Inclusive mapping of sustainable finance and accounting: a bibliometric review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to map the intellectual structure of sustainable finance and accounting (SFA) literature by identifying the influential aspects, main research streams and future research directions in SFA. Design/methodology/approach The results are obtained using bibliometric citation analysis and content analysis to conduct a bibliometric review of the intersection of sustainable finance and sustainable accounting using a sample of 795 articles published between 1991 and November 2023. Findings The most influential factors in the SFA literature are identified, highlighting three primary areas of research: corporate social responsibility and environmental disclosure; financial and economic performance; and regulations and standards. Practical implications SFA has experienced rapid development in recent years. The results identify the current research domain, guide potential future research directions, serve as a reference for SFA and provide inspiration to policymakers. Social implications SFA typically encompasses sustainable corporate business practices and investments. This study contributes to broader social impacts by promoting improved corporate practices and sustainability. Originality/value This study expands on previous research on SFA. The authors identify significant aspects of the SFA literature, such as the most studied nations, leading journals, authors and trending publications. In addition, the authors provide an overview of the three major streams of the SFA literature and propose various potential future research directions, inspiring both academic research and policymaking.
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 | 0.016 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.154 | 0.152 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".