Does Sustainability Orientation Drive Financial Success in a Non-Ergodic World? A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today’s environment of increased uncertainty, firms face new challenges in aligning sustainability orientation (SO) with financial performance (FP). In this non-ergodic world, past trends offer limited insight into the future due to economic instability, geopolitical conflicts, trade wars, environmental and social disasters, sustainability policy and commitment reversals, etc. To investigate this, we conducted a systematic literature review and topic modelling with a latent Dirichlet allocation of 117 English peer-reviewed articles in management, business, economics, and finance related to SO and FP *. These articles, obtained from Scopus and Web of Science, were open-access and had reached the final publication stage. By integrating resource-based, institutional, and stakeholder theories, we aim to identify the current understanding of the SO concept and the mechanisms linking it to FP. Our findings show that sustainability-oriented firms are better equipped to achieve financial success in a non-ergodic world. However, outcomes vary widely based on context and duration, with existing literature revealing positive and negative relationships or no impact. Topic modelling identified 17 themes, such as stakeholder engagement, business performance, sustainability-oriented innovation and corporate sustainability. We propose five theoretical propositions and forward-looking research directions based on these findings. As a result, our study contributes to the existing academic literature by providing an integrated resource-based, institutional, and stakeholder theory view of the relationship between SO and FP for organisational resilience and outlining future research directions for managing this relationship in a non-ergodic world.
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 | 0.011 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".