Corporate governance integration

with sustainability: a systematic

literature review
Sahar E-Vahdati, Norhayah Zulkifli and Zarina Zakaria

Abstract Sahar E-Vahdati is based at

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to systematically review the literature on corporate governance the Faculty of Business and
and sustainability integration in identifying the main rigidity, infirmity and gaps in the current literature, Accountancy,
and also to mention future research paths. Perpustakaan Universiti
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic literature review of existing international papers is used Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,
through quantitative and qualitative approach by selecting 27 articles published in Scopus. Malaysia. Norhayah Zulkifli
Findings – The review suggests although integration of governance into sustainability is interpreted and Zarina Zakaria are both
differently in a geographical area, vision, mission and leadership are the most significant drivers of based at the Department of
sustainability framework dealing corporate governance. Despite the limitation which is related to Accountancy, University
the choice of number and type of keywords and journals, outcomes and the interpretation,
Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,
generalization and application of results, sustainability frameworks suggest a number of avenues
Malaysia.
for investors, policy makers and future market scenario which will increase the efficiency of
companies.
Research limitations/implications – This research uses limited number of reviews by the common
features of Scopus search as previous studies. This review study reflects corporate governance to
sustainability models and provides opportunities to researchers for a more in-depth investigation into the
theoretical advancement and joint work of sustainability and corporate governance which better inform
strategies and implementations of governmental structures.
Originality/value – This paper undertakes a significant thorough systematic review for sustainability
integration with corporate governance literature. It gives a written work review and reference index
from1995 to 2017, useful for both academics and professionals.
Keywords Leadership, Sustainability, Mission, Corporate governance, Vision, Framework
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
In the twentieth century, corporate sustainability is fast becoming crucial toward
mainstream corporate activity. The skills, knowledge and sophistication involved in leading
corporate sustainability is also becoming an important part of the management decision-
making process (Windolph et al., 2014), accounting practices (Gray, 2010; Schaltegger
et al., 2006) and reporting practices (Guidry and Patten, 2010), both in corporations and the
public sector (Adams et al., 2014).
Many researchers investigated on sustainability because of its fast moving pace in
corporate activities (Zairi, 2000). Some studies focused on topics related to sustainability
(Speziale and Klovienė, 2014) in specific countries (Castelo Branco and Delgado, 2011; Received 25 August 2017
Guan and Noronha, 2013), whereas others took a more general stance (Hahn and Kühnen, Revised 8 March 2018
17 June 2018
2013). Some reviews analyzed studies pertaining to not only sustainability but different 11 August 2018
types of sustainability-related issues as well (e.g. taking only social and/or environmental Accepted 22 August 2018

DOI 10.1108/CG-03-2018-0111 VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019, pp. 255-269, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1472-0701 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j PAGE 255
 issues into account) (Kocmanová et al., 2011). However, progress in the field remains
uneven, because of the differing nature when it comes to regional and national sectors.
Corporations are expected to come up with a sustainable shareholder value over the long
term, while simultaneously mitigating their respective links with societal stakeholders and
mitigating the negative influences upon the environment. Corporate governance champions
the interests of the stakeholders by managing their interactions with their respective
environments (Huang, 2013; Hosoda, 2018). Corporate governance encompasses
corporate strategy, reviewing risk management, setting performance objectives and
ensuring that audit and accounting controls are in place.
A company that decides to be responsible will need to implement a suitable corporate
responsibility program (Asif et al., 2011). The increasing profile of sustainability as a
concept in government action is related to globalization and economic change of twentieth
century (Zairi, 2000). A small number of companies report voluntarily combining social and
environmental aspects into their respective business models and day-to-day operations in
their strategy via accepting suitable corporate policies (Stern, 2008). Corporate governance
commitment to sustainability is vital for sharing the same culture throughout the whole
organization. However, this field of study remains unexplored (Lindgreen et al., 2009; Asif
et al., 2011; Jones and Thompson, 2012) both by academic theories and financial
practitioners. Sustainability analyses remain in an embryonic stage, and critical issues on
corporate governance convergence, frameworks, measurement and empirical methods are
yet to be addressed (De Graaf and Stoelhorst, 2013; Schembera, 2012).The main objective
of this article is to elucidate corporate governance and the concepts of sustainability
convergence and sustainability strategies. The literature on this subject is limited to only a
few articles (Salvioni et al., 2016; Broman and Robèrt, 2017; Mason and Simmons, 2014).
This research addresses the literature gap on governance and sustainability integration by
outlining strategies and frameworks contexts that answer the following questions:
Q1. How does corporate governance integrate with sustainability in terms of providing
framework, model, relations, and process and strategy to organizations?
A systematic literature review is used to address this question (Kampen and Tamás, 2014).
Section 2 details the theoretical background of this work. Section 3 discusses the
methodology used in this work, followed by the quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Section 4 outlines the main findings from the systematic literature review. This work is
concluded in Section 5; section 6 discussed implications for practice, and the limitations
and future research developments will be espoused in Section 7.

2. Theoretical background
The classic approach to making profits is dictated by inclusion of the stakeholder theory.
The theoretical perspective on sustainability combines emerging concepts from two
unrelated political science and management theories to create a new governance structure,
such as emerging sustainability issues which entail accountability and transparency from
collaborations (Clarke and Islam, 2004). Corporate governance, in the context of
organizations, works with all of the stakeholders that are interdependent. The dependence
of the interventionist state on administrative and planning systems limits the communal
sense which is unsuitable for complex decision-making involving social and environmental
risks and opportunities (Clarke and Islam, 2004).
The current stakeholder theory outlines management practice on social and environmental
issues. Gladwin et al. (1995) pointed out that the values required for the “sustaincentric”
organizations include “stewardship, equity, humility, permanence, precaution, and sufficiency”.
Based on this oversimplified explanation pertaining to the stakeholder theory, governing social
and environmental risks involve organizations internalizing their combined social and
environmental costs and practicing ecocentric values. Stakeholder theory is addressing

PAGE 256 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019

equitable management of risk and the distribution of rewards from new business opportunities
because of reorganization for sustainability (Ehrenfeld, 2000).
Stakeholder theory recommends that how much managers deal with stakeholders interests
is, as it were, subordinate upon the qualities and good guidelines of managers (Callan and
Thomas, 2011). One of the huge subjects of this theory deals with the way directors manage
and how associations are truly administered (Callan and Thomas, 2011). The disclosure of
financial, social and environmental data is a bit of the trade between an association and its
stakeholders and it gives information on an organization’s activities that legitimize its
conduct, instruct and advise and change discernments and desires (Gray et al., 1995).
Only a narrow version of the stakeholder theory is based on the concept of agency theory
and individualism, whereas its broad version is based on the stewardship theory and
collective obligations (Sundaramurthy and Lewis, 2003). Combining governance,
sustainability and stakeholder theories are suitable for ideological or vested interests
(Grayson and Hodges, 2004). Taking into account the foundation of sustainability and
governance theories, we inferred that the latest literature on this subject recommends a
broad version of stakeholder, therefore the convergence of governance and sustainability
(Grayson and Hodges, 2004).

3. Methodology
The proposition that was accounted for in the subsequent literature review of this work is
how corporate governance is integrated into sustainability in terms of framework, model,
relations, process and strategy to organizations. Quantitative and qualitative papers on
Scopus was reviewed using a systematic approach. Articles with key words in its titles or
abstract were selected. This was done in April 2017 for articles published in 1999-2017,
accounting for the period when international social reporting, such as Global Reporting
Initiatives (GRI, 2016), was launched.
According to Khan et al. (2003), the review process is made up of five distinct steps. In the
first step, the results are filtered via a Boolean search on the basis of their relevance to the
objective of this work (a total of 14 journals were selected, as tabulated in Table I), which
resulted in 265 articles being selected. A Boolean search applies AND and OR operators

Table I List of journals

No. Journal name

1 Social and Behavioral Sciences

2 The Academy of Management Perspectives
3 Environment and Planning
4 Journal of Management Governance
5 Policy Sciences
6 The International Journal of Business in Society
7 International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
8 Business Strategy and The Environment
9 Journal of Business Ethics
10 Journal of Cleaner Production
11 Sustainable Development
12 Business Ethics: A European Review
13 Sustainability
14 European Management Journal
15 The TQM Magazine
16 International Journal of Sustainable Development
17 Global Environmental Governance
18 Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society

VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j PAGE 257

 and allow for a combination of words and phrases while simultaneously limiting, widening
and refining search parameters.
The second step following Boolean search proceeds to eliminate duplicates and store literature
as per their respective keywords (impact, integrate, strategy, rating, ethic, social, governance,
environment, sustainable, responsible, responsibility, performance, convergence, framework) in
titles and abstracts, further introducing restrictions that would limit the search to only the relevant
fields based on years, language, etc. This step resulted in a total of 43 articles.
The collected literature are then fully analyzed in the third step. As a result of this, 27
literature were further excluded, leaving 26 which is supported by Tomo and Landi (2016).
Figure 1 summarizes the data collection process as per the literature review, detailing steps 1-3.
Step four summarized the results, as shown in Table II. It reports the main statements made
by the authors relating to three aspects: behavioral and ethical issues in the decision-
making process; financial perspective; sustainable asset management. The final step (step
five) consists of deciphering and further elucidating the findings in the context of the
following sections and Figures 2-4.
To further emphasize the critical issues in this work for proving framework, model relations,
process and strategy by corporate governance toward organizations, we analyzed papers in
the context of four themes: geographical region, the field of sciences, interrelated sustainability
issues and governmental reflection toward sustainability. The first three were quantitatively
analyzed, whereas the last was elucidated via qualitative analysis for specific literature.

4. Results
4.1 Quantitative analysis of selected literature
A general theme of selected literature is proposed from the quantitative analyses. The
sciences domains, geographical region distribution and specific sustainability issues were
accounted for in the selected literature, and these analyses showed that the EU and USA

Figure 1 Data collection of related literature review

PAGE 258 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019

Table II Summary of related literature review
Authors
Daboub et al. (1995)
Zairi (2000)
Adger et al. (2003)
Castka et al. (2004)
Baumert et al. (2005)
Kemp et al. (2005)
Midttun (2005)
Székely and Knirsch (2005)
Chamorro and Bañegil (2006)
Drew et al. (2006)
Sachs et al. (2006)
Slater et al. (2006)
Kanie (2007)
Shahin and Zairi (2007)
Albareda et al. (2008)
Van Zeijl-Rozema et al. (2008)
Rake and Grayson (2009)
Quinn and Dalton (2009)
Governance reflection for sustainability framework
Functional background
Homogeneity of formal business education/age
Length of service
Leadership
Stakeholder relations
Cross-boundary learning: a commitment of learning by networks
Performance measures
Four criteria of efficiency, environmental effectiveness, equity and political legitimacy
Transformation of stakeholders’ needs
Business system
Performance measures
Government-established efficiency standards like regulations, subsidies, trade protection
Policy integration
Objectives, criteria and trade off rules
Programs for system innovation
Information for practical implementation
Civil society
Self-regulatory market processes
Companies culture (vision, mission and values)
Corporate strategy
Business strategy
Business structures
Environmental management system
Corporate policy
Firm’s mission
Environmental board
Commercial research studies
Culture
Leadership
Alignment
Structure
Systems
A corporate stakeholder responsibility framework (sustainability projects, key performance
indicators, business principles)
Strategic formation
Competitive intensity
Mission and goal clarity
Comprehensiveness
Market and technological turbulence
Flexibility and opportunity for innovation
Support for civil society participation
Avoiding a one-size-fits of all approach
Strategic planning
Managing resources
Measurement and analysis
Managing and change continuous improvement
Government sustainability policy (strategy, vision),
Internal government sustainability structure (position of political figure, organizational structure,
centralized or decentralized)
Sustainability responsibilities at different levels of government (regional/decentralized government)
Scope of sustainability policy (domestic vs. international)
Sustainability role of other organizations (multi-stakeholder, international organizations)
Different perspective of sustainable development
Different modes of governance (hierarchical and deliberative)
Leadership
Directions such as vision and objectives
Alignment like types of policies, structures or operations do leaders establish
(continued)
VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j PAGE 259
 Table II
Authors Governance reflection for sustainability framework

Steurer (2010)
Huang and Rust (2011)
Kardos (2012)
Hahn (2013)
Christensen et al. (2014)
Klettner et al. (2014)
Mason and Simmons (2014)
Salvioni et al. (2016)
Broman and Robèrt (2017)
Commitment to how does a leader keep employees engaged with sustainability as employees come
and go
Five public policies (informational, economic, legal, partnering, hybrid instruments such as structure
and strategy)
Green technology
Pollution taxes
A common long-term vision and strategic objectives
Policy integration
Transparency and active public engagement in the decision-making process
Environmental scanning (perform internal and external audit)
Strategy formulation (vision, mission)
Strategy implementation
Strategy evaluation
The leadership literature such as CEO demographics (e.g. Huang and Rust, 2011) and
characteristics such as compensation, educational background and job experience
Characteristics of top management team members to corporate irresponsibility
Start with the strategy
Implement the strategy
Integrate sustainability into core business
Create value through reporting
A stakeholder system model
The presence of a outsiders and insiders system of corporate governance (board of directors,
ownership structure, employees supply chain risk management, customers and consumers,
communities, environment)
System (board and its constitution),
Success (vision and mission),
Ways to approach the principle-framed vision strategically
Actions using the strategic guidelines and the vision to inspire
Tools for decision making of actions

Figure 2 Regions registered in Scopus for selected literature

PAGE 260 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019

form the largest contributors of articles. It also goes on to confirm that social and
environmental sciences contribute the largest number of articles (Figure 3). However,
articles on sustainability discuss corporative sustainability in the context of firms managing
environmental qualities by changing their modus operandi (Figure 4).
Figure 2 shows an overview of the represented regions, categorized by the registered
author affiliations (Scopus). Most of the articles are from Europe, with the USA coming in a
close second. Figure 3 details an overview encompassing articles related to science in
Scopus. The total amount of papers categorized as science papers (57) exceeded the total
number of collected articles (27). Papers on social sciences make up the majority of the
articles, whereas papers related to the environment, economics and business are equally
distributed among the articles.

Figure 3 Fields of sciences registered for selected literature

Figure 4 Sustainability search words registered for selected literature

VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j PAGE 261

 Figure 4 details several interrelated sustainability issues described in the selected articles.
Multiple definitions pertaining to sustainability were outlined by the authors in the articles.
The majority of the focus is placed on corporate and natural resources such as fish,
landscapes and agriculture (Hall et al., 2009). This interrelation between sustainability and
natural resources shows the impact of firms’ survival on the environmental quality whereas
using natural resources concentrated on the environmental quality.

4.2 Qualitative analysis of selected literature

Based on the literature review (Kardos, 2012; Broman and Robèrt, 2017), this article
addresses the relations of governance and sustainability strategy. Literature of the selected
paper is relevant to mostly developed country contexts in which more than half of the
chosen articles are descriptive. According to analyzed articles, there are some insights of
governance reflection for sustainability framework accounted for the following. Table II
identifies the summary of main statements within each paper.
To better focus on the critical issues of analysis of the current research, literature findings
are available to depict corporate governance integration with sustainability in terms of
providing framework and strategy to organizations. Table III identifies titles, and findings of
selected papers with an objective to understand research trends and provide clear and
specific directions for future research.

Table III Summary of findings for selected papers

Authors Title Findings

Adger et al. (2003)
Székely and Knirsch
(2005)
Van Zeijl-Rozema et al.
(2008)
Kardos (2012)
Hahn (2013)
Christensen et al.
(2014)
Klettner et al. (2014)
Salvioni et al. (2016)
Broman and Robèrt
(2017)
Governance for sustainability: toward a
“thick” analysis of environmental decision
making
Responsible leadership and corporate
social responsibility: metrics for sustainable
performance
Governance for sustainable development: a
framework
The reflection of good governance in
sustainable development strategies
ISO 26000 and the standardization of
strategic management processes for
sustainability and corporate social
responsibility
Taking responsibility for corporate social
responsibility: The role of leaders in
creating, implementing, sustaining, or
avoiding socially responsible firm behaviors
The governance of corporate sustainability:
Empirical insights into the development,
leadership and implementation of
responsible business strategy
Sustainability and Convergence: The Future
of Corporate Governance Systems?
A framework for strategic sustainable
development
Considering all four dimensions efficiency, equity, legitimacy
and effectiveness can reach a more complete understanding of
the decision-making process
External incentives and the adoption of internal sustainable
practices have a positive significant potential to change
companies into sustainable organizations
Governance for sustainable development is explained when the
perspective on sustainable development and the mode of
governance for achieving it are made more explicit
The strategic mechanism with various types depending on each
country specificities on political and legislative organizations
works efficiently
Looking at the different stages of strategic management
ISO 26000 suggests specific guidance on different CSSR
subjects and issues that help in managing internal and external
assessments
Combination of sustainability and leadership highlights the
multidimensional nature of corporate social responsibility and
advantages of focusing on emerging work on servant leadership
Willingness to obtain and communicate more accurately the
results of sustainability strategies to interested stakeholders
Convergence between insider and outsider systems evolves
along a path where formal rules issued by international and
national bodies, on the one hand, and substantial approaches
implemented by companies, on the other hand, influence each
other
Framework supports more useful management of system
boundaries that makes it possible to model and assess
sustainable potentials for different materials before investments
are made

PAGE 262 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019

By analyzing the results, the importance of corporate governance to sustainability
framework for decision makings can be identified. A critical basis for change toward
sustainability is a leader’s introduction and discussion of sustainability principles
(Christensen et al., 2014). Therefore, a comprehensive sustainability strategy must have a
solid framework that ensures its execution which is consistent with corporate governance.
4.2.1 Vision, mission, objectives and strategy. Most of the articles detail the use of vision,
mission and objectives that influence sustainability structure. Kardos (2012) analyzed good
governance in sustainable development strategies in Europe. A strategic approach to
governance reflection in sustainable development scrutinizes the presence of a common
long-term vision for sustainable development and strategic objectives. The investigated
countries outlined, in their respective strategies, long-term visions for sustainable
development and their corresponding strategic objectives.
Hahn (2013) investigated the strategic management processes in the USA. He pointed out
that there are steps in the management process that are closely related to sustainability.
Some of these steps include the external/internal audits on the company’s environment
(Slater et al., 2006). Another step is the definition of the company’s mission and vision.
These are important in the context of sustainability, because of the fact that firms deal with a
multitude of stakeholder expectations, competitive environments, business strategies and
so on. Adapting social and environmental issues into strategic planning requires
commitment and a distinct business culture that include CSSR values (Chamorro and
Bañegil, 2006). A company’s mission needs to be in tandem with its objectives to allow for
the formulation of strategy (generation of strategies). The objectives need to be framed
within the general strategies to answer questions on how to deal with expectations and
realize the sustainability objectives.
Similarly, Broman and Robèrt (2017) detailed five levels for a sustainability framework. The
levels include principles pertaining to a functioning global system that links human
practices and its influence on ecological and social systems. The success level defines the
vision of the company. The FSSD requires that any vision is defined by basic sustainability
principles. Strategic guideline levels outline how to strategically approach a principle-
framed vision. Action level includes concrete actions that were prioritized by specific
organizations into strategic plans using strategic guidelines and vision to inspire, inform and
scrutinize possible actions. The tools, in this case, include methods and support for
decision making.
Székely and Knirsch (2005) pointed out that company culture (vision, mission and values)
includes corporate strategy, business strategy, business structures, whereas Albareda et al.
(2008) agreed with government sustainability policy integration with strategy and mission.
4.2.2 Board composition and leadership. Although Van Velsor (2009) found limited number
of empirical research on sustainability and leadership, Michelon and Parbonetti (2012)
pointed out that it is necessary that the leadership disclose sustainability. This can be
regarded as a complementary mechanism of legitimacy that companies could use to
engage stakeholders in the USA and EU. Sustainability disclosure is defined by the attitude
of the board. Furthermore, Christensen et al. (2014) argued that the role of leadership
influences the creation, implementation, sustenance and the avoidance of firms’ social
responsibility. The characteristics and demographics of the CEOs, such as compensation,
educational background and job experience are linked to sustainability within firms (Huang
and Rust, 2011). Literature pertaining to the top management suggests that the higher
levels of formal managerial training will result in increased corporate irresponsibility
(Daboub et al., 1995; Székely and Knirsch, 2005).
Similarly, Quinn and Dalton (2009) investigated the role of leadership for sustainability in the USA.
The authors believed that leadership requires the successful accomplishment of three tasks:

VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j PAGE 263

 䊏 Setting Direction (How did organizational leaders introduce the concept of
sustainability into the organization?).
䊏 Creating alignments on different types of policies, structures or operations that leaders
should carry out.
䊏 Maintaining commitment for leaders to keep employees engaged with sustainability.
According to Salvioni et al. (2016), the presence of outsider/insider systems of corporate
governance (board of directors, ownership structure, customers, employees, communities
and environment) needs sustainability and convergence.
4.2.3 Transparency and active public engagement. As per selected literature, transparency
and active public engagement in the decision-making process are crucial (Kardos, 2012).
Excellent governance promotes accountability, transparency, efficiency and rule of law at
all levels, resulting in efficient management of human, natural, economic and financial
resources for equitable and sustainable development, which in turn guarantees civil society
participation in the decision-making processes. In a study on World Resources, Institute
Baumert et al. (2005), it was pointed out that possessing accessible information on
environmental impacts will allow the citizens to prompt the government to make decisions
that would benefit the environment. Citizens are therefore more prone to active decision
making via consultations and dialogue, while also able to suggest constructive proposals
that are more reflective of their needs vis-à-vis planning and legislation.
Adger et al. (2003) analyzed environmental decision making and discussed the importance of
transparency and efficiency in the EU. The authors posited the criteria of efficiency, environmental
effectiveness, equity and political legitimacy as dominant in environmental governance.
Besides the importance of transparency, Steurer (2010) developed a typology of
sustainability policies that are categorized into five types of policy instruments (economic,
legal, partnering, informational and hybrid) and four thematic fields of action (improve
transparency, raise awareness, foster socially responsible investment and lead by
example). It should be pointed out that the only empty cell of the typology is leading by
example. It should also be highlighted that the majority of initiatives in this field indirectly
provided economic incentives for sustainability in businesses.
4.2.4 A stakeholder system model. This aspect is reported by researchers such as Mason
and Simmons (2014), who believed that sustainability and corporate governance can be
combined based on the concept of stakeholder systems. Sachs et al. (2006) aligns a
stakeholder perspective of sustainability and corporate governance, and also underline the
fact that society demands more and more from businesses. This implies that responsible
sustainability no longer concerns individual projects or programs, but encompasses the
totality of business activity upon organization stakeholders, such as customers, suppliers,
employees, communities, government and the environment (Rake and Grayson, 2009).

5. Discussion and conclusion

This article explored literature on the incorporation of corporate governance into
sustainability based on stakeholder theory. Stakeholder theory gives a framework
connecting corporate governance and sustainability disclosure (Huse, 2003), by
recommending that each improves stakeholder engagement and in this manner
organizational legitimacy (Unerman and Bennett, 2004). As showed by Deegan (2007),
organizations attempt to pick up legitimacy by revealing social and environmental
unquestionable information and data.
Through a systematic literature review, 27 articles were selected and analyzed via both
quantitative and qualitative methods. The articles selected were written and published in

PAGE 264 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019

English. The addition of non-English sources could lead to changes in the results. As per
selected literature, the main findings are as follows:

5.1 Regional differences

There is a slight difference in the meaning of the integration of governance and
sustainability via different frameworks and strategies in different countries (Klettner, et al.
2014; Salvioni et al. 2016; Albareda et al. 2008). The literature argues that these studies
were mostly conducted in the EU, followed by the US. All in all, the findings suggest that the
integration of governance into sustainability can be zinterpreted differently, based on its
geographical area. For instance, in Europe, the sustainability framework touches upon
transparency, vision, mission and objectives (Steurer, 2010; Kardos, 2012), while in the
USA, leadership is more important, and is more often than not linked to sustainability
(Christensen et al., 2014; Shahin and Zairi, 2007).

5.2 Science field

The reviewed literature interfaces multiple scientific disciplines. Social sciences contribute the
most (Figure 3), especially on social issues pertaining to the integration of governance with
sustainability. Papers on environmental, business and economics contributed equal shares.

5.3 Interdisciplinary of sustainability knowledge

Looking at the interdisciplinary focus, different interpretations of the same words can bring
forth new challenges, as demonstrated in Figure 4. Corporate reported a considerable
share of interrelated sustainability issue, followed by natural resources (Shahin and Zairi,
2007; Quinn and Dalton, 2009; Klettner et al., 2014; Mason and Simmons, 2014).

5.4 Governance reflection toward sustainability framework

Looking at the reviewed literature, the majority of the articles argued about defining mission,
vision, objectives for sustainability and governance integration. Excellent corporate
governance can be defined by having a common long-term vision and strategic objectives
(Kardos, 2012; Broman and Robèrt, 2017; Albareda et al., 2008, Székely and Knirsch,
2005). Another perspective is board committees and leadership role, which is vital for a
sustainable structure (Christensen et al., 2014; Michelon and Parbonetti, 2012; Salvioni
et al., 2016). In fact, the board’s commitment and sustainable corporate engagement
(reflected in its goals, strategies, operational activities and accountability) can be a factor in
overcoming the traditional differences in corporate governance structures. Furthermore, a
stakeholder model and transparency for corporate governance convergence with
sustainability come from different perspectives, which have been discussed in the reviewed
literature (Mason and Simmons, 2014; Kardos, 2012; Adger et al., 2003). Consequently,
there is no typical sustainability framework with governance integration that has been
developed, which may have complicated the selection of relevant literature. In such an
international context that is full of recent corporate scandals, this integration of governance
and sustainability might have some significant effects on organizations, as detailed below:
䊏 It is helpful for all investors, policy makers and researchers if the information asymmetry
is decreased, which would lead to a more efficient market.
䊏 High reported standards of corporate governance will decrease the assessment of a
company’s default risk by lenders, underwriters and rating agencies, which would decrease
the cost of debt, because of the quality of firms’ corporate governance practices and its
sustainability disclosures being inversely related to its assessed default risk.

VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j PAGE 265

 䊏 It improves and allows corporate to understand more delicate issues, such as the
environment, social, economics, ethics and responsibility. This will prompt them to
adopt a more sustainable behavior.
䊏 In the event where most companies integrate governance into sustainability via the
provision of strategy, the future market scenario will increase its efficiency, while
investors will lose any market influence via impact investing. Once companies begin
such virtuous emulation mechanisms, investors will be more able to diversify their
sustainable investment portfolios, because of the fact that they are now capable of
buying increased sustainability securities on the stock exchange market.

6. Implication of practice
As a result of different aspects/research subjects of corporate governance expression on
sustainability framework with time, researchers should focus on process models related to
enacting sustainability and to achieve sustainability actions which provide scholars rich
opportunities for theoretical advancement of sustainability and corporate governance,
especially to jointly create work that explores origins and outcomes for sustainability models
through corporate governance. In fact, there is no single best form of governance for
sustainability. The details must vary, improving the specifics of the framework from claim to
claim. This study could develop a deep understanding of sustainability models which would
better inform implementations, strategies and support governmental planning structures.

7. Limitation and future research developments

This research is limited by the common features of Scopus search, such as the choice of
number and type of keywords, the resulting selection of studies, the choice of relevant
outcomes the interpretation and the generalization and application of results. The literature
review only included peer reviewed articles, excluding items such as books and gray
literature. This is partly mitigated when the authors write a book on the same topic. Also,
other synonymous articles could have ended up altering the results.
All in all, the question of how corporate governance integrates sustainability in terms of providing
framework, model, relations and process and strategy to organizations remains relevant to future
research. To advance sustainability forward, it is recommended that we further understand the
practices, challenges, strategies and motivators that would lead to sustainability.

References
Adams, C., Muir, S. and Hoque, Z. (2014), “Measurement of sustainability performance in the public
sector”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 46-67.
Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S. and Seyfang, G. (2003),
“Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decisionmaking”, Environment
and Planning A, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1095-1110.
Albareda, L., Lozano, J.M., Tencati, A., Midttun, A. and Perrini, F. (2008), “The changing role of
governments in corporate social responsibility: drivers and responses”, Business Ethics: A European
Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 347-363.
Asif, M., Searcy, C., Garvare, R. and Ahmad, N. (2011), “Including sustainability in business excellence
models”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 773-786.
Baumert, K. Herzog, T. and Pershing, J. (2005), “Navigating the numbers: greenhouse gas data and
international climate policy”, available at: www.wri.org/publication
Broman, G.I. and Robèrt, K.H. (2017), “A framework for strategic sustainable development”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 17-31.

PAGE 266 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019

Callan, S.J. and Thomas, J.M. (2011), “Executive compensation, corporate social responsibility, and
corporate financial performance: a multi-equation framework”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 332-351.
Castelo Branco, M. and Delgado, C. (2011), “Research on corporate social responsibility and disclosure
in Portugal”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 202-217.
Castka, P., Bamber, C.J., Bamber, D.J. and Sharp, J.M. (2004), “Integrating corporate social
responsibility (CSR) into ISO management systems – in search of a feasible CSR management system
framework”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 216-224.
Chamorro, A. and Bañegil, T.M. (2006), “Green marketing philosophy: a study of Spanish firms
with ecolabels”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 11-24.
Christensen, L.J., Mackey, A. and Whetten, D. (2014), “Taking responsibility for corporate social
responsibility: the role of leaders in creating, implementing, sustaining, or avoiding socially responsible
firm behaviors”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 164-178.
Clarke, M. and Islam, S. (2004), Economic Growth and Social Welfare: Operationalising Normative Social
Choice Theory, Elsevier BV, p. 262.

Daboub, A.J., Rasheed, A.M., Priem, R.L. and Gray, D. (1995), “Top management team characteristics
and corporate illegal activity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 138-170.

Deegan, C. (2007), Organizational Legitimacy as a Motive for Sustainability Reporting, in Unerman J.,
Bebbington, J. and O’Dwyer, B. (Eds), Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 127-149.
De Graaf, F.J. and Stoelhorst, J.W. (2013), “The role of governance in corporate social responsibility:
lessons from Dutch finance”, Business and Society, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 282-317.
Drew, S.A., Kelley, P.C. and Kendrick, T. (2006), “Five elements of corporate governance to manage
strategic risk”, Business Horizons, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 127-138.
Ehrenfeld, J.R. (2000), “Industrial ecology: paradigm shift or normal science?”, American Behavioral
Scientist, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 229-244.
Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J. and Krause, T.S. (1995), “Shifting paradigms for sustainable development:
implications for management theory and research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 874-907.

Gray, R. (2010), “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability and how would we
know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet”, Accounting. Organizations and
Society, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review of the
literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 47-77.

Grayson, D. and Hodges, A. (2004), Corporate Social Responsibility: 7 Steps to Make Corporate Social
Responsibility Work for Your Business, Greenleaf, London.
GRI (2016), Equator Principles, Vol. 7.

Guan, J. and Noronha, C. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility reporting research in the Chinese
academia: a critical review”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 33-55.

Guidry, R.P. and Patten, D.M. (2010), “Market reactions to the first-time issuance of corporate
sustainability report: evidence that quality matters”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy
Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 33-50.
Hahn, R. (2013), “ISO 26000 and the standardization of strategic management processes for
sustainability and corporate social responsibility”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 22 No. 7,
pp. 442-455.

Hahn, R. and Kühnen, M. (2013), “Determinants of sustainability reporting: a review of results,

trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 59, pp. 5-21.
Hall, G.B., Moore, A., Knight, P. and Hankey, N. (2009), “The extraction and utilization of local and
scientific geospatial knowledge within the bluff oyster fishery, New Zealand”, Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 2055-2070.

VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j PAGE 267

 Hosoda, M. (2018), “Management control systems and corporate social responsibility: perspectives from a
Japanese small company”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 68-80.

Huang, M.H. and Rust, R.T. (2011), “Sustainability and consumption”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 40-54.
Huang, S.K. (2013), “The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate sustainable development”,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 234-244.

Huse, M. (2003), “Renewing management and governance: new paradigms of governance?”, Journal of
Management and Governance, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 211-221.
Jones, A.L. and Thompson, C.H. (2012), “The sustainability of corporate governance–considerations for a
model”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 306-318.

Kampen, J.K. and Tamás, P. (2014), “Overly ambitious: contributions and current status of Q
methodology.”, Quality & Quantity, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 3109-3126.
Kanie, N. (2007), “Governance with multilateral environmental agreements: a healthy or ill-equipped
fragmentation”, Global Environmental Governance: Perspectives on the Current Debate, pp. 69-86.

Kardos, M. (2012), “The reflection of good governance in sustainable development strategies”, Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 58, pp. 1166-1173.
Kemp, R., Parto, S. and Gibson, R.B. (2005), “Governance for sustainable development: moving from
theory to practice”, International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 8 Nos 1/2, pp. 12-30.

Khan, K.S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J. and Antes, G. (2003), “Five steps to conducting a systematic review”,
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 118-121.
Klettner, A., Clarke, T. and Boersma, M. (2014), “The governance of corporate sustainability: empirical
insights into the development, leadership, and implementation of the responsible business strategy”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 145-165.
ek, J. and Doc
Kocmanová, A., Hrebı́c ekalová, M. (2011), “Corporate governance and sustainability”,
Economics and Management, pp. 16.
Lindgreen, A., Swaen, V. and Johnston, W.J. (2009), “Corporate social responsibility: an empirical
investigation of US organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. S2, pp. 303-323.

Mason, C. and Simmons, J. (2014), “Embedding corporate social responsibility in corporate governance:
a stakeholder systems approach”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 77-86.
Michelon, G. and Parbonetti, A. (2012), “The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure”,
Journal of Management & Governance, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 477-509.

Midttun, A. (2005), “Realigning business, government and civil society: emerging embedded relational
governance beyond the (neo) liberal and welfare state models”, Corporate Governance: The International
Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 159-174.
Quinn, L. and Dalton, M. (2009), “Leading to sustainability: implementing the tasks of leadership”,
Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21-38.
Rake, M. and Grayson, D. (2009), “Embedding corporate responsibility and sustainability – everybody’s
business”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 9 No. 4,
pp. 395-399.

Sachs, S., Maurer, M., Rühli, E. and Hoffmann, R. (2006), “Corporate social responsibility from a
“stakeholder view” perspective: CSR implementation by a Swiss mobile telecommunication
provider”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 6 No. 4,
pp. 506-515.

Salvioni, D.M., Gennari, F. and Bosetti, L. (2016), “Sustainability and convergence: the future of corporate
governance systems?”, Sustainability, Vol. 8 No. 11, p. 1203.

Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M. and Burritt, R. (2006), “Sustainability accounting and reporting:
development, linkages, and reflection”, An Introduction. In Sustainability Accounting and Reporting,
Springer Netherlands, pp. 1-33.
Schembera, S. (2012), “Implementing corporate social responsibility: empirical insights on the impact
and accountability of the UN global compact”, The University of Zurich, Business Working Paper Series,
Working Paper, p. 316.

PAGE 268 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019

Shahin, A. and Zairi, M. (2007), “Corporate governance as a critical element for driving excellence in corporate
social responsibility”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 753-770.

Slater, S.F., Olson, E.M. and Hult, G.T.M. (2006), “The moderating influence of strategic orientation on the
strategy formation capability–performance relationship”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 12,
pp. 1221-1231.

Speziale, M.T. and Klovienė, L. (2014), “The relationship between performance measurement and
sustainability reporting: a literature review”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 156, pp. 633-638.
Stern, N. (2008), “The economics of climate change”, American Economic Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 1-37.
Steurer, R. (2010), “The role of governments in corporate social responsibility: characterising public
policies on CSR in Europe”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 49-72.
Sundaramurthy, C. and Lewis, M. (2003), “Control and collaboration: paradoxes of governance”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 397-415.

Székely, F. and Knirsch, M. (2005), “Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: metrics
for sustainable performance”, European Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 628-647.
Tomo, A. and Landi, G. (2016), “Behavioral issues for sustainable investment Decision-Making: a
literature review”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 1.
Unerman, J. and Bennett, M. (2004), “Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater
corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony?”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 29
No. 7, pp. 685-707.
Van Velsor, E. (2009), “Introduction: leadership and corporate social responsibility”, Corporate
Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-6.
Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., Cörvers, R., Kemp, R. and Martens, P. (2008), “Governance for sustainable
development: a framework”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 410-421.
Windolph, S.E., Harms, D. and Schaltegger, S. (2014), “Motivations for corporate sustainability
management: contrasting survey results and implementation”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 272-285.
Zairi, M. (2000), “Social responsibility and impact on society”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 172-178.

Further reading
Adger, W.N. (2003), “Social Capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change”, Economic
Geography, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 387-404.
Noronha, C., Tou, S., Cynthia, M.I. and Guan, J.J. (2013), “Corporate social responsibility reporting in
China: an overview and comparison with major trends”, Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Pfeffer, R.I., Kurosaki, T.T., Harrah, C.H., Jr, Chance, J.M. and Filos, S. (1982), “Measurement of
functional activities in older adults in the community”, Journal of Gerontology, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 323-329.
Salvioni, D.M. and Gennari, F. (2016), “Corporate governance, ownership, and sustainability”, Corporate
Ownership and Control, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 604-612.
Sonnenfeld, D.A. (2000), “Developing countries: contradictions of ecological modernisation: pulp and
paper manufacturing in South-east asia”, Environmental Politics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 235-256.

Corresponding author
Sahar E-Vahdati can be contacted at: ss_vahdati@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

VOL. 19 NO. 2 2019 j CORPORATE GOVERNANCE j PAGE 269