TREND IN SUSTAINABLE FINANCE METRICS: A BIBLIOMETRIC LITERATURE REVIEW

Abstract

Purpose- This study aims to map the literature on sustainable finance and firm performance by conducting a bibliometric analysis of scholarly publications from 2000 to early 2025. It seeks to identify research trends, key contributors, and major thematic clusters in this rapidly growing field. Methodology- We retrieved publications from the Scopus database using a comprehensive search query combining terms related to sustainable finance (e.g., “sustainable finance”, “ESG”, “green finance”) and firm performance (e.g., “financial performance”, “firm performance”). The final dataset comprised 1,751 documents after data cleaning. We performed descriptive analyses of publication counts by year, country, and journal, and identified the most highly cited works. For content analysis, we processed article titles using text-mining techniques (term frequency–inverse document frequency and Latent Dirichlet Allocation) to uncover key terms and thematic topics. Findings- Research output in sustainable finance and firm performance has increased exponentially since the mid-2010s, reflecting major sustainability initiatives and broader ESG adoption in business. Leading contributors include China, India, and other emerging economies, alongside traditional research centers in Europe and North America. Key journals are Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, and Business Strategy and the Environment. Topic modeling revealed five major thematic clusters in the literature: (1) the effect of ESG performance on financial outcomes, (2) ESG investing and green finance and their impact on firm value, (3) bibliometric and review studies of sustainable finance trends, (4) corporate sustainability strategies and broad financial outcomes, and (5) analyses of individual ESG components and CSR dimensions. Topic prevalence analysis shows that themes focused on ESG impact and green finance have grown strongly in recent years, while review-oriented studies have expanded steadily. Conclusion- The field has matured into a robust, data-driven discipline, and the collective evidence generally supports the view that sustainable practices align with better firm performance – firms often “do well by doing good.” However, these benefits are not automatic; they depend on factors such as implementation quality, strategic alignment, transparency, and context. This analysis provides an overview of dominant trends and gaps, guiding future research and informing stakeholders about the evolving relationship between sustainability and corporate success.

Keywords

• Sustainable finance
• ESG
• corporate performance
• bibliometric analysis
• green finance

References

1. Albuquerque, R., Koskinen, Y., & Zhang, C. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: Theory and empirical evidence. Management Science, 65(10), 4451–4469.
2. Amel-Zadeh, A., & Serafeim, G. (2018). Why and how investors use ESG information: Evidence from a global survey. Financial Analysts Journal, 74(3), 87–103.
3. Berg, F., Koelbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344.
4. Busch, T., & Friede, G. (2018). The robustness of the ESG–financial performance relation: A meta-regression analysis. Sustainable Finance, 4(1), 33–46.
5. Chen, Z., & Xie, G. (2022). ESG disclosure and financial performance: Moderating role of ESG investors. International Review of Financial Analysis, 83, 102291.
6. Christensen, D. M., Serafeim, G., & Sikochi, A. (2022). Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings. Accounting Review, 97(1), 147–175.
7. Duque Grisales, E., & Aguilera Caracuel, J. (2021). ESG scores and financial performance of multinationals. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(2), 315–334.
8. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of a corporate culture of sustainability on corporate behavior and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.

9. Fatemi, A., Glaum, M., & Kaiser, S. (2018). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal, 38, 45–64.
10. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
11. Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233.
12. García-Sánchez, I. M., Martínez-Ferrero, J., & García-Benau, M. A. (2021). Does mandatory non-financial reporting change investor behavior? European Accounting Review, 30(1), 35–62.
13. Giese, G., Nagy, Z., & Lee, L.-E. (2019). Foundations of ESG investing: How ESG affects equity valuation, risk, and performance. Journal of Portfolio Management, 45(5), 69–83.
14. Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.
15. Kumar, S., & Mukherjee, A. (2019). Corporate social responsibility in emerging markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4), 1031–1045.
16. Li, W., Cui, H., & Liu, Z. (2022). ESG and capital market development in China. China Economic Review, 72, 101745.
17. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.
18. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.
19. Pätäri, S., Arminen, H., Tuppura, A., & Jantunen, A. (2021). ESG investing: A review of the literature. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 11(3), 215–233.
20. Velte, P. (2017). Does ESG performance impact financial performance? Evidence from Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 8(2), 169–178.
21. Wang, Q., Dou, J., & Jia, S. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and corporate financial performance. Business & Society, 55(8), 1083–1121.
22. Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H., & Managi, S. (2019). Do ESG activities improve corporate financial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 286–300.