Triple bottom line and environmental sustainability: evolution of global ESG research—a bibliometric analysis | Environmental Sciences Europe

Based on the four research questions, the results of the bibliometric analysis are discussed here:

RQ 1: How has ESG research evolved from 2015 to early 2025, and what are the projected trfinishs?

Our bibliometric analysis reveals a comprehensive evolution of ESG research through three distinct developmental phases, supported by quantitative evidence from 14,435 documents across 1212 sources (Table 2). The field demonstrates robust international collaboration (37.78% international co-authorship) and significant scholarly impact (27.75 citations per document), indicating its growing academic maturity and global relevance.

Table 2 Main information of the data set

The foundation phase (2015–2017) established the conceptual groundwork for ESG research. Starting with 365 publications in 2015, this period displayed consistent growth (27.7% annually). Beyond mere numbers, this phase was characterized by foundational works defining ESG metrics and frameworks, as evidenced by the rich keyword development (29,154 Keywords Plus and 32,082 Author’s Keywords, Table 2).

The acceleration phase (2018–2021) marked a significant transformation in both quantity and quality of research. The substantial increase from 891 articles in 2018 to 1903 in 2021 demonstrates remarkable growth: 49.7% in 2018, 23.5% in 2019, 33.3% in 2020, and 29.8% in 2021. This quantitative growth was accompanied by qualitative evolution in research focus, particularly in specialized topics as displayn by the keyword analysis in Table 2.

The maturation phase (2022–2024) displays the field’s evolution toward specialized research streams. Publications peaked at 2568 articles in 2023, followed by 2459 in 2024 (− 4.2% alter), suggesting a consolidation phase.

Our time-series analysis, employing linear regression with 95% confidence intervals, projects 2904 (± 359) publications for 2025. This forecast, visualized in Fig. 2, indicates continued growth while acknowledging statistical uncertainty through confidence intervals. The temporal analysis reveals both quantitative growth and qualitative transformation in ESG research. The field has evolved from broad conceptual discussions to specialized investigations, as evidenced by the publication patterns in Table 3 and Fig. 2. The substantial increase in international collaboration (4.11 authors per document) suggests growing recognition of ESG’s global relevance. The annual growth rate of 1.1% and average document age of 3.78 years (Table 2) indicate a dynamic and contemporary research field. The partial-year data for 2025 (407 articles), combined with our statistical forecast, suggests continued research interest while acknowledging potential consolidation in certain research streams.

Table 3 Yearwise publication

The temporal analysis, combined with our statistical forecast of 2904 (± 359) publications for 2025, reveals several crucial research opportunities.

First, the consolidation phase observed in 2024 (− 4.2% alter) suggests the necessary for methodological innovation, particularly in ESG measurement and verification techniques. Second, the strong international collaboration trfinish (4.11 authors per document) indicates opportunities for comparative studies across different regulatory environments and market contexts. Third, the rich keyword development (29,154 Keywords Plus, Table 2) points to emerging research gaps in: 1. measurement standardization: as indicated by the keyword analysis, the field necessarys robust frameworks for consistent ESG performance measurement across jurisdictions. 2. Verification mechanisms: the growing publication volume suggests increasing demand for reliable ESG data verification methods. 3. Regional integration: the high international co-authorship rate (37.78%) highlights opportunities for research on ESG implementation in diverse market contexts. 4. Methodological development: the maturing publication trfinish indicates the necessary for more sophisticated analytical approaches in ESG assessment.

These forward-seeing insights, supported by our statistical forecast and temporal analysis (Fig. 2), suggest that while the field is maturing, significant opportunities remain for theoretical development and practical application. The confidence interval in our forecast (± 359 publications) acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in predicting research trfinishs while providing a quantitative basis for anticipating future research directions.

RQ 2: What are the dominant theoretical frameworks and thematic clusters in ESG research?

Our analysis employs Callon’s density-centrality methodology [13], which maps research themes in a strategic diagram based on two measures: centrality (external ties to other themes) and density (internal coherence of themes). As displayn in Fig. 4, this creates four quadrants: motor themes (developed and central to the field), basic themes (central but still developing), Niche themes (well-developed but peripheral), and declining themes (both peripheral and underdeveloped). This classification assists track theme evolution and relative importance over time.

Motor Themes (high density-high centrality) in Fig. 4 include circular economy, life cycle assessment, and sustainability assessment. Their positioning indicates both theoretical maturity and strong influence on the field. Circular economy’s dominance is particularly evident in the 2015–2022 period (orange cluster, Fig. 3), where it displays strong connections to both methodological approaches (life cycle assessment) and practical applications (sustainability assessment).

The distinction between Niche and Emerging themes is crucial for understanding the field’s evolution. Niche Themes (Fig. 4)—economic growth, CO2 emissions, and energy consumption—represent specialized research areas with strong internal development but limited external connections. These themes maintain consistent presence but remain focapplyd on specific aspects of environmental performance.

In contrast, ESG appears as an Emerging theme in Fig. 4 but displays significant evolution in Fig. 3, transitioning from peripheral status (2015–2022) to central importance (2023–2025, green cluster). This shiftment indicates emergence rather than decline, supported by its increasing connections to other research streams and growing centrality in recent periods.

The temporal evolution displayn in Fig. 3 demonstrates the field’s innotifyectual development through three distinct phases.

In the early period (2015–2022), circular economy emerges as the dominant framework (orange cluster), representing a systematic approach to resource management that aims to eliminate waste through continuous reapply and recycling of materials. For instance, Interface Inc.’s Net-Works program [55] implemented circular economy principles by creating carpets from recycled fishing nets, demonstrating how waste materials become valuable inputs. During this phase, circular economy concepts focapplyd on transforming linear “take-build-dispose” business models into closed-loop systems, where waste becomes an input for new processes.

This period also saw parallel development of CSR (green cluster), which addresses organizations’ voluntary integration of social and environmental concerns into business operations, exemplified by Patagonia’s environmental stewardship initiatives [56]. The economic growth cluster (purple) examined relationships between environmental initiatives and financial performance, as demonstrated in Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan analysis [3].

The transition period marks a crucial shift in the field’s focus, characterized by the emergence of ESG frameworks. This phase reflects the evolution from broad sustainability concepts toward more specific, measurable criteria for assessing environmental performance. For example, BlackRock’s CEO letters demanding clear ESG metrics [57] and the Tinquire Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures framework (TCFD, 2021) illustrate this shift toward standardized measurement. ESG frameworks introduced standardized metrics and measurement tools, shifting beyond general principles to establish quantifiable indicators. Microsoft’s detailed carbon negative commitment [58], including scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions tracking, exemplifies this transition to specific, measurable environmental goals. The recent period (2023–2025) displays ESG’s emergence as a central theme (green cluster), indicating its establishment as the dominant framework for measuring and reporting environmental performance. This period is particularly characterized by increased attention to renewable energy (blue cluster), as evidenced by corporate renewable energy commitments [59]. The centrality of ESG in this period demonstrates the field’s maturation from conceptual frameworks toward practical implementation, illustrated by the widespread adoption of standardized ESG rating systems [60] and the development of comprehensive sustainability metrics [5].

Within these broader patterns, emerging concepts display varying degrees of integration. ESG fintech tools, while not appearing as a distinct cluster, are increasingly embedded within the ESG theme (2023–2025), particularly in measurement and reporting frameworks. Supply chain sustainability emerges from the circular economy cluster, displaying growing importance in ESG implementation. Greenwashing concerns appear within both CSR and ESG clusters, reflecting ongoing challenges in environmental performance verification.

Basic Themes in Fig. 4 (sustainability and sustainable development) display high centrality but lower density, indicating their foundational nature while still developing coherent theoretical frameworks. Their evolution, as displayn in Fig. 3, demonstrates increasing integration with specific measurement and implementation approaches.

This analysis reveals not just theme positions but their developmental trajectories. The field displays clear shiftment from broad conceptual frameworks (circular economy, 2015–2022) toward specific, measurable aspects of environmental performance (ESG, 2023–2025). However, this evolution brings new challenges in standardization, measurement, and verification, particularly evident in the emerging ESG fintech and supply chain sustainability themes (Fig. 5).

RQ 3: How do geographical and collaboration patterns influence ESG research development?

Our comprehensive bibliometric analysis reveals significant patterns in the geographical distribution and collaboration dynamics of ESG research from 2015 to 2025. As displayn in Table 4, research contributions demonstrate notable disparities across regions and development levels. China emerges as the dominant contributor with 2910 publications and 780 international collaborations, followed by the United Kingdom (1056 publications, 576 international collaborations) and Italy (886 publications, 273 international collaborations). The Multiple Countest Publication (MCP) rates in Table 4 reveal varying levels of international engagement, with the Netherlands displaying the highest proportion (55.7%), followed by the United Kingdom (54.5%).

Table 4 Most relevant countries by corresponding authors

The temporal evolution of research production from 2015 to 2025, visualized in Fig. 6, demonstrates consistent growth in contributions from leading nations, particularly China’s maintained dominance throughout this period. The United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and the USA display steady increases in research output, though at lower volumes than China. This trfinish aligns with Fig. 7’s countest scientific production data, which illustrates the evolving nature of international research contributions over time.

The citation impact analysis, reflected in Fig. 8’s most cited countries, reveals that while China leads in quantity, countries such as the UK, Italy, Spain, and the USA demonstrate significant influence through citations, suggesting high-quality research output despite lower publication volumes. This pattern indicates that while quantity of publications may be concentrated in certain regions, research impact is more broadly distributed across the global academic community.

A critical gap emerges in developing countest participation. As evidenced in Table 4, beyond China’s dominant position, emerging economies display limited representation, with Brazil (233 publications, 42.9% MCP rate) and India (230 publications, 36.1% MCP rate) being the only significant contributors from their respective regions. The complete absence of African nations and limited representation from Southeast Asian countries (except China and Korea) highlights a significant geographical imbalance in ESG research.

The collaboration patterns, detailed in Table 4 and visualized across Figs. 6, 7 and 8, reveal three distinct approaches:

1.

European model: High international collaboration (Netherlands 55.7%, UK 54.5%, Germany 44.6%)
2.

Asian model: High output but lower collaboration (China 26.8%, Korea 24.1%)
3.

Emerging market model: Moderate collaboration with lower output (Brazil 42.9%, India 36.1%)

The analysis reveals significant disparities in research participation across developing regions. While Brazil represents Latin America with 233 publications (42.9% MCP rate), its output is only 8% of China’s contribution, indicating limited regional representation. Similarly, India’s 230 publications (36.1% MCP rate) represent the sole major contribution from South Asia. The absence of African nations in the top contributors list, despite the continent’s crucial role in global sustainability challenges, indicates structural barriers to research participation. Southeast Asian representation is limited to Korea (319 publications, 24.1% MCP rate), highlighting a geographical gap in ESG research contribution from countries, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, which face unique sustainability challenges. These patterns suggest that current ESG research may not fully capture the diversity of sustainability challenges and solutions across developing regions.

Regional deep dives are recommfinished for:

1.

Latin America: Understanding Brazil’s integration into global research networks (42.9% MCP rate, Table 4)
2.

South Asia: Examining India’s emerging contribution patterns (230 publications, Fig. 6)
3.

Southeast Asia: Investigating research ecosystem beyond China and Korea (Fig. 7)
4.

Africa: Exploring structural challenges preventing research contribution (Fig. 8)

This analysis, supported by the temporal patterns in Fig. 6, scientific production data in Fig. 7, and citation impact displayn in Fig. 8, suggests that while ESG research is growing globally, significant geographical and developmental gaps remain. The concentration of research in developed economies, while displaying high impact and collaboration rates, may limit the understanding of ESG challenges and solutions in developing contexts. Future research should prioritize expanding geographical diversity and strengthening international collaboration networks, particularly with under-represented regions (Fig. 9).

Author productivity and impact analysis

To provide a comprehensive view of author contributions and impact in the field, we analyzed author productivity patterns applying multiple metrics. Table 5 presents a consolidated view of the most influential authors, combining publication metrics, citation impact, and geographical distribution.

Table 5 Key author metrics and impact analysis (2015–2025)

Lotka’s law analysis and field maturity

Our application of Lotka’s Law reveals important insights about the field’s maturity and scholarly contribution patterns. The analysis displays that:

1.

Distribution pattern: Approximately 60% of authors contributed single publications, while a compact core group (≈5%) produced four or more papers, closely aligning with Lotka’s inverse square law.
2.

Field maturity indicators:
- The presence of established scholars with high citation impacts (e.g., Sarkodie: 1597 citations)
- Emergence of new productive authors (e.g., Raihan: 9 publications)
- Diverse geographical representation indicating field globalization

The Lotka’s Law analysis of ESG research (2015–2025) in Table 6 reveals a distinctive publication pattern. The majority of authors (86%, 41,171) contributed single publications, exceeding the theoretical expectation of 62.5%. Multiple publications display a sharp decline, with only 9.5% (4530) publishing two papers and 2.5% (1200) publishing three papers. This distribution, with very few authors (less than 1%) publishing six or more papers, indicates an emerging field with broad initial interest but limited sustained engagement.

Table 6 Lotka’s law analysis of author productivity in ESG research (2015–2025)

The significant deviation from Lotka’s theoretical values, particularly in single publications (+ 23.5%), suggests a field attracting widespread initial attention but facing potential barriers to continued research engagement.

This pattern is characteristic of an evolving research domain, where expertise is still consolidating, indicating both the growing importance of ESG research and the necessary for developing more sustained research participation.

Publication sources and impact

The analysis of publication venues reveals clear patterns in research dissemination. Table 7 presents the top sources with their impact metrics, eliminating the necessary for separate visual representation.

Table 7 Leading publication sources with impact metrics (2015–2025)

This consolidated presentation offers several analytical insights:

Publication concentration: Sustainability (Switzerland) dominates with 4573 articles, indicating its role as the primary platform for environmental sustainability research.
Quality distribution: The spread across high-impact journals (IF ranging from 3.889 to 10.302) suggests robust peer review and research quality.
Disciplinary coverage: The distribution across journals reflects the field’s interdisciplinary nature, spanning environmental sciences, business, and engineering.

Bradford’s law analysis

To understand the distribution and concentration of ESG research across journals, we applied Bradford’s Law analysis. This law assists identify core journals and the dispersion of literature in the field. In Table 8, the analysis of 14,435 ESG research publications (2015–2025) across 1212 journals reveals a distinct three-zone distribution:

Table 8 Bradford’s distribution of ESG research publications (2015–2025)

Core (Zone 1): Contains just 2 highly specialized journals that publish 37% (5339) of all ESG research articles, representing the most productive and focapplyd journals in the field:

i.

Supporting (Zone 2): Consists of 31 moderately productive journals contributing 29.6% (4269) of articles, representing journals that regularly publish ESG research but not as their primary focus.
ii.

Peripheral (Zone 3): Comprises 1179 journals that occasionally publish ESG research, contributing 33.4% (4827) of articles, representing the broad interdisciplinary interest in ESG topics across various fields.

The distribution displays (Fig. 10) extreme concentration with just two core journals (“Sustainability Switzerland”: 4573 articles; “Journal of Cleaner Production”: 766 articles) producing 37% of all publications. This highly skewed pattern, with 1179 peripheral journals averaging only 4.1 articles each, indicates a field with concentrated expertise but broad interdisciplinary interest (Table 9).

Table 9 Link between research gaps and research directions

RQ 4: How do geographical and collaboration patterns influence ESG research development?

Our analysis of trfinish topics visualization (Fig. 11) reveals significant evolution in ESG research from 2015 to 2025, particularly aligned with three key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are fundamental to environmental sustainability and corporate performance:

SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) focapplys on ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. This goal’s relevance to ESG research is evident in recent trfinishs (2021–2025) demonstrating increasing attention to alternative energy and circular economy initiatives. The business sector’s role in achieving this SDG is crucial, as corporate adoption of renewable energy and clean technologies directly impacts global energy transitions. However, significant gaps persist in understanding technology adoption barriers, cost-effectiveness of clean energy transitions, and standardized measurement of energy efficiency impacts. The emergence of “green economy” as a prominent trfinish topic reinforces the private sector’s critical role in sustainable energy transitions.

SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) promotes sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. Our visualization reveals strong research interest in industrial performance, manufacturing sustainability, and firm performance metrics, reflecting the challenge of balancing economic growth with environmental responsibility.

Critical gaps emerge in SME-specific implementation frameworks, with Khan [2] and Bhatt & Ghuman [61] highlighting the necessary for research on how compacter enterprises can implement environmental practices within resource constraints. This SDG’s integration into ESG research is crucial as it addresses the fundamental challenge of achieving economic prosperity without compromising environmental sustainability.

SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) ensures sustainable consumption and production patterns, directly aligning with corporate environmental responsibility. Research focapplys heavily on environmental management practices and impact assessment, with De Souza Barbosa et al. [62] and Manoharan et al. [48] identifying significant gaps in understanding operational frameworks for circular economy transition and its financial implications. This SDG’s relevance to ESG research is particularly evident in growing attention to supply chain sustainability, waste reduction, and lifecycle assessment of products and services.

Our thematic analysis reveals four critical areas requiring future research:

1.

Methodological Challenges: Tsang et al. [21] emphasizes the necessary for standardizing measurement approaches and addressing greenwashing risks. Chytis et al. [63] and Marie et al. [23] suggest leveraging artificial innotifyigence, blockchain, and Internet of Things (IoT) applications can enhance environmental performance optimization and monitoring systems.
2.

Geographical Disparities: De Giuli et al. [16] highlight research concentration in developed economies, particularly North America and Western Europe. This geographical imbalance necessitates expansion into emerging markets and development of region-specific implementation frameworks.
3.

Theoretical Development: Current limitations include insufficient integration of multiple theoretical perspectives and limited critical analysis of existing frameworks. Future research must develop comprehensive frameworks that account for different economic contexts and provide enhanced critique of existing ESG paradigms.
4.

Sectoral Implementation: Beyond SME-focapplyd research gaps, the post-COVID landscape, as noted by Broadstock et al. [25], presents opportunities for understanding how global disruptions influence environmental strategies. Gillan et al. [1] and Tuttle and Heap [64] emphasize the necessary for investigating stakeholder influence, while Benameur et al. [14] highlights opportunities in green finance research.

The integration of these three SDGs in ESG research highlights the interconnected nature of environmental sustainability challenges and the private sector’s role in addressing them. Future research must consider how corporate practices can simultaneously advance these SDGs while maintaining business viability. This understanding is crucial for developing comprehensive frameworks that bridge current gaps in measurement, geographical coverage, and sectoral implementation.

Looking forward, research priorities should focus on: (1) leveraging digital technologies for enhanced measurement and verification, (2) developing practical frameworks for SMEs, (3) conducting comprehensive post-COVID analysis, (4) expanding research into under-represented regions, and (5) creating more integrated theoretical frameworks. The success of ESG research will depfinish on bridging these identified gaps while maintaining both theoretical rigor and practical applicability across diverse global contexts.

Source link