Sustainability Practices, Corporate Value, and Financial Risk: Is There an Academic Consensus? A Systematic Bibliometric Review

Abstract

This study presents a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of the relationship between sustainability practices—commonly framed within the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) framework—and both corporate value creation and financial risk mitigation. Our primary objective is to assess how ESG initiatives affect firm outcomes, with particular emphasis on risk reduction, a dimension less explored in the economic and financial literature. The search was conducted in the Web of Science database on 15 June 2024, using the keywords “ESG and Financial Risk” and “ESG and Valuation,” yielding 1074 initial records. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we analyzed the final sample through descriptive and frequency-based methods. Findings reveal no clear consensus on the connection between ESG and value creation, with results varying across sectors, firm sizes, regions, and specific ESG components. In contrast, the evidence supporting the link between ESG practices and financial risk mitigation is stronger: 68% of the reviewed studies reported a positive relationship, while only 5% found negative effects. This review underscores the potential of sustainability as a risk-management mechanism and highlights research gaps that warrant deeper exploration. Limitations include heterogeneity of methodologies, metrics, and contexts among the studies reviewed.

1. Introduction

The interest in sustainability practices, particularly those related to the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions, has grown significantly over the past decade (T. T. Li et al., 2021), attracting the attention of organizations, investors, and researchers. These practices can increase a company’s reputational capital, but their neglect can lead to significant risks (Brockett & Rezaee, 2012; Clementino & Perkins, 2021; Serafeim & Yoon, 2023). The primary implication is that the growing prominence of this topic has fostered a substantial body of literature devoted to examining the effectiveness of sustainability practices in generating value for organizations. Sustainable business models are also increasingly viewed as key mechanisms to advance integrated development goals, combining environmental resilience, social inclusion, and economic competitiveness (United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2022).

Efforts in sustainability, inclusion, good management practices, and transparency—commonly associated with organizations’ ESG performance—emerged from the transition toward a more sustainable economic system (Lee et al., 2021). Although these practices are relevant regardless of their secondary effects, it is essential to analyze their practical consequences and implications for managers when integrating sustainability principles into the organizational environment (Almubarak et al., 2023). International frameworks such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) have guided firms in structuring how they disclose and manage climate-related financial risk, fostering comparability and investor confidence (Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures [TCFD], 2017). Globally, institutional investment focused on sustainability is expected to exceed USD 53 trillion by 2025, representing more than one-third of the projected USD 140.5 trillion in total assets under management (Bloomberg, 2021). Similarly, the Global Risks Report (World Economic Forum, 2025) highlights that the most significant risks projected over the next decade are related to sustainability and ESG dimensions.

In addition, asset managers aim to expand the fundamentals of analysis concerning the role of sustainability practices in supporting informed investment decisions. ESG scores provided by rating agencies frequently serve as a basis for these analyses. Globally, there are numerous rating agencies, with the most prominent being Fitch, Moody’s, and Standard & Poor’s. Additionally, databases play a critical role in enhancing these efforts, with notable examples including Bloomberg, Bridgewise, MSCI, and Refinitiv.

In this context, extensive literature has indicated that sustainability-oriented practices can generate value for organizations (Giannopoulos et al., 2022; Odintsova, 2024; Wang et al., 2024). However, other studies suggest that this relationship may be nonlinear (De la Fuente et al., 2022). Moreover, the results may vary depending on several other factors, such as the specific aspects of sustainability analyzed, macroeconomic conditions (Murata & Hamori, 2021; Wandroski Peris et al., 2017; Sood et al., 2023), or even regulatory frameworks (Sullivan & Gouldson, 2016).

While there is still no consensus in the literature regarding value creation, another area has been gaining attention in relation to the impacts of sustainability, risk mitigation, a less explored and more recent topic. The primary impact may not be on value creation but rather on risk reduction (Serafeim & Yoon, 2023; Grewal et al., 2021), as these practices serve as a protective factor against shocks for organizations (Pisani & Russo, 2021). Thus, this study seeks to answer the following research question: What is the relationship between sustainability practices (as measured by ESG scores), value creation, and financial risk in organizations?

The primary objective of this research is to examine the literature on how sustainability practices relate to both company value and financial risk. To address this goal and answer the guiding research question, we conducted a bibliometric analysis and a systematic literature review, which revealed the current trends and gaps in the field. By assessing impact metrics, diffusion patterns, divergences, and knowledge gaps in the studies analyzed, we identified the main variables and contexts that shape the magnitude of these relationships.

This study contributes to the literature by analyzing not only the relationship between ESG scores and value but also the relationship between ESG scores and financial risk. A systematic selection of literature was conducted on the basis of both objective and qualitative criteria to ensure a comprehensive review and bibliometric analysis. The results reveal that while the literature predominantly focuses on the relationship between ESG performance and value, findings in this area tend to be more heterogeneous, with 43% of studies reporting mixed or negative results. In contrast, the relationship between ESG performance and risk is highly consistent, with 68% of the studies supporting the role of ESG performance in risk mitigation and only 5% showing a negative correlation. These findings suggest that while an ESG’s impact on value may vary according to sample characteristics, sector, and the macroeconomic environment, its role in reducing financial risk appears more robust across different contexts.

The study contributes to the literature by synthesizing the main topics and metrics addressed in previous research and identifying trends in the relationship between sustainability and value, as well as between sustainability and risk. Additionally, as a practical implication, the study highlights the contributions of sustainability practices for investors and stakeholders while also revealing their benefits in protecting firms against shocks. This study differentiates itself from previous meta-analyses (Friede et al., 2015; Khan, 2019) by exploring articles with different outcome variables. Furthermore, it combines bibliometric analysis and systematic review tools, enabling the identification of trends and gaps in the field while compiling the findings from the literature in a standardized manner for the reader.

At the same time, the divergences identified between studies linking ESG performance and value, compared with the more consistent findings regarding risk, raise important theoretical and practical considerations. On the one hand, they underscore the need to clarify how differences in measurement and conceptualization of ESG indicators shape the evidence base and limit comparability across studies. On the other hand, they highlight the policy relevance of our review, as heterogeneous effects on value but robust effects on risk imply distinct ramifications for investors, regulators, and firms. These aspects further justify a systematic synthesis of the literature, not only to consolidate existing findings but also to point to gaps and limitations that future research must address.

2. Literature Review

In this section, we present a literature review on the basis of stakeholder theory, shareholder theory, and agency theory and their relationships with sustainability practices (Freeman, 2010; Friedman, 2007; Jensen & Meckling, 2019). These theories form the foundation for the content analysis and systematic review of the literature on sustainability, risk, and value in organizations. First, we summarize the literature on sustainability and value creation, highlighting conflicting results. Then, we present recent studies that explore the relationship between sustainability and financial risk, often measured through ESG indicators.

2.1. ESG and Value

S. Chen et al. (2023) conducted a comprehensive study using global data from more than 3000 companies between 2011 and 2020, demonstrating a positive relationship between sustainability performance and corporate outcomes only for large firms. Kim and Li (2021) reported similar results regarding profitability, with governance emerging as the most significant factor for value creation. Possebon et al. (2024) showed that sustainability performance, when analyzed as an integrated measure (via ESG scores), significantly reduces the cost of capital and increases asset returns. However, when examined individually, only the environmental factor had a significant effect. Similarly, Luo (2022) demonstrated that companies with higher ESG scores tend to have greater liquidity and a lower cost of capital. Finally, N. Cohen and Zhu (2025) concluded that environmental risk does not significantly affect company value, whereas social risk has a negative effect on returns.

Dziadkowiec and Daszynska-Zygadlo (2021) demonstrated that corporate misconduct toward stakeholders in publicly traded companies impacts their market value, especially when related to governance-related news. Moreover, Wong and Zhang (2022) reported a significant negative impact of unfavorable media coverage related to sustainability issues on stock prices, with firms in the food and beverage, steel, banking, and insurance sectors being the most sensitive, whereas sin stocks are less affected.

In the banking sector, the relationship between sustainability performance and value has been studied for both American banks (Ersoy et al., 2022) and European banks (Lupu et al., 2022), with findings indicating a nonlinear relationship. To address this, Pedersen et al. (2021) developed a sustainability-adjusted capital asset pricing model to determine the efficient frontier and evaluate the cost–benefit of responsible investments.

In terms of impact analysis, Giannopoulos et al. (2022) demonstrated a positive relationship between ESG performance and financial value variables, particularly Tobin’s Q. However, the authors identified divergence for ESG performance and ROA, which exhibited negative effects. Conversely, Wen et al. (2022) provided evidence that the quality of sustainability disclosure enhances both Tobin’s Q and ROA while reducing downside risk. These contrasting findings suggest that the relationship is context dependent. In contrast to most studies, Di Tommaso and Thornton (2020) reported a nonlinear, inverted U-shaped pattern between ESG scores and value in the banking sector.

Academic research has shown growing interest in the field of sustainable finance. Studies have increasingly focused on financial instruments that help companies with strong sustainability performance (as captured by ESG metrics) attract funding in better terms, linking sustainability to financial outcomes. Deschryver and de Mariz (2021) and Flammer (2020) highlight the global relevance of sustainable investments, now exceeding USD 30 trillion in assets, with a growing body of regional and sector-specific case studies. Emerging markets, from small island states to large economies such as Brazil, present strong potential for sustainable finance (de Mariz, 2022), although disclosure remains a key challenge (Yamahaki et al., 2024).

The financial sector has driven innovation with instruments such as blue bonds, sustainability-linked bonds, social impact bonds, and debt-for-nature swaps (Bosmans & de Mariz, 2023; de Mariz et al., 2025; Olsen & de Mariz, 2025; de Mariz & Savoia, 2018). Similarly, recent studies suggest that incorporating climate adaptation into financing strategies can help mobilize resources under favorable conditions (Deschryver & de Mariz, 2020; de Mariz, 2024).

The idea of channeling capital toward initiatives with positive social or environmental outcomes is not new. The development of the commercial microfinance sector, for example, highlights both the persistent demand for stable funding sources and the challenges of assessing social impact (O’Donohoe et al., 2009, 2010; de Mariz et al., 2011). These mechanisms have been promoted by international organizations, such as the OECD and the UNDP, as scalable financial tools to mobilize private capital for sustainable development (OECD/UNDP, 2020). In line with this view, the literature identifies a range of financial benefits for companies adopting sustainability-driven strategies (Wang et al., 2024).

2.2. ESG and Financial Risk

With respect to the analysis of sustainability factors independently, Limkriangkrai et al. (2017) demonstrated that social ratings do not significantly affect corporate financing decisions, whereas (Wandroski Peris et al., 2017) found no significant impact from governance-related indicators. On the other hand, Lisin et al. (2022) showed that larger companies, in addition to having higher ESG scores and lower bankruptcy risk, also consider governance the most significant factor.

The relationship between sustainability performance and bond credit spreads was analyzed via a sample of bonds issued by Chinese companies, revealing a significant association between ESG scores and lower spreads, indicating reduced risk and agency costs. This effect was more pronounced in nonstate-owned enterprises, during unfavorable macroeconomic conditions, and in companies located in regions with higher degrees of marketization (Lian et al., 2023). Umar et al. (2022) showed that companies with higher ESG scores have lower forecast errors, regardless of firm size, further demonstrating that environmental and governance factors are the main drivers of this predictability. In contrast, De la Fuente et al. (2022) and Fu et al. (2022) demonstrated a nonlinear, U-shaped relationship between ESG performance and risk.

With respect to the role of sustainability practices as a protective factor against shocks, Murata and Hamori (2021) demonstrated a significant favorable impact between ESG performance and the risk of stock price declines for companies in Europe and Japan but found no significant results for the U.S. model. Similarly, Bae et al. (2021) analyzed this relationship during crisis periods, showing that while stronger sustainability performance reduces downside risk, periods of financial constraint suppress this effect. Similarly, da Silva (2022) demonstrated that sustainability practices reduce the cost of capital and bankruptcy risk, although this effect is limited in emerging economies. Eratalay and Cortés Ángel (2022) and Bax et al. (2023b) also studied the effects of sustainability indicators during periods of volatility, particularly during the COVID-19 crisis, showing that strong sustainability performance can provide a protective buffer in times of financial stress.

The reduction in regulatory, operational, and reputational risk contributes to lower volatility, greater resilience to shocks, and easier access to capital—factors that can influence a company’s value (Lisin et al., 2022; Umar et al., 2022). This relationship is illustrated in Figure 1 below, which outlines how sustainability performance can affect risk and, consequently, impact corporate value. The mechanism through which these practices influence firm outcomes occurs via reduced volatility, greater predictability, and improved investor perception. These effects enhance market confidence, lower the cost of capital, and ultimately increase firm value and returns.

2.3. Impact of ESG Regulations

The literature highlights that ESG regulations vary significantly across regions, with Europe commonly serving as a benchmark in this area. There is growing consensus that incorporating sustainability considerations is part of the fiduciary duty of asset managers and corporate executives (de Mariz et al., 2024). Sullivan and Gouldson (2016) discussed how European regulations create institutional pressure for effective action and transparency in ESG disclosures, encouraging companies to adopt practices aligned with environmental, social, and governance standards. Tools such as the EU Taxonomy and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) have further advanced the standardization and comparability of sustainability disclosures (European Commission, 2021).

Redondo Alamillos and de Mariz (2022) document the leadership of European regulators in ESG-related matters, in contrast to less stringent pressures in North America. Moreover, international influences are gradually fostering the integration of ESG practices in Asian companies (Bogoviz et al., 2023). Research also highlights that European regulations can have far-reaching effects on global businesses, a phenomenon referred to as the ESG Brussels effect. The pressure to comply with European standards, particularly with respect to transparency and environmental management, has driven other countries to adopt similar regulatory policies, especially to maintain access to European markets (La Torre et al., 2021).

3. Methodology

The primary objective of this study is to examine the state of the art in the literature on the relationships between sustainability practices and corporate value and risk, with a particular emphasis on the risk dimension. By employing both qualitative and quantitative methods, this investigation identifies key trends and research gaps through bibliometric analysis and a systematic review of recent articles, with ESG indicators serving as the main analytical framework.

Data

For the search, which was conducted on 15 June 2024, the initial selection criteria were the keywords “ESG and Financial Risk” or “ESG and Valuation” in the Web of Science database, resulting in an initial set of 1074 articles. The present systematic bibliometric review followed the methodological recommendations of PRISMA,1 ensuring transparency and reproducibility in the identification, selection, and analysis of the studies.

Figure 2 shows the multicriteria methodology by PRISMA for selecting our sample from the database.

From the 1074 documents found, articles published in journals were selected, resulting in a total of 906. After that, the articles were filtered on the basis of the selection criteria. A refinement was performed by research area, selecting the options according to those presented in Figure 1. With the research area criterion, the search narrowed down to 811 articles, from which those written in English were selected, totaling 804 articles. A filter was subsequently applied for articles cited in the database to ensure their relevance in the literature on the topic, followed by another filter for articles accessed since 2013 to ensure that the studies were not outdated. This process resulted in 669 articles, with this filtering approach based on the studies of Funko et al. (2023) and Khizar et al. (2022).

From these 669 articles, another filter was conducted on the basis of quality, selecting those with an SJR (SCImago Journal Rank), a metric for the scientific influence of academic journals. Next, articles from journals ranked in Q1 and Q2, represent those above the median in the measure of quality available—were selected, resulting in 537 articles. After that, a new citation filter was applied: articles with fewer than four citations in the database were excluded from the analysis (avoiding articles with low impact on the date we collect the data), and those with fewer than 11 accesses—an average of one per year—were also removed. This process left 381 articles.

After the titles and abstracts of each article were read, they were classified according to the relevance filtering conducted by Ikudayisi et al. (2023), with scores ranging from 1 to 5. The higher the score is, the greater the relevance. After this classification, those that scored 4 or 5 points were ultimately selected. The criteria for each score were defined as shown in Figure 3:

Ultimately, 119 articles were selected for robust reading of the articles, of which 91 (76.47%) scored 4 for relevance and 28 (23.53%) scored 5 for relevance. With this selection, the main points of the articles were identified, showing the most cited works, the journals most present in the publications, the leading authors with the selected relevance scores, the countries of publication, and other measures to highlight the current state of the literature that links ESG with financial risk and ESG with value (Marques & Franco, 2020; Pinto & Sobreiro, 2022). After the main articles were selected, bibliometric analysis and systematic review were conducted.

The bibliometric analysis conducted in this study focused on statistical methods to assess the geographic scope across countries and universities, topics, impact and quality, productivity, and reach of articles (Linnenluecke et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2023). Scientific articles were selected on the basis of specific criteria to address the topic, type, and area of study, including (i) article quality; (ii) citation count; (iii) access date; (iv) article relevance; and (v) journal impact factor, inspired by the methodologies of Funko et al. (2023) and Linnenluecke et al. (2020).

In addition to this analysis, a systematic review of the topic was conducted, drawing on various authors (Funko et al., 2023; Marques & Franco, 2020; Pinto & Sobreiro, 2022; Jia et al., 2017) to investigate the main findings from the previously explored literature, which enabled the evaluation of central topics through the results. It is important to note that this study did not perform a formal meta-analysis with statistical aggregation of effect sizes. The heterogeneity of ESG indicators, outcome variables (e.g., Tobin’s Q, ROA, volatility, credit spreads), and methodological approaches among the selected studies makes such aggregation unfeasible at this stage. Instead, we employed a bibliometric–systematic approach to provide a transparent mapping of evidence. Consequently, potential publication bias remains a relevant concern, as studies with nonsignificant or negative results are less likely to appear in high-impact outlets. While our selection filters (citations, journal ranking, access) mitigate some risks, they may also accentuate this bias. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the results.

4. Findings

The first exercise of the bibliometric analysis was performed by counting the “Macro Topic” of the studies. The theme “ESG vs. Financial Risk” emerged as the primary topic, appearing 31 times, followed by “ESG vs. Financial Performance”, with 14 occurrences, and “ESG vs. Valuation”, with 9. However, since the macro topic shows significant variation in how it is described, this metric is not highly precise for identifying the direction of the main articles in the literature.

The second exercise focused on the study sector. The category “All” had the highest count, with 48 occurrences, indicating a global analysis of the topic in the literature, followed by “Banking,” which appeared 7 times as the most frequently studied individual sector. Both exercises were based on bibliometric classification by sector or study area, following the approach of Marques and Franco (2020).

The third bibliometric exercise utilized keyword data to count the most frequently mentioned terms in the selected articles. The most repeated keyword was corporate social responsibility (CSR), which appeared 51 times, highlighting the significant attention devoted to socially responsible investment. Additionally, there was notable growth in the use of the terms “risk” (23 occurrences) and “governance” (25 occurrences), reflecting increasing concern in the literature with regulatory aspects, reputational management, and investor confidence. This exercise was based on studies by Pinto and Sobreiro (2022) and Khizar et al. (2022), who conducted similar analyses.

The fourth exercise examined the ESG metrics used in the articles, considering only studies with quantitative or mixed methodologies, resulting in 116 articles. This analysis enabled the identification of which studies employed each metric and whether their focus was on value or risk, as presented in

Table 1. Overview of ESG metrics in the reviewed articles.

#	ESG Metrics	Value or Financial Risk	References
1	ESG Scores (42)	Financial Risk (18)	Apergis et al. (2022); Arayssi and Jizi (2019); Azmi et al. (2021); Tahmid et al. (2022); Baldi and Pandimiglio (2022); Becchetti et al. (2023); Bhaskaran et al. (2023); Bond and Zeng (2022); Buallay et al. (2021); Buallay (2020); Caglio et al. (2020); Chairani and Siregar (2021); H. Y. Chen and Yang (2020); Cheng and Feng (2023); Chiaramonte et al. (2024); Consolandi et al. (2022); Di Tommaso and Thornton (2020); Dkhili (2024); Eng et al. (2022); Ersoy et al. (2022); Feng et al. (2022); Giannopoulos et al. (2022); Hassan et al. (2023); Houqe et al. (2020); Jarjir et al. (2022); Khan (2019); Lashkaripour (2023); Lavin and Montecinos-Pearce (2022); Y. Li et al. (2018); Lucey and Ren (2023); Lupu et al. (2022); Mervelskemper and Streit (2017); Miralles-Quirós et al. (2018); Sinha Ray and Goel (2023); Sun and Small (2022); Tampakoudis and Anagnostopoulou (2020); Tasnia et al. (2021); Tebini et al. (2016); Umar et al. (2022); Yoon et al. (2018); E. P. Y. Yu et al. (2018); Zhang et al. (2023).
		Value (24)
2	ESG Rating (27)	Financial Risk (13)	Ademi and Klungseth (2022); Bae et al. (2021); Do and Kim (2020); Engelhardt et al. (2021); Eratalay and Cortés Ángel (2022); Ferrat et al. (2022); Filbeck et al. (2022); Fiskerstrand et al. (2020); Gougler and Utz (2020); He et al. (2023); Hughes et al. (2021); Jarjir et al. (2022); Kaiser (2020); Kim and Li (2021); Korinth and Lueg (2022); Landi et al. (2022); Lee et al. (2021); Lian et al. (2023); Luo et al. (2023); Park and Jang (2021); Pisani and Russo (2021); Rastogi and Singh (2023); Sandberg et al. (2023); Tang (2022); Tian and Tian (2022); Zaccone and Pedrini (2020); Ziolo et al. (2019).
		Value (14)
3	ESG Score and ESG Rating metrics (18)	Financial Risk (9)	Bax et al. (2023a, 2023b); Cardillo et al. (2023); S. Chen et al. (2023); G. Cohen (2023); Conway (2019); De la Fuente et al. (2022); Gregory (2022); Capelli et al. (2021); Kilic et al. (2022); La Torre et al. (2021); Limkriangkrai et al. (2017); Murata and Hamori (2021); Nguyen et al. (2022); Ni and Sun (2023); Paradis and Schiehll (2021); Schmidt (2022); Vinodkumar and Alarifi (2022).
		Value (9)
4	ESG Score and Corporate Social Responsibility—CSR (15)	Financial Risk (6)	Aevoae et al. (2023); Alareeni and Hamdan (2020); Buallay et al. (2020); Alareeni and Hamdan (2020); Chiaramonte et al. (2020); Chodnicka-Jaworska (2021); Demers et al. (2021); Hong et al. (2022); Lisin et al. (2022); Lu et al. (2022); Luo (2022); da Silva (2022); Ting et al. (2019); Vural-Yavaş (2021).
		Value (9)
5	ESG News (4)	Financial Risk (3)	Mendiratta et al. (2023); Cepni et al. (2023); Dziadkowiec and Daszynska-Zygadlo (2021); Wong and Zhang (2022).
		Value (1)
6	Corporate Social Responsibility—CSR (3)	Financial Risk (2)	Brzeszczyński et al. (2021); Fazzini and Dal Maso (2016); Shih et al. (2021).
		Value (1)
7	ESG Score and ESG News (3)	Financial Risk (2)	Fu et al. (2022); La Rosa and Bernini (2022); H. Yu et al. (2023).
		Value (1)
8	ESG Rating and Corporate Social Responsibility—CSR (2)	Financial Risk (2)	Lööf et al. (2022); Wen et al. (2022).
9	ESG Rating and ESG News metrics (1)	Financial Risk (1)	Sabbaghi (2022).
10	ESG Score and ESG controversies (1)	Value (1)	Almaqtari et al. (2022).

Source: Elaborated by the authors (2025).

.

Table 1 presents a consolidated view of those 116 papers. It allows for several important interpretations regarding the analysis of the relationships among ESG indicators, financial risk, and corporate value. First, it generally shows that the ESG vs. value relationship is more frequently explored in the literature than the ESG vs. risk relationship is, as seen in the use of ESG scores (value = 24; financial risk = 18) or in metrics combining ESG scores and CSR indicators (value = 9; financial risk = 6), although in other categories, there is greater balance or even a slight predominance of risk. Furthermore, it is possible to identify the most explored metrics in the literature, such as ESG ratings and ESG scores, whereas CSR indicators have been less common and tend to show a slight predominance of risk analysis. This may indicate recent growth in less explored areas of the literature.

Table 2. Highly cited ESG articles and authors (WoS Core Collection).

Article Title	Author Full Names	Times Cited	Year
The impact of environmental, social, and governance disclosure on firm value: The role of CEO power	Li, Yiwei; Gong, Mengfeng; Zhang, Xiu-Ye; Koh, Lenny	397	2018
Environmental, social and governance transparency and firm value	Yu, Ellen Pei-yi; Guo, Christine Qian; Bac Van Luu	200	2018
ESG impact on performance of US SandP 500-listed firms	Alareeni, Bahaaeddin Ahmed; Hamdan, Allam	183	2020
Does ESG Performance Enhance Firm Value? Evidence from Korea	Yoon, Bohyun; Lee, Jeong Hwan; Byun, Ryan	171	2018
Enhancing Market Valuation of ESG Performance: Is Integrated Reporting Keeping its Promise?	Mervelskemper, Laura; Streit, Daniel	156	2017
ESG did not immunize stocks during the COVID-19 crisis, but investments in intangible assets did	Demers, Elizabeth; Hendrikse, Jurian; Joos, Philip; Lev, Baruch	132	2021
ESG activities and banking performance: International evidence from emerging economies	Azmi, Wajahat; Hassan, M. Kabir; Houston, Reza; Karim, Mohammad Sydul	125	2021
The Value Relevance of Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance: The Brazilian Case	Mar Miralles-Quiros, Maria; Luis Miralles-Quiros, Jose; Valente Goncalves, Luis Miguel	113	2018
Do ESG scores affect bank risk taking and value? Evidence from European banks	Di Tommaso, Caterina; Thornton, John	104	2020
Stock market reactions to adverse ESG disclosure via media channels	Wong, Jin Boon; Zhang, Qin	93	2022
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Profiles, Stock Returns, and Financial Policy: Australian Evidence	Limkriangkrai, Manapon; Koh, SzeKee; Durand, Robert B.	90	2017
Corporate Governance, ESG, and Stock Returns around the World	Khan, Mozaffar	88	2019
Informational Content and Assurance of Textual Disclosures: Evidence on Integrated Reporting	Caglio, Ariela; Melloni, Gaia; Perego, Paolo	88	2020
Do ESG strategies enhance bank stability during financial turmoil? Evidence from Europe	Chiaramonte, Laura; Dreassi, Alberto; Girardone, Claudia; Pisera, Stefano	82	2022
Short- and long-term effects of responsible investment growth on equity returns	Ferrat, Yann; Daty, Frederic; Burlacu, Radu	76	2022

Source: Elaborated by the authors (2025).

presents an analysis of the most cited articles in the Web of Science database. This analysis, which is based on the studies by Khizar et al. (2022) and Funko et al. (2023), which used the same database for their searches, may serve as an indicator of the quality or importance of these articles within the scientific community regarding the topic. The article by Y. Li et al. (2018) stands out among the others. The 397 publications focused on two key points. First, a positive association between ESG disclosure levels and increased firm value was demonstrated, and it was reported that the level of CEO power amplifies the effect of disclosure on company value, indicating a greater commitment to ESG practices associated with CEO influence.

Figure 4 presents the count based on the publication year of the selected studies, demonstrating a significant increase in publications on the topic over time since 2020 and a decrease since 2022.

Another analysis focused on the publication location, revealing a significant concentration in the United States (11%), Italy (10%), China (9%), and England (9%). Together, these countries account for a large share of the publications, whereas the remaining articles are distributed across more than 30 other countries.

To further enhance the analysis, Figure 5 below presents the coauthorship network among the authors analyzed in the selected articles. This type of analysis allows us to visualize the connections between researchers, highlighting recurring collaborations and possible clusters of scientific production in the field of sustainability-related research:

The coauthorship network illustrates the collaboration among the authors of the selected articles. The nodes represent the researchers, whereas the connections indicate coauthorships in publications addressing sustainability practices, often through the lens of ESG indicators. Analyzing this structure enables us to identify the most influential authors in the field, as well as the groups of researchers who collaborate more frequently. The graph reveals a large coauthorship network with several prominent authors, demonstrating that the topic has garnered significant attention in the current literature.

Out of a final sample of 119 articles selected through our systematic review process (as detailed in the funnel diagram in Figure 2), we classified each paper by methodological approach into quantitative, mixed-methods, and bibliometric or qualitative review studies, as shown in Figure 6. Among these, 116 articles conducted empirical analyses, of which 60 focused on the relationship between sustainability practices (measured via ESG indicators) and value creation (

Table 3. ESG vs. value—analysis of the results of the selected articles.

Results Found	Authors
Positive Results (34)	Ademi and Klungseth (2022); Almaqtari et al. (2022); Bhaskaran et al. (2023); Chairani and Siregar (2021); Chiaramonte et al. (2020); Chouaibi and Chouaibi (2021); Consolandi et al. (2022); Conway (2019); Dkhili (2024); Dreyer et al. (2023); Eng et al. (2022); Engelhardt et al. (2021); Gregory (2022); Hong et al. (2022); Kim and Li (2021); La Rosa and Bernini (2022); La Torre et al. (2021); Y. Li et al. (2018); Lian et al. (2023); Lu et al. (2022); Miralles-Quirós et al. (2018); Nguyen et al. (2022); Sinha Ray and Goel (2023); Sandberg et al. (2023); Sun and Small (2022); Tahmid et al. (2022); Tampakoudis and Anagnostopoulou (2020); Tang (2022); Tebini et al. (2016); Ting et al. (2019); Umar et al. (2022); Vinodkumar and Alarifi (2022); E. P. Y. Yu et al. (2018); Zhang et al. (2023).
Mixed (21)	Alareeni and Hamdan (2020); Mendiratta et al. (2023); Arayssi and Jizi (2019); Azmi et al. (2021); Baldi and Pandimiglio (2022); Brzeszczyński et al. (2021); Buallay et al. (2021); Buallay et al. (2020); Buallay et al. (2021); De la Fuente et al. (2022); Di Tommaso and Thornton (2020); Do and Kim (2020); Ferrat et al. (2022); Giannopoulos et al. (2022); Hughes et al. (2021); Jarjir et al. (2022); Kilic et al. (2022); Lee et al. (2021); Limkriangkrai et al. (2017); Ni and Sun (2023); Rastogi and Singh (2023).
Negative Results (5)	Demers et al. (2021); Feng et al. (2022); Fiskerstrand et al. (2020); Luo (2022); Yoon et al. (2018)

Source: Elaborated by the authors (2025).

), and 56 focused on sustainability and financial risk mitigation (

Table 4. ESG vs. risk—analysis of the results of the selected articles.

Results Found	Authors
Positive (38)	Aevoae et al. (2023); Apergis et al. (2022); Bae et al. (2021); Bax et al. (2023a, 2023b); Becchetti et al. (2023); Caglio et al. (2020); Cardillo et al. (2023); Cepni et al. (2023); Chaudhry et al. (2021); S. Chen et al. (2023); Cheng and Feng (2023); Chiaramonte et al. (2024); Chodnicka-Jaworska (2021); Eratalay and Cortés Ángel (2022); Filbeck et al. (2022); Gougler and Utz (2020); Hassan et al. (2023); He et al. (2023); Houqe et al. (2020); Capelli et al. (2021); Kaiser (2020); Khan (2019); Landi et al. (2022); Lashkaripour (2023); Lisin et al. (2022); Luo et al. (2023); Lupu et al. (2022); Mervelskemper and Streit (2017); Pisani and Russo (2021); Sabbaghi (2022); Shih et al. (2021); da Silva (2022); Tian and Tian (2022); Vural-Yavaş (2021); Wen et al. (2022); Wong and Zhang (2022); H. Yu et al. (2023)
Mixed (15)	Redondo Alamillos and de Mariz (2022); Bond and Zeng (2022); H. Y. Chen and Yang (2020); G. Cohen (2023); Ersoy et al. (2022); Fazzini and Dal Maso (2016); Fu et al. (2022); Korinth and Lueg (2022); Lavin and Montecinos-Pearce (2022); Lööf et al. (2022); Lucey and Ren (2023); Murata and Hamori (2021); Park and Jang (2021); Schmidt (2022); Zaccone and Pedrini (2020)
Negative (3)	Dziadkowiec and Daszynska-Zygadlo (2021); Paradis and Schiehll (2021); Tasnia, M; Tasnia et al. (2021)

Source: Elaborated by the authors (2025).

). Across these subsets, 91.6% employed quantitative methodologies. The remaining three articles were bibliometric or qualitative literature reviews, which—due to their nonempirical nature—were excluded from the summary tables of the results.

As the following tables present the results of the empirical analyses conducted by the articles, the bibliometric review studies were not included, as they do not contain original quantitative data. Ziolo et al. (2019) proposed a theoretical model that integrates environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into financial decision-making processes. Linnenluecke et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review on ESG performance in the context of multinational companies. Finally, Starks (2021) discusses articles on ESG published in a specialized journal even before the terminology became widely adopted, highlighting the insights brought by these works and their continued relevance today.

Table 3 presents the selected articles that investigated the impact of sustainability (based on ESG metrics) on value, categorizing them according to the results found (positive, negative, or mixed). This classification allows for an analysis of the types of results that the literature has been identifying regarding the impact on value.

The analysis of the table shows that most value-related articles (34) present positive results, demonstrating that the literature indeed finds a relationship between sustainability practices and corporate value. However, it is important to highlight that several articles report negative (5) or mixed (21) results, indicating divergences in findings and suggesting that the effects may vary according to different factors, such as the ESG component analyzed (Alareeni & Hamdan, 2020; Buallay et al., 2020; Limkriangkrai et al., 2017), company size (Alareeni & Handan, 2020), industry sector (Buallay, 2020; Buallay et al., 2020; Miralles-Quirós et al., 2018; Yoon et al., 2018; Wong & Zhang, 2022), macroeconomic environment (Buallay et al., 2021; Buallay, 2020), or even nonlinear relationships, leading to mixed classifications (Azmi et al., 2021).

The analysis of Table 4 reveals a greater proportion of positive results (38) than 15 mixed and 3 negative results. The next table presents the results of the analysis of articles on sustainability practices versus financial risk.

Table 4 presents 38 articles classified as positive regarding the relationship between sustainability performance (based on ESG indicators) and risk mitigation, out of a total of 56 articles, showing greater consistency in the results than in the relationship between sustainability and value. Only 3 articles presented negative results, and 15 were classified as mixed. Among the positive articles, some studies stand out, such as Bax et al. (2023a) and Engelhardt et al. (2021), which showed that stronger sustainability performance (via ESG scores) reduced stock volatility in Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic. This contrasts with another study presented in Table 3 by Demers et al. (2021), which reported no significant effect of ESG performance on firm value during the pandemic, further reinforcing the benefits of these practices in reducing risk rather than increasing value.

Additionally, Chiaramonte et al. (2024) reported that financial institutions with stronger ESG performance faced lower credit risk, whereas He et al. (2023) reported that sustainability performance improved risk resilience during crises in emerging markets. Among the mixed results, the study by Korinth and Lueg (2022) stands out, finding a U-shaped relationship between ESG performance and risk in the German capital market, suggesting that sustainability investments help mitigate risk only up to a certain point, after which additional investments may not have the expected effect and might even increase financial risk. Finally, in contrast to the main trend, only a few studies reported negative results, such as Dziadkowiec and Daszynska-Zygadlo (2021), who reported that in emerging markets, the effect of ESG performance on risk mitigation was not consistent.

Paradis and Schiehll (2021) also argued that ESG disclosure can increase perceived risk among investors because of concerns about greenwashing and the low credibility of ESG metrics.

The Figure 7 below summarizes the literature findings, classifying studies according to the type of result (positive, negative, or mixed), separately for the effects on value and financial risk:

Although more studies have focused on the effects of sustainability practices on firm value, the distribution of results is more heterogeneous: while most are positive, there are also a significant number of negative or mixed findings. In contrast, studies analyzing financial risk show much more consistent results, with a clear predominance of positive findings and very few studies reporting negative or ambiguous effects. This suggests that while the impact on value may vary depending on the context, the effects of sustainability practices (as measured through ESG indicators) on risk are more stable and robust across the literature. Figure 8 presents the sample locations of the selected studies:

The location indicates that the largest dataset samples are still global or unidentified; however, as some articles in the last two tables have demonstrated, the sample’s geographic origin or local socioeconomic development can influence the impact of sustainability performance on the variables studied (Buallay et al., 2021; Buallay, 2020), as described in Figure 8.

Notably, the literature has delved into location-specific sample bases to better understand these differences and the influence of geographic and socioeconomic development on results with greater precision. Consequently, there are significant regulatory framework differences among the key regions. This also contributes to a greater concentration of studies in this area, as observed in the texts analyzed in the present research. Furthermore, the impacts of these regulations can have global repercussions, underscoring the importance of analyzing the geographic scope of the selected study samples.

Finally, the relationship between sustainability performance and value appears to have several caveats that may influence its results, as shown in the last two tables. In contrast, a clear trend of positive outcomes for financial risk mitigation was observed. These findings will be discussed in greater depth in the following section.

An important exercise involves analyzing the variables used in the modeling process, both the dependent variable (y) and the sustainability metrics (X), revealing differences between studies focused on financial risk and those centered on value creation. For financial risk, common metrics include tail risk events, stock price and cash flow volatility, and the cost of capital. In contrast, studies on value creation often consider Tobin’s Q, stock returns, and firm value.

Sustainability metrics can take various forms, with ESG scores being the most predominant, followed by ESG ratings and other measures such as innovation and financial performance indicators. These distinctions highlight the diverse approaches and metrics employed to understand the relationship between sustainability practices and key financial outcomes.

Therefore, as expected, the results indicate that the effectiveness of sustainability practices in organizations for value creation still requires further debate, and the investigation of other dimensions and contexts that may influence this relationship is necessary. In particular, the relationship between sustainability performance and financial risk—an area that may yield the most significant outcomes of these practices—was investigated. This topic remains relatively recent in the literature and is still underexplored.

5. Discussion

Initially, a literature review was conducted through a meticulous selection of articles, which were summarized while considering divergences and controversies on the topic through content analysis. The literature on this subject has proven to be robust in investigating the effects of sustainability-related practices on corporate performance by examining the relationship between ESG scores or disclosures and various financial variables, such as those that measure value, returns, stock prices, profitability, and other financial and operational performance indicators.

Several studies reviewed in the literature have demonstrated the potential of sustainability-oriented initiatives to generate returns for companies, with many identifying a statistically significant positive relationship between sustainability performance (measured through ESG indicators) and various financial variables, although findings remain heterogeneous and dependent on specific contexts (S. Chen et al., 2023). Nevertheless, many of these studies highlighted caveats in their findings, including differences in the specific ESG dimensions analyzed (Wandroski Peris et al., 2017), the geographic location of the sample (Azmi et al., 2021), and other contextual factors (Demers et al., 2021). However, in contrast to the prevailing consensus in the literature, sustainability investments do not always yield financial returns for companies (Di Tommaso & Thornton, 2020). In some instances, as observed in the literature review, no statistically significant relationship was found between ESG performance and the financial variable under analysis. For example, Murata and Hamori (2021) reported no significant results for U.S. datasets but positive associations for European and Japanese datasets. Moreover, we show that the relationship is nonlinear and can be highly dependent on context.

The bibliometric analysis and systematic review provided additional insights beyond the traditional literature review. While some studies have indicated positive effects of sustainability performance on financial outcomes, the relationship is not always linear, with certain analyses suggesting an inverted U shape, where excessive investment in sustainability initiatives may harm performance (Ersoy et al., 2022; Lupu et al., 2022; Pedersen et al., 2021). The findings also varied according to factors such as region, level of economic development, company type, firm size, and the specific dimension of sustainability analyzed (Azmi et al., 2021; Paradis & Schiehll, 2021; Khalfaoui et al., 2022; Gonçalves et al., 2023). For example, the social factor often has stronger positive effects on credit access, whereas the environmental dimension occasionally yields negative returns (Kim & Li, 2021; Possebon et al., 2024). Additionally, the bibliometric analysis highlighted a lack of regional and sector-specific datasets, as most studies relied on global samples.

Another aspect explored in this study, which, despite being less investigated in the literature, has shown more consistent findings regarding its impact on risk reduction, is the relationship between sustainability performance and corporate risk mitigation. While sustainability investments do not necessarily guarantee financial returns (De la Fuente et al., 2022), investing in companies with strong sustainability performance appears to be associated with reduced investment risk (Pisani & Russo, 2021; da Silva, 2022).

In some of the works presented here, risk was analyzed in terms of the influence of sustainability performance on risk reduction during crisis periods, specifically during the COVID-19 crisis. While the systematic review identified one article unfavorable to the sustainability–risk relationship, which did not find that sustainability performance acted as a protective factor during the COVID-19 crisis (Demers et al., 2021), several other studies demonstrated that strong sustainability performance can serve as a risk-mitigating factor in such periods (Pisani & Russo, 2021; Eratalay & Cortés Ángel, 2022; Bax et al., 2023b; Chodnicka-Jaworska, 2021; Lööf et al., 2022). Therefore, this highlights the importance of an encompassing literature review on certain topics, as they may offer counterpoints to some findings from the statistical analysis and systematic review.

In the systematic review, the results for sustainability performance versus financial risk reveal a strong consensus on its role in risk mitigation. With few exceptions, some studies have found no significant evidence that sustainability practices contribute to risk reduction. For example, Dziadkowiec and Daszynska-Zygadlo (2021) suggest that ESG disclosure does not consistently reduce cash flow volatility, whereas Paradis and Schiehll (2021) indicate that mandatory ESG reporting may not effectively decrease information asymmetry in less regulated markets. Similarly, Tasnia et al. (2021) argue that CSR investments in the banking sector can, in some cases, increase perceived risk due to cost concerns and shareholder skepticism.

Compared with the findings from the literature review, the protective effect of sustainability performance on risk mitigation becomes evident. The bibliometric analysis further indicated that this topic has received less attention in the literature, identifying a gap that could guide future research to better address this theme. The impact of sustainability performance on risk measures also presents nonlinearities (Fu et al., 2022) and dependence on locality (Murata & Hamori, 2021; Lian et al., 2023). However, these factors influencing the sustainability–risk relationship remain less explored than those affecting the sustainability–value relationship, possibly reflecting the lower volume of studies addressing the issue of risk.

The comparison between the number of articles identified in the initial search and those ultimately selected for the bibliometric analysis revealed important trends. While the literature on certain parameters appears robust, the selection criteria, such as the impact factor and study relevance, expose a lack of standardization in the financial variables used and a limited focus on specific regions and macroeconomic environments. Consequently, future research focusing on diverse and heterogeneous regions would be valuable for further investigating the regional influence and role of economic development in the relationship between sustainability performance and financial risk or sustainability performance and valuation.

Thus, owing to the growing interest of companies and academics in the field of sustainability, more studies examining its relationship with financial risk are needed, especially considering the predominance of positive findings on the topic, as demonstrated in this study. Furthermore, this research confirmed a positive relationship between sustainability performance and firm value, although with significant variability across studies, while its relationship with risk appears more robust and consistent. These aspects should be further explored, particularly since bibliometric analysis reveals that few studies have examined the influence of geographic location, macroeconomic environments, or distinctions between crisis and noncrisis periods, all of which are compelling topics for future investigation. This study offers practical implications by providing new motivation for companies and managers to adopt sustainability practices, not only for financial returns but also for their potential to enhance risk management. Additionally, this research encourages further academic exploration into the nuances of how sustainability performance, as reflected in ESG indicators, influences corporate financial risk.

Furthermore, there is a noticeable gap in the literature regarding the use of volatility models and the treatment of endogeneity within this context. While ESG indicators have shown effectiveness in contributing to value creation—even amid contextual divergences—the evidence is notably more robust in demonstrating their role in mitigating financial risk. However, these variables are influenced by multiple factors identified in this analysis, many of which remain underexplored in the literature. These gaps and emerging trends provide valuable directions for future research.

Beyond the empirical divergences, our findings also carry important policy ramifications. The heterogeneity observed in the relationship between ESG and value com-plicates the design of incentives for firms and investors, whereas the more robust link with risk suggests that sustainability practices should be primarily viewed as instrumentsof risk management. Regulatory frameworks aimed at disclosure comparability, standardized ESG ratings, and transparent reporting requirements could reduce uncertainty and enhance the credibility of ESG information, thereby benefiting both investors and policymakers.

A possible explanation for the stronger and more consistent results on financial risk mitigation compared with value creation lies in the differences in measurement. Risk-related indicators, such as volatility, bond spreads, or downside risk, tend to be more standardized and less context dependent, whereas value measures (returns, To-bin’s Q, profitability) are highly sensitive to firm characteristics, macroeconomic conditions, and investor expectations. This asymmetry helps to explain why evidence on ESG, and risk is more stable across contexts, while ESG and value remain heterogeneous.

Despite the robustness of our methodological approach, some limitations must be acknowledged. The bibliometric analysis was restricted to the Web of Science database, potentially excluding relevant studies indexed elsewhere. Moreover, ESG indicators remain highly heterogeneous—encompassing scores, ratings, disclosure quality, and CSR—which reduces comparability across studies. As a result, the review relies on a predominantly qualitative synthesis, which should be interpreted as preliminary evidence rather than definitive statistical confirmation.

Another important consideration concerns the theoretical underpinnings and empirical comparability of ESG indicators. The literature reveals substantial variation in how environmental, social, and governance dimensions are defined and measured, often depending on data providers or methodological choices. This heterogeneity complicates cross-study comparisons and may partly explain divergent findings. Addressing these conceptual and measurement inconsistencies is crucial for developing a more coherent understanding of the ESG–finance nexus.

Future research should seek to address these gaps by employing systematic quantitative approaches, such as meta-analyses with statistical weighting, volatility modeling, and quasi-experimental econometric designs. Such efforts would allow scholars to assess the causal significance of ESG practices for value and risk, while also clarifying how different conceptualizations of ESG affect outcomes.

6. Conclusions

The main findings of this paper indicate that the state of the art in the academic literature suggests that adopting sustainability practices—often measured through ESG indicators—tends to mitigate financial risk. Hence, their impact extends beyond value creation, which is often the main focus in the literature. Consequently, incorporating sustainability criteria is not merely a matter of social responsibility but also a strategic approach that contributes to financial stability. Moreover, the research revealed that context influences the relationship between sustainability performance and value creation, while the connection between sustainability and financial risk proved to be more robust and consistent. While the relationship with value varies depending on factors such as sector, region, economic conditions, or company size, it may also differ when sustainability dimensions are analyzed individually.

The implications of this study extend across both practical applications and academic research. From the practitioner’s perspective, our findings highlight the importance of sustainability performance not only as a component of corporate responsibility but also as a financial strategy for mitigating risk. This implies that companies with greater exposure to risk should invest more in integrating sustainability considerations into their operations and decision-making processes.

The literature reveals a clear emphasis on metrics related to firm value rather than financial risk. Even measures such as stock price downside risk or tail risk events—which ostensibly capture risk—are often constructed on the basis of stock returns. While various methods exist to infer risk (such as volatility models), these methods remain underutilized in the context of sustainability analysis. A promising avenue for future research lies in applying models such as GARCH to investigate the impact of sustainability practices and ESG scores on stock price volatility.

Another critical limitation of the literature lies in the problem of endogeneity. Only a few studies employ causal inference methods that can address the risk of reverse causality, which happens when ESG practices may enhance firm value, while firms with higher value are also more capable (and willing) to adopt ESG practices. Approaches such as instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, or other quasi-experimental designs are rarely applied, which undermines the ability to disentangle correlations from true causal effects. In addition, many analyses rely on small samples or subsamples restricted to specific sectors or countries, which not only reduces statistical power but may also introduce selection biases. Such limitations weaken both internal and external validity of results, and highlight the importance of more robust empirical strategies in future studies.

Despite these contributions, the findings should be interpreted with caution. The study is essentially qualitative in nature, relying on the synthesis of heterogeneous sources. The results therefore remain preliminary, as they depend on the comparability of ESG measures that differ conceptually and methodologically across studies. Fur-thermore, the bibliometric scope was restricted to the Web of Science database, which may have excluded relevant works indexed elsewhere. Additionally, this study was based on 119 articles, which in turn may be interpreted as a factor that limits the generalizability of the findings. These limitations underline the need for more standardized indicators and for complementary quantitative approaches in future research.

Moreover, the divergence between the heterogeneous results on value and the more consistent evidence on risk carries important implications for public policy and corporate strategy. While investors and regulators face challenges in interpreting ESG’s impact on firm valuation, the evidence on risk strongly suggests that sustainability practices function as a protective mechanism. This opens space for regulatory initiatives that promote greater disclosure comparability, as well as incentives for companies to adopt sustainability as a risk management strategy, thereby aligning private incentives with broader financial stability objectives.

We emphasize that this study does not constitute a meta-analysis, relying instead on bibliometric and systematic review techniques. Our focus is on a content-based analysis that maps how different strands of this literature have addressed the relationship be-tween sustainability practices, corporate value, and financial risk. In doing so, we highlight not only areas where findings converge, but also points where evidence remains mixed or contradictory, depending on context, sector, or methodological approach. By organizing and comparing these patterns, the review draws attention to important gaps in the literature that remain underexplored, particularly the low number of studies examining sustainability mechanisms for risk mitigation. That is, rather than providing summary for statistical effect sizes, our contribution lies in clarifying the intense aca-demic debates on the effective relationship between ESG and corporate results. We did not conduct formal assessments of publication bias or sensitivity analyses, as would be expected in a meta-analytical design. In the field of ESG, studies employ a wide range of outcome variables to capture corporate results—such as Tobin’s Q, stock returns, cost of capital, or measures of volatility—without a clear consensus on a single target variable. This heterogeneity is precisely what our review aims to demonstrate that while findings on value creation remain a conflicting topic in the literature, different the evidence on risk mitigation is comparatively more consistent and less explored.

Finally, although our bibliometric approach enhances transparency, it remains primarily descriptive. Future research should complement such mapping with meta-analytical techniques or econometric designs to statistically assess the robustness of the ESG–risk and ESG–value relationships. Many studies rely on heterogeneous datasets and methodologies, which makes it difficult to establish the robustness of results across contexts. Future research should adopt more standardized approaches—such as meta-analytical techniques or consistent econometric specifications—to enhance comparability and ensure that observed associations between ESG performance and financial outcomes are not spurious.