed using Python, employing TF‐IDF matrix and K‐means clustering yielding seven distinct clusters: Climate Adaptation Funding and Policy, Private Sector Engagement, Economic Impacts, Global Initiatives and Policies, Adaptation Coordination and Implementation, Risk Management, and Local Community‐Based Initiatives. Third, content analysis of 62 recent studies, combined with scientometric and clustering techniques, was conducted to identify promising future research directions. Implications for various stakeholders are discussed.

Purpose: This study investigates the underexplored relationship between organizational culture and corporate governance reporting, emphasizing the influence of four cultural subdimensions – competition, creation, collaboration and control – within the Competing Values Framework (CVF). Grounded in a dual theoretical lens of CVF and impression management (IM) theory, the study argues that governance disclosures are shaped not only by internal cultural logics but also by firms' strategic efforts to manage external perceptions of legitimacy and accountability. Design/methodology/approach: Using a dataset comprising 2,709 10-K filings from 387 US companies listed on the S&P 500 Index between 2016 and 2022, the study applies textual analysis to capture the presence of cultural dimensions. A flexible pseudo maximum likelihood estimation approach is used to handle the bounded nature of the dependent variable and to assess the impact of cultural subdimensions on governance disclosures. Findings: The results indicate that the “control” and “creation” subcultures have a positive relationship with corporate governance reporting, suggesting that structured, innovation-driven environments promote better disclosure practices. Conversely, there is a negative relationship between “competition” and “collaboration” as it relates to governance reporting, indicating that there potentially are risks in organizations that are primarily competition-driven (rivalry) as well as those that are primarily team-oriented (collaboration). These findings are consistent with IM theory's predictions that competitive firms tend to be motivated to hide governance weaknesses and organizations that are highly collaborative tend to use informal means of trust (trust signals) rather than formal external disclosures; however, the specific IM mechanisms measured in this study have not been directly assessed and remain only an interpretation based on the identified patterns. Research limitations/implications: While this study provides strong empirical support, it is limited to publicly listed US companies and uses annual filings, which may not capture real-time cultural dynamics. Future research could explore other geographies, firm types or use longitudinal ethnographic data to complement the findings. Practical implications: Managers should cultivate cultures that balance innovation with structured control to enhance governance transparency, while implementing disclosure review processes sensitive to the selective presentation risks that Impression Management theory associates with competitive and collaborative cultural orientations. Board oversight should be cautious of overly collaborative or competitive environments that may compromise disclosure quality. The findings offer culture-aware governance, with IM theory providing a theoretical basis for understanding why certain cultural orientations may be associated with less complete disclosures. Social implications: The study highlights the importance of a responsible corporate culture in strengthening societal trust. Stakeholders, including policymakers and civil society, should encourage governance standards that prioritize cultural traits aligned with ethical reporting and long-term accountability. Originality/value: This research fills a notable gap in corporate governance literature by empirically incorporating corporate culture and its subcomponents into the analysis of governance disclosures. The paper expands the CVF into the novel domain of governance disclosure. Through this lens, cultural functions serve as a foundation for disclosure based on internal organizational logic and external legitimacy-seeking behaviors.

In light of existential dangers to our planet, the urgency to reevaluate corporate practices has never been more palpable. With an emphasis on disclosures, this groundbreaking research sets out to analyze the complex relationship between corporate culture and its significant influence on environmental sustainability within firms. Amidst environmental instability and ongoing calls for corporate responsibility, this study makes use of the comprehensive Competing Values Framework (CVF) to carefully investigate the impact of four key subcultures: control, collaboration, creation, and competition on environmental disclosures. Analyzing the data from 2821 10‐K reports of 403 US companies listed on the S&P 500 index between 2016 and 2022, we utilized Python‐based textual analysis to quantify cultural orientation scores and employed flexible pseudo maximum likelihood estimation (Flex) modeling to address the inherent challenges of analyzing double‐bounded environmental sustainability disclosure data. Results revealed a favorable association between only the “creation” subculture and environmental sustainability disclosures, whereas the “control” and “competition” subcultures acted as barriers to progress with no substantial impact exhibited by the “collaboration” subculture. The significance of organizational culture variables in the presence of board variables emphasizes the distinct nature of corporate culture from top management and highlights the importance of this study, which rectifies the endogeneity present in sustainability models due to the disregard of accounting for corporate culture. This study not only uncovers the way forward, amid unexampled environmental challenges, but also ignites an incendiary call to action that reverberates through boardrooms around the world to create cultures that breed innovation to internalize environmental sustainability.

Over the past three decades, global discourse has prominently revolved around sustainability, with discussions centered on the environmental dimension. The social aspect has remained overlooked by both corporations and policymakers. In the realm of addressing social sustainability within companies, it is imperative to assess the crucial role of corporate culture. This study makes a pioneering attempt to empirically investigate the associations of four subcultures—competition, creation, collaboration, and control—as measured using the Competing Values Framework (CVF), with corporate social sustainability (CSS). Analyzing the data from 2688 10‐K reports of 384 US companies listed on the S&P 500 Index between 2016 and 2022, we employed a robust methodology entailing advanced textual analysis to measure the cultural dimensions and flexible pseudo maximum likelihood estimation (Flex) to account for the double‐bounded nature of the social sustainability dependent variable. The study revealed a positive correlation between only the “creation” culture and social sustainability, while “competition” and “collaboration” showed a negative association. Furthermore, with the introduction of board variables, the insignificant role of “control” culture recontextualized into a negative and significant association. The significance of subculture parameters highlights the necessity for corporate culture to be delineated as a distinct construct within sustainability academic and practitioner dialogue. This highlights the imperative for leadership to prioritize and bolster their support for social sustainability within bureaucratic cultures. Implications for policymakers, managers, and society are detailed, emphasizing the need to shift the focus to global discussions on achieving social sustainability at the firm level through corporate subcultural transformations. This study advocates building creation‐oriented cultures within organizations to augment social sustainability.

As organizations worldwide face increasing pressure to integrate sustainability into their core principles, the need for robust sustainability accounting practices has never been more crucial. This study takes on the challenge by mapping out the intellectual structure of sustainability accounting research domain. Using a mix of scientometric analysis of 1702 articles and in‐depth content analysis of 122 key works spanning more than 30 years from 1991 to 2024, the study unveils the past, present, and future of this vital field. Intricate domain visualizations were created utilizing CiteSpace software revealing networks of co‐authorship, keywords, subject categories, institutions, and countries committed to research on sustainability accounting, including co‐citation and cluster analysis. Results revealed research production concentrated in developed nations, highlighting the urgency for increased focus on this topic within developing and emerging countries. The network structure indicated a scarcity of global collaboration particularly at the company level. The central themes of sustainability accounting, identified through cluster analysis and examination of highly co‐cited documents, encompass sustainability management accounting, life cycle assessment, carbon accounting, national accounts, climate policy, and ecosystem accounting, playing a significant role in shaping its landscape and ongoing evolution. Six relevant emerging themes were identified from in‐depth content analysis of recent literature in the management domain, comprising the role of accountants in mitigating climate risk, rethinking accounting for planetary boundaries, biodiversity loss and extinction accounting, sustainability assurance, technological advancements, and other miscellaneous themes. This study carries significant implications for a diverse array of stakeholders, including policymakers, organizations, society, and academics.

Over the past three decades, a plethora of academic research has examined the impact of debt capital providers, proxied by leverage, on firms’ sustainability reporting (SR) practices, indicating its relevance as a major determinant. Since the empirical literature remains inconclusive, we carried out the first comprehensive firm-level meta-analysis to reconcile the conflicting results from 112 studies involving 180 effect sizes across 32,953 firms spanning from 1989 to 2022. This provides a timely and up-to-date evaluation of the magnitude and nature of the engagement and influence of this significant stakeholder group on SR. Further, the study provides granular insights by dividing the overall effect on SR into three reporting dimensions—adoption, extent, and quality of reporting—to understand the impact of leverage on each and detail plausible reasons cited in the literature underpinning the positive or negative impact of debt providers on SR. The results show a positive significant impact of debt capital providers on SR, specifically, the adoption and extent of SR, but insignificant influence on SR quality, consistent with the findings of legitimacy theory. Debt capital providers’ sustainability information needs remain limited to the “act” and “extent” of disclosure and concern for SR has not percolated to “ask for quality,” indicative of a rather surface-level care for SR practices of firms. Regarding the strength of this stakeholder group and its funding power, greater activism, advocacy, and informational sensitivity are required to encourage firms to engage in meaningful SR practices. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression techniques were used to account for potential conceptual and study-based moderators. Significant discrepancies were observed due to differences in content of reported issues, type of firm, leverage proxies, the sample period, and publication quality. The study emphasizes the need for proactive measures among debt capital providers to counteract the limited positive impact of leverage on sustainability reporting. By identifying research gaps and exploring implications for debt providers and companies, this study highlights how ESG-sensitive lenders can potentially steer firms towards quality SR practices. It offers valuable insights that could inform policy changes, foster collaboration, and advance the practice of sustainability-oriented lending.

Purpose: As of 2022, the scope of the engagement and interest of debt capital providers in ESG reporting is mainly untapped. However, a vast amount of literature has produced conflicting findings about the importance of debt capital (leverage) as a factor in sustainability reporting (SR). This is the first meta-analysis reconciling the mixed results of 85 single country studies containing 131 effect sizes across 24,482 firms conducted over past three decades (1999–2022) investigating the influence of leverage on SR. The study emphasizes the significance of contextualizing research by identifying the macro-environmental elements modifying debt's impact on SR, through the use of the institutional theory. Eleven country variables were tested on the collected dataset, spread across 36 countries.Design/methodology/approach: Meta-analysis technique for aggregation of existing extant empirical work. Continuous and categorical variable-based moderator analysis to demystify the influence of country characteristics affecting the leverage–SR relationship.Findings: Results show positive significant impact of debt capital providers on SR. Country's level of development, GDP, extent of capital constraints in a country, financial sector development within a nation, country governance factors and corruption levels, country's culture, number of sustainability reporting instruments operational in a country and geographical location proved to be significant moderators.Research limitations/implications: The study details relevant meaningful research gaps, worthy of uptake by researchers to produce targeted research.Practical implications: Governments must increasingly go beyond their mandated disclosure role and acknowledge the important institutional factors that have contributed to the expansion of ESG reporting through the creation of nation-specific tools, incentive structures and disclosure-encouraging regulations. To secure a steady flow of funding and prevent negative effects on company value and cost of capital in the midst of prolonged global economic upheaval, businesses must address the information requirements of lenders. The limited total effect size emphasizes the necessity for debt providers to step up their ESG activism and exercise their maximum power and potential in stimulating extensive SR firm-level practices.Originality/value: The present study is the first meta-analysis reconciling the mixed results of 85 single-country studies containing 131 effect sizes across 24,482 firms conducted over the past three decades (1999–2022) investigating the influence of leverage on SR and demystifying the macro-environmental factors affecting the leverage–SR association.

Purpose: Sustainable investments (SI) represent a promising class of investments, combining financial returns with mitigating environmental challenges, achieving SDG goals and creating a positive business impact. An enhanced global focus on climate change developments in the backdrop of COP26 and COP27, raised the need for comprehensive literature mapping, to understand the emerging themes and future research arenas in this field.Design/methodology/approach: The authors apply a quali–quantitative approach of bibliometric methods coupled with content analysis, to review 1,022 articles obtained from the Web of Science (WoS) database for 1991–2023.Findings: The results identify the leading authors and their collaborations, impactful journals and pioneering articles in sustainable investment literature. The authors also indicate seven major themes of SI to be financial performance; fiduciary duty; CSR; construction of ESG-based portfolios; sustainability assessment tools and mechanisms; investor behavior; and impact investing. Further, content analysis of literature from 2020 to 2023 highlights emerging research issues to be SDG financing via green bonds and social impact bonds; investor impact creation via shareholder engagement and field building strategies; and governance related determinants of firm-level sustainable investments. Finally, the authors discuss the research gaps across these themes and identify future research questions.Originality/value: This paper crystallizes research themes in sustainable investment literature using a vast coverage of globally conducted studies published in reputed journals till date. The findings of this study coupled with future research questions provide a well-grounded foundation for new researchers to further explore the emerging dimensions of this field.

The growing relevance of sustainability reporting (SR) has dramatically surged advocacy and interest among both academicians and practitioners. However, few studies have attempted to holistically encapsulate global research on sustainability reporting. The present study employed scientometric analysis on sustainability reporting based 1434 articles extracted from the Web of Science database, published between 1992 and 2022, to comprehensively map the intellectual structure of this field. Domain visualizations were constructed using CiteSpace software to identify networks of co-authorship, keywords, subject categories, institutions, and countries engaged in publishing on SR along with co-citation and cluster analysis. The findings revealed that significant contributions in SR research have originated primarily from developed countries, underscoring the necessity for more research in the context of developing and emerging countries. SR field was found characterized by cohesive research sub-communities but lacked global cooperation. Existing studies in the SR research domain focused mainly on subject categories of business, management, environmental studies, green and sustainable science technology, environmental sciences, and business finance. Analysis of most co-cited authors and content analysis of highly co-cited articles were performed, detailing pioneer works in the field. The principal topics in the body of literature were identified via clusters of co-citations between documents and keywords. Future research focus areas include exploring the link between circular economy and SR, the role of social media, blockchain, artificial intelligence, and other digital technologies in SR, attention on the MSME sector, mandatory reporting, assessment of real impact of SR on investor sentiments and financial analysts’ valuations, assurance, standardization, financial-sector inclusive research, materiality issues, and understanding niche themes of SR, inclusive of monothematic reporting. Implications of the study for policymakers, companies, society, and academia were examined.