Insights into Sustainability Reporting: Trends, Aspects, and Theoretical Perspectives from a Qualitative Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the coverage of sustainability reporting (SR) aspects within the corpus of qualitative SR literature. It seeks to elucidate the theoretical and conceptual foundations that have guided the trajectory of the sustainability field and illuminate the qualitative methodologies used in this body of literature. Employing a systematic review methodology, this study undertakes an exhaustive examination of 242 selected empirical studies on sustainability reporting conducted during the period spanning from 2001 to 2022. The noteworthy contribution of this review to the realm of sustainability research lies in its identification of unexplored and underexplored domains that merit attention in forthcoming investigations. These include but are not limited to employee health and safety practices, product responsibility, and gender dynamics. While stakeholder theory and institutional theory have been dominant theories within the selected literature, the exploration of moral legitimacy remains largely underinvestigated. It is essential to underscore that this review exclusively encompasses qualitative studies, owing to the richness and versatility inherent in qualitative research methods. This deliberate selection enables researchers to employ diverse methodological and theoretical frameworks to gain a profound understanding of engagement within the practice of sustainability reporting. This review introduces an interesting approach by considering the thematic scope, as well as theoretical and methodological choices, observed across the selected studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.074 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".