Environmental, Social, and Governance ( <scp>ESG</scp> ) Research: A Systematic Review of Recent Trends (2020–2024)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The 2020–2024 period marks a pivotal era in sustainable development, characterized by significant regulatory developments, including the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the International Sustainability Standards Board standards, and the introduction of mandatory ESG reporting requirements worldwide. This review examines how recent policy changes have reshaped the linkages between ESG and sustainability. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we conducted a systematic review examining empirical studies of ESG–sustainability performance relationships published between 2020 and 2024. Studies examined the quantitative relationships between ESG sustainability performance and publicly traded corporations. Quality assessment employed the adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale with sustainability‐specific criteria. From 2847 screened records, 89 quantitative studies covering 126,000 firms in 67 countries met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 56% reported positive ESG–performance links, 38% mixed/neutral, and 6% negative. Asia‐Pacific showed the strongest positive share (67%), followed by multiregional (61%), Europe (56%), and North America (40%). Manufacturing (74%) and financial services (70%) outperformed technology (33%). This systematic review demonstrates strengthened positive associations and reveals Asia‐Pacific's emergence as a regional leader, providing timely evidence for environmental managers and policymakers navigating post‐2020 regulatory frameworks.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it