Systematic Review of Emerging Trends and Developments in Sustainability Accounting

Abstract

This systematic review examines how sustainability is utilized by government institutions in reporting and tracking social and environmental impacts. As a result of the Prisma 2020 guidelines, we examined 84 papers published between 2009 and December 2024 and identified four key themes: sustainability reporting procedures, social re-management, incorporating sustainability into decision-making, and stakeholder engagement. The findings suggest significant reporting gaps in the public sector and the need for better systems and practices. This study emphasizes both theoretical and practical consequences, and it recommends strengthening transparency and responsibility, evolving the role of sustainability accounting in public institutions. It also identifies critical areas to address in future research, ensuring the alignment of public sector objectives. This study—by including difficulties in reporting and visualizing how accounting practices can be developed toward sustainability—contributes findings on sustainability can be used to improve governance and accountability in the public sector. However, a limitation is that this review only relies on the Web of Science (WoS) database, which can affect the comprehensiveness of our findings. Potential omissions of relevant databases, such as Scopus or Google Scholar, should be noted, and future research could be enhanced with the addition of a wider range of resources for more comprehensive analysis.

1. Introduction

Sustainability accounting is a multidisciplinary field that integrates traditional financial accounting with metrics for environmental and social performance, providing a holistic view of the impact of organizations on sustainability (Hahn & Kühnen, 2013). Although this broad definition—encompassing the environmental, social, and economic dimensions—is widely accepted, some critics claim that it may be overly inclusive. However, this tripartite framework remains necessary because it captures the interconnection of these dimensions in achieving sustainable development. It allows researchers to analyze and report their contributions to sustainable development; moreover, sustainability accounting increases transparency and responsibility. At the same time, this approach reflects the responsibility of the stakeholders involved to provide the information needed for evaluating the obligation to reduce environmental harm, promote social justice, and support environmental stability. In addition, organizations can carry out sustainability accounting procedures more efficiently to manage resources, reduce negative environmental impacts, and create value for their company (Kaur & Lodhia, 2018). Recent studies, such as De Silva et al. (2025), have emphasized emerging digital instrument trends for sustainability accounting, demonstrating the progress in technological integration. Sustainability accounting also helps to establish connections with control frameworks and global standards; furthermore, it supports long-term resilience, as well as regulatory compliance and innovation (Hazelton, 2013). However, the disputed nature of SUS reporting—especially in politically polarized contexts, such as Trump’s election—emphasizes the challenges of reaching consensus on its implementation and interaction.

Public sector organizations, particularly government entities that provide public goods and services, are increasingly considered to be critical players in solving sustainability. While the definition of the public sector often emphasizes re-evaluation and transparency, it is important to realize that these principles are significantly different across administration models. For example, for operations at local, regional, and national levels, these organizations seek to serve public interest and support social security (Dumay et al., 2010). Unlike private sector entities, public sector organizations differ with respect to their liability against citizens, as well as their emphasis on transparency and advertising for regulatory requirements. In addition, these organizations often act under increased public control, which further emphasizes the importance of robust sustainability (Lodhia & Jacobs, 2013). Given that global challenges—such as climate change, resource postponement, and social inequality—have entailed the integration of sustainability accounting in the public sector, this integration not only enhances decision-making but also builds stakeholder trust and aligns operations with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Farneti & Guthrie, 2009). The unique characteristics of the public sector, including its diverse stakeholders, limited financial resources, and complex regulatory environments, require a systematic reassessment to identify effective strategies and problems in the sector.

Sustainability in public sector organizations requires integrating environmental, social, and economic dimensions into their decision-making procedures to ensure greater transparency and responsibility. With effective implementation, this approach can lead to improvements in the allocation of resources to increase the effectiveness of public services and improve the reputation of organizations. This overview builds on previous research by incorporating recent findings from Anshari et al. (2025), who emphasized the evolving role of AI in increasing data accuracy in public sector sustainability reports. For example, public organizations can use sustainability reports to prove that they are committed to reducing carbon emissions, improving social justice, or becoming involved with local communities. These practices not only fulfill organizational mandates but also strengthen public sector organizations, and they are in line with broader sustainability goals. The exclusion of key studies such as that of earlier reviews emphasizes gaps in the public sector reporting concerning the responsibility and transparency of stakeholders. To fill this paucity of research, this study includes knowledge of institutional stakeholders and emphasizes the roles of external pressures and internal organizational dynamics in sustainability. A systematic overview of literature is essential for the synthesis of existing knowledge, identification of premises, and the design of solutions adapted to the unique challenges faced by the public sector. Despite these advantages, many public sector organizations face significant challenges in receiving and implementing sustainability accounting procedures. One of the main challenges is the absence of standardized news frames that complicate the comparison and consistency of sustainability data across entities (Adams et al., 2014; Kaur & Lodhia, 2018). In addition, limited financial and human resources often prevent sustainability initiatives. At the same time, institutional inertia, which results from deep-rooted organizational structures and practices, prevents the adoption of innovative measures for sustainability (Williams et al., 2011). In addition, harm stakeholders, the diverse interests of the participating stakeholders, the government bodies and the local community—forms another layer of the process (Zhao & Patten, 2016). These challenges emphasize the need for systematic reviews to critically evaluate the current state of research and provide recommendations for overcoming obstacles specific to the public sector.

To address these challenges, basic coordinated efforts are needed between politicians, the heads of sectors, and the stakeholders involved. For example, a robust and generally accepted framework—such as a global reporting initiative (GRI) or an integrated reporting framework (IR)—can provide the foundation for standardizing sustainability accounting. In addition, fostering a culture of sustainability in public sector organizations requires initiatives focused on building capacities and commitments to responsible management (Farneti & Siboni, 2011; Hossain et al., 2016). Criticism, however, is leveled at how existing frameworks are often not adaptable to local contexts. Moreover, Abu-Bakar and Charnley (2024) emphasized the need for more flexible models. The involvement of stakeholders can harmonize competing interests and ensure that sustainability initiatives are in line with the needs of various constituencies. Engagement is particularly critical amid debates about challenges faced in various political and administrative contexts. A systematic overview of the literature is essential to understand how public sector organizations can effectively navigate these complexities and integrate sustainability accounting into their operations.

This study examines the prevalence of sustainability accounting in public sector organizations and the increasing academic and practical interest. While previous literature reviews have either focused exclusively on sustainability accounting (e.g., Fusco & Ricci, 2019) or investigated public sector organizations without examining their sustainability philosophy (e.g., Di Vaio et al., 2021), using bibliometric analyses and thematic mappings, we identify shared challenges and suggest methods for bridging existing gaps. We offer insights into the development of sustainability accounting procedures and emphasize opportunities for future research. Specifically, this novel review investigates previously unexplored topics, such as the roles of institutions and stakeholders in the formation of sustainability. The systematic nature of this review ensures a comprehensive examination of the unique challenges and opportunities related to sustainability accounting in the public sector.

The findings of this research are both timely and significant as they shed light on the growing convergence between sustainability accounting and the mandates of the public sector. Based on an analysis of 84 academic documents published between 2009 and 2024, we identified four main topics: theoretical foundations, practices and framework of reporting, stakeholders, and challenges and future directions. These topics not only illuminate current trends but also provide a framework for solving persistent problems. We emphasize the need for interdisciplinary cooperation in the development of innovative solutions that increase sustainable measures in the public sector. To investigate this issue, we ask three critical questions: First, how does research between international and public sector AC organizations develop? Second, what are the primary themes in literature? Lastly, what will public sector sustainability look like, and what is the final form of future public sectors?

This article is systematically structured to provide answers to these questions. In Section 2, the methodology used in this systematic overview of the literature is outlined. Then, in Section 3, the findings derived from bibliometric and cluster analyses are presented, and key formulas and gaps in the existing literature are identified. Section 4 then proposes an agenda for future research that could be used to manage academic and practical progress in the field. Finally, furthermore, the wider consequences of our study are discussed, the restrictions are highlighted, and final conclusions are offered. By providing a comprehensive analysis of the interplay between sustainability accounting and the organization of the public sector, this study contributes to a wider discourse on sustainable management and AC. Finally, we emphasize the importance of accepting procedures for the sum of AC sustainability in addressing global challenges and supporting a fairer and sustainable future.

2. Materials and Methods

To explore the link between sustainability and public sector accounting, we adopted a systematic literature review (SLR) method (Transfield et al., 2003) according to the PRISMA (preferred items for reporting for systematic reviews and meta-analysis) guidelines. The SLR method is considered very scientific as it is conducted via a structured and reproducible process that minimizes bias and allows researchers to identify, analyze, and synthesize relevant studies. Fusco and Ricci (2019), Di Vaio et al. (2021), Shoeb et al. (2022), Güngör Göksu (2023), and Salato et al. (2024) have recognized that this traditional methodology is optimal for finding and reviewing relevant studies. When using a systematic procedure, this approach allows one to develop knowledge, detect patterns, and make predictions. However, limiting the literature searches to only one database (Web of Science) can reduce the complexity of a study. To address this restriction, other databases such as Scopus and Google Scholar should be incorporated in the future to expand the scope of the review. In our research, we applied the five-step methodology process, as shown in Figure 1.

Relying on one database could exclude results from potentially relevant studies indexed elsewhere. This restriction should be explicitly addressed, and future research should consider expanding the selection of databases to ensure a more comprehensive review. Furthermore, in addition to comparing keywords, studies have been examined for their relevance based on predefined criteria for inclusion and exclusion, including alignment with research objectives.

The first step of this systematic review of the literature included defining the research questions for conducting this study. These questions focused on understanding the development and trajectory of research on the penetration of sustainability into public sector organizations, identifying the primary topics listed in this body of literature, and exploring how sustainable accounting and public sector organizations are likely to interact in the future.

The second phase included the creation of a robust research protocol. In accordance with proven procedures and based on the research conducted by Alshanti et al. (2024), the protocol for this study incorporated documented resources, and we employed methods used for the analysis of literature and tools used to evaluate sources. To ensure the reliability and validity of our findings, we performed an extensive bibliometric and content analysis.

The third phase focused on the selection of articles. As a primary source for the extraction of relevant publications, we used the Web of Science (WoS) database. Although relying on one database can be limiting, WoS was selected because of its reputation for including a higher concentration of trustworthy publications than other databases, such as Scopus (Aladayleh et al., 2023). It provides access to a large collection of papers from more than 20,000 reviewed magazines. We selected 2009 as the starting year because it marked the advent of a surge in academic interest in reporting on sustainability after the global financial crisis and constitutes a turning point in discussions on administration and responsibility. This period further reflects an increase in global awareness of sustainability challenges, making it a logical initial point from which to capture the development of the field. We created a search string for the WoS database using a combination of relevant keywords and logical operators. The search covered data from June 2009 to December 2024. This initial screening yielded 180 articles.

The fourth step included the development of a coding framework for the entire selection process. Figure 2 provides a development diagram outlining this process. The following is a detailed explanation:

• To increase the quality of resources and ensure relevance, we used a set of criteria for inclusion and exclusion, which are commonly used in systematic literature reviews (SLRs) (Secundo et al., 2020). For example, we only included reviewed articles written in English and directly addressing accounting in public sector organizations. Conversely, conference documents, book chapters, and non-English publications were excluded. This process of filtration ensured that only high-quality and relevant studies were included for further analysis, narrowing the initial sample of 180 publications down to 149 articles.
• After this initial screening, we further improved the selection by checking the titles, abstracts, and keywords, eventually resulting in 107 articles. At this stage, we adhered to the practices recommended by Centobelli et al. (2019), wherein all the authors checked the manuscript and sought more expert advice as needed. This cooperative approach helped to alleviate potential distortion and ensure consistency in the selection of articles.
• Finally, the in-depth review of the remaining articles ensured their relevance to our initial research questions. Through this iteration process, we acquired the final set of 84 articles.

The final phase included a thorough analysis of the selected sources (84 articles) to understand the current state of research, identify potential gaps, and propose new avenues for investigation. To achieve this, we performed a complex bibliometric analysis of SIS (Bhatt et al., 2020). This analysis examined the trends of publications over time, including the most active journals, the annual number of publications and citations, and highly cited articles and authors. Authorial nationality is relevant because it helps to reveal regional differences in the procedures of sustainability reports that can emphasize differences in regulatory frames, cultural contexts, and institutional presence. Similarly, the analysis of highly cited articles helps in identifying the key works that form the discourse and reveal areas of consensus.

To improve the analysis, we used Bibliometrix, a powerful R-tool for quantitative bibliometric research. This software facilitated calculation of the HIRSCH index for each journal in which the selected articles were published and provided their degrees of relevance. Our analysis was performed with the aim of achieving several interconnected goals that contribute to a deeper understanding of the research landscape in sustainability accounting and public sector organizations:

• Mapping of scientific cooperation: One of the primary objectives was to visualize cooperating networks among scientists in different countries. This mapping emphasizes not only the scope of international cooperation but also identifies key contributors and regions that are actively involved in this area. For example, it shows whether certain regions are dominant in the discourse or whether collaboration is evenly distributed worldwide. In addition, regional differences in the procedures for reporting sustainability—as examined herein—include the stricter regulations in Europe versus the more voluntary approaches in Asia, which were used to explore these findings.
• Analysis of keywords: We monitored the frequency of the occurrence of keywords to identify trends and shifts in the focus of research. This approach helped reveal developing topics and determine the areas of growing interest in literature. To verify these clusters, sensitivity analysis was performed, and thematic clusters were confirmed through manual validation by two independent reviewers with expertise in sustainability accounting. This ensured robustness and minimized subjectivity. In addition, tensions in literature, for example, a debate on standardized frames versus localized approaches—were examined to emphasize unresolved problems and areas requiring further research.
• Thematic mapping: To provide a structured view of the research landscape, we created thematic maps representing clusters of interconnected topics. In addition, a tree map was developed, offering a clear display of dominant topics in the field. These visualizations allow readers to understand the overarching narrative while identifying sub-themes. In addition, the criteria for selecting keywords were carefully defined to ensure relevance and avoid ambiguity, with sensitivity analysis conducted to confirm the stability of identified clusters. Manual validation by domain experts ensured the reliability of thematic mappings.
• Keyword co-occurrence network: Using the VOSviewer 1.6.18 software, a network of keywords (Momani et al., 2023) was created. This allowed us to identify data clusters and classify articles into various knowledge domains. The resulting network analysis not only provided insight into relations between different research topics but also facilitated the classification of the key domains forming fields. By ensuring the robustness of our findings and identifying emerging trends that guarantee further investigation, the reliability of classifications was maintained through double-checking by the researchers during article screening and classification.

By deconstructing the research landscape through these different techniques, we gained valuable knowledge on the current state of research and potential areas for future investigation. However, this study has certain limitations. For example, relying on one database can cause one to overlook relevant studies published elsewhere and potentially introduce selection bias. In addition, the tension in literature such as debates on standardized frameworks versus localized approaches—represents unresolved problems that require further exploration. Despite these challenges, this study has strengths, which lie in its strict methodological approach, transparent exclusion process, rigorous manual validation by experts, and robust validation of bibliometric clusters, ensuring a reliable basis for future research.

To address the limitations and build on the presented findings, future studies should include other databases such as Scopus or Google Scholar to expand the scope of the literature review. In addition, quantitative analysis could be complemented by qualitative methods such as interviews or case studies to provide a deeper insight into the practical delay in sustainability accounting in public sector organizations. Finally, by combining institutional and related theories, future research can explore the basic mechanisms that control the acceptance and adaptation of sustainability procedures across differential management models.

3. Results

This section examines the way in which the selected sources (84 articles) developed over time, including in terms of publication outlets (journals), patterns of citations, annual publication volumes, and topical areas of concern. We apply a two-faceted strategy: cluster content analysis and descriptive analysis.

3.1. Analysis of Details

This sub-section provides a bibliometric analysis of the selected sources.

3.1.1. Patterns in Article Content over Time

To understand the growth of the field and its evolving knowledge base, we investigated the yearly publication trend. Figure 3 reveals a clear increasing trend in publications from 2009 to December 2024.

3.1.2. Journals

Our findings on journal publications are informative (Figure 4). Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy had the most publications, with 21 papers in our sample, followed by Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability, with 10 papers. A further 28 papers were published in other journals, such as Meditari Accountancy Research and Sustainability. To further support this analysis, Figure 5 illustrates the Hirsch indices (H-indices) of all the source journals. The H-index measures a journal’s influence by grading the number of papers with at least h citations in other journals. In other words, a journal with a higher H-index has published a larger number of highly cited papers, indicating how significant the journal is in the field.

3.1.3. The Annual Number of Articles and Citations

Our discussion also concerns citation patterns (Figure 6). Based on the data, there is increased interest in this area, as indicated by the cumulative citations per article by December 2024. Eleven articles from 2021 have already attracted 544 citations and, interestingly, seven articles of 2022 follow closely, earning 415 citations. Although there was a dip in 2023, with eight publications in total, these publications were still able to achieve 543 citations, which indicates consistent academic interest. This pattern continues through the initial four months of 2024 as well, with the seven articles published gaining a total of 257 citations (so far). As the publications in 2024 are new, we can expect their number of citations to grow further in the upcoming years.

3.1.4. Member, Writing, and Reference Countries

Table 1. The ten most cited articles.

Author	Year	Articles	Journal	Citations
Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M.	2013	Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research	Journal of cleaner production	763
Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Farneti, F.	2010	GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for public and third sector organizations: A critical review	Public Management Review	210
Farneti, F., & Guthrie, J.	2009	Sustainability reporting by Australian public sector organizations: Why they report	In Accounting forum	181
Guthrie, J., Manes-Rossi, F., & Orelli, R. L.	2017	Integrated reporting and integrated thinking in Italian public sector organizations	Meditari Accountancy Research	144
A. Adams, C., Muir, S., & Hoque, Z.	2014	Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector	Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal	111
Williams, B., Wilmshurst, T., & Clift, R.	2011	Sustainability reporting by local government in Australia: Current and future prospects	In Accounting forum	81
Kaur, A., & Lodhia, S.	2018	Stakeholder engagement in sustainability accounting and reporting: A study of Australian local councils	Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal	78
Greiling, D., Traxler, A. A., & Stötzer, S.	2015	Sustainability reporting in the Austrian, German and Swiss public sector	International Journal of Public Sector Management	73
Manes-Rossi, F., Nicola, G., & Argento, D.	2020	Non-financial reporting formats in public sector organizations: a structured literature review	Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management	71
Yu, H. C., Kuo, L., & Kao, M. F.	2017	The relationship between CSR disclosure and competitive advantage	Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal	71

Note: The table lists key articles on sustainability reporting, highlighting authors, years, topics, journals, and citations, emphasizing public sector practices and stakeholder engagement.

provides the top 10 most cited papers on this topic. These papers, authored by some of the foremost scholars in the discipline, explore a range of related issues under the broad research topic of sustainability accounting and public sector organizations. A close reading of these top papers provides valuable insight into the major research areas of this discipline. However, despite these articles’ identification of significant trends, they disproportionately reflect contributions from purportedly well-represented regions of the world such as Europe and North America. The virtual lack of representation of research from underrepresented regions such as Africa or Latin America underscores the great imbalance in the global public debate on public sector sustainability. This imbalance needs to be corrected, as it can offer a better reflection of the unique challenges and benefits confronting such regions in adopting sustainability accounting practices. Adding information from less well-represented regions would enrich the subject and stimulate a more international and diverse perspective of sustainability in the public sector.

Figure 7 investigates the correlation between citations and publications based on the country of affiliation of the author. Australia is a dominant player in this research area, with 41 papers published within the analysis period, garnering a total of 1156 citations. Italy and China follow closely behind, with 34 and 26 publications, respectively, garnering 348 and 176 citations each.

Figure 8 illustrates the international authorial cooperation in this field of research. The assigned intensity of the colors of each country refers to the number of publications or researchers associated with this nation. A remarkable example is the strong connection between Australia and Italy, which emphasizes the close academic cooperation and shared interest between scientists from these two countries. The visualization also reveals differences in the strengths of cooperation across regions. For example, countries such as Japan, South Korea, and India show relatively weaker links. These lower levels of cooperation could be due to several factors. First, linguistic and cultural differences can represent obstacles to effective communication and joint research initiatives. Second, different academic ties or limited research financing in these countries could contribute to the observed gaps. Moreover, the regional focus on specific challenges in sustainability or public sector may not always be in line with the global trends, resulting in lower international cooperation. The absence of significant contributions from insufficiently represented regions such as Africa or Latin America also emphasizes the critical gap in discourse. Their inclusion would provide a more nuanced understanding of global perspectives, ensuring that a variety of perspectives are included. Understanding these patterns of cooperation has important consequences. For example, support for stronger connections with insufficiently represented countries could diversify perspectives in the research into sustainable bio accounting. Increased cooperation can also lead to innovation through the integration of unique knowledge and approaches from various regional contexts. Overcoming barriers to cooperation, for example, increased funding of international projects, expansion beyond English-language research, or introducing a global research network, could further strengthen the inclusivity and the impact of this academic area. The visualization emphasizes the importance of identifying and solving gaps in cooperation and creating a more interconnected and globally representative research community in accounting and public sector studies.

3.1.5. Analysis and Clustering of Keywords

To analyze the keyword titles of the articles, we applied bibliometric software to construct a tree map (Figure 9) of the 15 most frequently used words. The main words are “reporting” (12%), “sustainability” (11%), “public” (6%), and “sector” (5%). The tree map graphically displays the major keywords found in the literature and indicates the amount of attention paid to major topics such as sustainability and reporting in the public sector. Figure 10 also examines this trend using the cumulative frequency of the ten most frequent words from 2009 to 2024. From the analysis, there is a growing dominance of terms such as “sustainability reporting”, “public sector”, “sustainability”, and “local governance”. Of interest is the emergence of “sustainability reporting” as a precise and growing subject, distinguished from the more general term “sustainability”. This reflects a shifting focus toward more systematic and open methods of reporting on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues, particularly by public sector organizations.

In recent years, there has been growing interest in how digital tools affect sustainability accounting procedures, with the emerging frequency of terms such as “digital interventions” and “technology”. This trend is in line with a wider digital transformation occurring across industries, including the public sector. Digital interventions, such as using blockchain for transparent reports or analysis of data to measure sustainability, have become central to the research environment. Increasing emphasis on technology suggests that the future of sustainability accounting may include more automated real-time reporting mechanisms that increase transparency and reduce the administrative burden of public institutions. The increasing focus on digital tools in sustainability reports also indicates a potential future direction for academic research. Scientists can explore how digital interventions can streamline the integration of sustainability metrics into government decision-making processes or how technological progress can improve the accuracy and availability of sustainability data. This evolution is part of a larger trend of technological advancements affecting all sectors, including the public sector, which has traditionally lagged the private sector in digitalization. The findings here underscore the changing nature of sustainability research and suggest that future studies will continue to investigate the intersection of digital technologies and sustainability with an emphasis on how technological advances organizations can better fulfill the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Figure 11 shows the keyword networks, along with their occurrence, and offers a visual representation of how often words appear together in the same research article. The size of each node reflects the number of articles that indicate a specific keyword, showing the most discussed terms in the literature. The thickness of the lines connecting these nodes (edges) indicates the strength of the relationship between the keywords, where the stronger edges represent terms that tend to appear together more often. This network analysis helps to identify key associations and interconnecting topics in the field. The clarity analysis includes singular and plural forms of phrases (e.g., “public sector” and “public sectors”) and synonymous concepts (e.g., “disclosure” and “publication”). This allows us to present a more concise and consistent visualization of the major research questions, while maintaining the subtlety of the topic without duplication. The resulting network shows the most important keyword associations, and the interconnection of various terms related to sustainability in the existing research.

Recent trends reveal increasing emphasis on “digital investments,” which has become more pronounced in the areas of AC and public sector research. Digital technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), and data analytics have the potential to increase transparency and efficiency in sustainability reporting. The rising occurrence of these terms reflects a trend towards the integration of digital tools into sustainability accounting processes. The need to process data in real-time, improving data integrity and increased availability of sustainability, is likely to continue this transformation. The rise in digital interventions indicates a future direction for sustainability accounting research, where technology plays a decisive role in streamlining analysis and data reporting. This trend also reflects wider global shifts towards digital transformation, especially in public sector organizations, which are increasingly under pressure to modernize their systems to meet the evolving expectations of environmental, social, and governance (ESG). Research in this area can explore how digital tools can improve the integration of sustainability metrics into government decision-making processes, facilitate more accurate reporting, and improve the involvement of stakeholders. As digital intervention continues to inform sustainability accounting procedures, future studies are likely to focus on how these technologies can further support the public sector’s obligation to transparency, responsibility, and sustainability. For example, blockchain could be explored for its potential to provide secure records of sustainability and increase stakeholder confidence. Similarly, AI and machine learning could be used to predict the results of sustainability initiatives and optimize the allocation of resources, which can further improve decision-making processes in public institutions. This shift towards digital tools is expected to have significant implications for research and practice, moving the boundaries of how sustainability is addressed and understood in the public sector.

There were 31 key terms in the co-occurrence analysis, as shown in Figure 11. We further categorized these terms into four different clusters; each assigned a unique color based on how often they appeared together in the research documents. This process of clustering facilitates the grouping of terms that share common properties.

The red cluster includes words related to the performance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) such as “social responsibility,” “CSR,” “administration,” “impact,” “local administration,” “performance,” and “responsibility.” These conditions emphasize the focus on how organizations, especially in the public sector, deal with their social and environmental obligations. With increasing demand for greater corporate social responsibility, keywords related to CSR have gained meaning, reflecting a wider shift towards the social impact on the organizational strategy. This trend suggests that future research is likely to explore more dynamic approaches to CSR, considering its intersection with the objectives of sustainability and management framework. The green cluster relates to sustainable reporting, with terms such as “assurance,” “future,” “institutional theory,” “management,” “non-financial reports,” “public sector,” “sustainability,” and “sustainable development.” This cluster suggests that sustainability is a key area of interest, with a clear emphasis on reporting and driving non-financial performance. The rise of terms such as “non-financial reporting” and “reporting” signals the growing importance of transparency in sustainability, especially in the public sector. The increasing importance of sustainability in the literature suggests that future research will explore innovative models, addressing how public organizations can better integrate sustainability into their basic operations, in response to both regulatory pressures and social expectations.

The blue cluster contains terms such as “disclosure,” “publication,” “information,” “integrated report,” “legitimacy,” “organization,” and “social responsibility.” This focus reflects the growing importance of providing comprehensive and transparent data on the stakeholders’ sustainability. Integrated reports that combine financial and non-financial performance enhance organizational credibility and show responsibility. As public organizations are facing growing requirements for transparency, future research in this area is likely to explore how disclosure procedures develop and how digital tools can increase the availability and reliability of sustainability information. Finally, the yellow cluster examines responsibility, including terms such as “responsibility,” “framework,” “government,” “involvement of stakeholders,” “stakeholders,” and “state-owned enterprises.” The involvement of all participating stakeholders is increasingly important in the practice of sustainable connection; hence, it is necessary to consider both public and private entities responsible for social and environmental impacts. This trend suggests that future research will examine the role of the structures of public affairs in supporting the cooperation of stakeholders and the transparency of accounting, especially within state enterprises and government organizations. Scientists can also explore the efficiency of different liability frames in increasing transparency and achieving sustainability goals.

Using this categorization technique, we were able to sort the 84 publications into four groups: red (18), green (32), blue (20), and yellow (14). This classification highlights the variety of topics in sustainability accounting and the public sector, reflecting the multidimensional nature of the field.

Table 2. Significance level.

Keywords	Significance Level	Total Link Strength
sustainability reporting	36	124
sustainability	24	85
management	21	87
public sector	19	57
performance	19	67

Note: The table highlights the main keywords related to sustainability accounting and public sector organizations, along with their significance level and total link strength.

shows four terms that have the largest level of network centrality, identifying the most used concepts in literature. These central concepts can lead to future research by pointing to the most critical areas in sustainability and public sector management. Recent trends indicate the growing importance of digital interventions in accounting in terms of a sustainable environment. Technologies such as blockchain, artificial intelligence, and analytics are increasingly being investigated for their potential to improve sustainability reporting, increase transparency, and promote trust. This shift towards digital tools in sustainability accounting suggests that future research will focus strongly on how these technologies can improve the reporting processes, reduce human errors, and ensure timely sustainability data. In particular, the use of blockchain could transform how public sector organizations manage and share sustainability information and offer secure and transparent records. The growing use of digital tools also signals a wider shift toward digital transformation in the public sector. Given that governments face pressure to meet sustainability goals and address public concerns about transparency and responsibility, digital solutions can aid in sustainability data management. This development of sustainability procedures is likely to require a new approach to accounting and reporting with an emphasis on integrating digital tools into traditional sustainability frames. Here, technology will support better cooperation between the stakeholders involved, which further increases the ability of the public sector to meet the goals of sustainability.

3.1.6. Analysis of Clusters

We briefly explore each subset of 84 articles appearing in each cluster to reveal the research themes in the co-occurrence network (Figure 11). We sampled the 10 most cited cells from each cluster. To better understand the concepts, we emphasize the most important themes.

• Red cluster: Corporate social responsibility

The red cluster focuses specifically on corporate social responsibility (CSR) within public sector organizations (PSOs) and emphasizes measurable results and organizational impacts. This cluster examines how PSOs integrate CSR techniques into their operations and evaluates the results of this effort, especially in comparison with their counterparts in the private sector (Hahn & Kühnen, 2013). The key for this cluster is the attention to performance-based aspects such as sustainability metrics, reporting frameworks, and organizational efficiency (Adams et al., 2014; Dumay et al., 2010). Unlike the stakeholder engagement cluster, the performance of the CSR focuses more on quantifiable results and the harmonization of CSR practices with organizational objectives (Farneti & Guthrie, 2009; Greiling et al., 2015).

In addition, there is a remarkable lack of research monitoring the development of CSR practices over time and how public sector performance and public confidence influence each other (Williams et al., 2011; Yu et al., 2017). Another area where our knowledge remains limited is the impact of the participation of the stakeholders in public announcements and the implementation of CSR (Kaur & Lodhia, 2018). Although there are standards of sustainability, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), PSOs face unique challenges when trying to implement them. As a result, public announcements of CSR are often adopted to address these difficulties (Guthrie et al., 2017; Lodhia & Jacobs, 2013).

Another critical problem is the difference in the practices of CSR across different regions and types of PSOs. This emphasizes the need for comparative studies to identify proven procedures and contextual factors that affect the efficacy of CSR (Farneti & Siboni, 2011). In addition, in many PSOs, the integration of financial and non-financial data—known as integrated data—is still in its early stages. The benefits and challenges associated with this approach therefore require further attention (Guthrie et al., 2017; Argento et al., 2019).

Looking to the future, research should address the development of complex CSR frames that consider the specificities of the public sector, including its liabilities and ethos (Hazelton, 2013; Kaur & Lodhia, 2019). Equally important is the role of digital technologies and innovation in increasing the performance and reporting of CSR in PSOs (Biondi & Bracci, 2018; Zhao & Patten, 2016). Finally, exploring the interplay between CSR practices and regulatory environments could provide valuable information on how political frameworks support or prevent CSR initiatives in the public sector (Nicolò et al., 2020; Fusco & Ricci, 2019).

• Green cluster: Sustainability reporting

The green cluster deals with the reporting of sustainability and focuses on the transparency, responsibility, and involvement of the respective stakeholders in public sector organizations (PSO). This cluster differs from the performance of the CSR because it emphasizes the processes and framework used to communicate sustainability efforts, rather than measurable results (Hahn & Kühnen, 2013; Farneti & Guthrie, 2009). Increasing demand for transparency and liability in public services has led to an increase in interest in sustainability reporting; however, significant gaps persist.

One of the key problems is the inconsistent implementation of sustainability reporting in various regions and sectors (Dumay et al., 2010; Greiling et al., 2015). This inconsistency makes it difficult to compare sustainability performance in various PSOs (Adams et al., 2014). The lack of standardized frames and different levels of involvement of stakeholders are further hindered by the ineffectiveness of sustainability reports (Kaur & Lodhia, 2018; Williams et al., 2011).

On the other hand, research suggests that the integration of reports and reflections within PSOs can improve the quality of sustainability reports by providing a more holistic view of organizational performance (Guthrie et al., 2017; Manes-Rossi et al., 2020). Argento et al. (2019) and Nicolò et al. (2020) suggested the need for further investigation into the practices and challenges in conducting integrated reports in the public sector.

In addition, the relationship between the public communication of social responsibility (CSR) and a competitive advantage in PSOs is another area of future research (Yu et al., 2017; Hazelton, 2013). Similarly, the existing literature underlines the importance of involving all stakeholders in the sustainability report. Studies have shown that the effective involvement of the stakeholders involved can lead to more meaningful and relevant information on sustainability (Lodhia & Jacobs, 2013; Kaur & Lodhia, 2014). Despite this, the scope in which all stakeholders are involved in the PSO and the impact of this involvement in the practice of reporting has been insufficiently explored (Farneti & Siboni, 2011; Zhao & Patten, 2016).

In view of this, there is a growing interest in exploring the sustainability reporting of hybrid organizations, such as state-owned enterprises, operating at the intersection of the public and private sectors (Argento et al., 2019; Consolandi et al., 2020). These organizations face unique challenges and opportunities, and understanding these dynamics can provide valuable knowledge for both politicians and experts (Vinnari & Laine, 2013; Manetti et al., 2021).

Finally, recent bibliometric analyses of sustainability research have identified key trends and future research directions (Fusco & Ricci, 2019; Kumar & Prakash, 2019). These studies emphasize the need for more empirical research on the effectiveness of sustainability reporting in improving public sector performance and accountability (Biondi & Bracci, 2018; Joseph et al., 2014). Additionally, there is a need to explore new reporting formats and methodologies that can enhance the comparability and usefulness of sustainability disclosures (Hossain et al., 2016).

• Blue cluster: Disclosure credibility

The blue cluster examines the credibility of public sector organizations (PSOs) in reporting sustainability, focusing on how PSOs use reports to increase their credibility and responsibility. This cluster differs from the performance of CSR and stakeholder engagement because it focuses on the motivation and perceived legitimacy of the information on sustainability, rather than measurable results or engagement dynamics (Hahn & Kühnen, 2013; Dumay et al., 2010). The research shows that PSOs increasingly provide sustainability reports, guided by the need for transparency, responsibility, and involvement of all stakeholders. However, studies reveal an inconsistency and lack of depth in this reporting, emphasizing the need for standardized instructions and complex frames (Farneti & Guthrie, 2009; Guthrie et al., 2017).

The motivation for sustainability reporting also differs significantly. While some PSOs use it to increase credibility, others consider it a check-box exercise (Adams et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2011). Despite progress in this area, there are significant problems regarding the actual impacts and effectiveness of sustainability data reporting. For example, while many PSOs are involved in sustainability reports, the quality and details of these reports are often controversial and raise concerns about their usefulness and authenticity (Kaur & Lodhia, 2018; Greiling et al., 2015).

In addition, there is a tendency to focus on positive aspects and downplay negative results, which can harm the credibility of their messages (Manes-Rossi et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2017). To address these questions, more comprehensive views on organizational performance can be obtained through integrated reporting techniques that include financial and non-financial information (Hazelton, 2013; Lodhia & Jacobs, 2013).

By increasing the relevance and reliability of disclosures, integrated data can improve their decision-making value (Farneti & Siboni, 2011; Argento et al., 2019). Future research should address a combination of sustainable goals with strategic organizational goals (Biondi & Bracci, 2018; Nicolò et al., 2020). In addition, a larger number of empirical studies examining the connections between PSO sustainability and organizational results are required. Vinnari and Laine (2013) and Zhao and Patten (2016) claim that such studies should examine the effects of the disclosures on the relevant stakeholders, the organizational credibility, and public trust.

Finally, despite progress in providing sustainability reports, there are still obstacles that guarantee the validity and effectiveness of sustainability reporting in PSOs. There is an urgent need for real-world research on how sustainability disclosure affects the organization’s performance and the trust of the stakeholders (Kaur & Lodhia, 2019; Consolandi et al., 2020), as well as the creation of standard reporting frames and enhanced financial sustainability.

• Yellow cluster: Stakeholder engagement

The yellow cluster focuses specifically on the responsibility and involvement of stakeholders in public sector organizations (PSOs), emphasizing relational dynamics and processes of building confidence. This cluster differs from the performance of CSR and disclosure credibility because it examines how PSOs promote responsibility and credibility through meaningful interactions of the stakeholders, rather than focusing only on the metrics of performance or credibility (Hahn & Kühnen, 2013). Research in this cluster emphasizes the transparency and involvement of the stakeholders as the basic elements of public sector liability. However, several research gaps and problems need to be solved.

An important gap is the lack of strong evidence as to how effective the strategy of involving stakeholders is in improving the responsibility and performance of the public sector (Kaur & Lodhia, 2019; Guthrie et al., 2017). In addition, although there is significant research on sustainability in the public sector, how these reports integrate with the broader administration and management remains insufficiently explored (Adams et al., 2014; Dumay et al., 2010; Weir, 2018).

Another problem is the inconsistent acceptance of and adherence to standards of reporting in different regions. This inconsistency makes it difficult to compare sustainability procedures (Williams et al., 2011; Greiling et al., 2015). In addition, the involvement of the stakeholders in the reporting process is often shallow, and many organizations focus more on compliance with regulations rather than incorporating the feedback of the stakeholders for strategic decision-making (Kaur & Lodhia, 2018; Farneti & Guthrie, 2009).

This superficial approach can lead to the disillusionment of stakeholders and questions about the authenticity of reports. Looking into the future, there is a need for more complex and integrated approaches to sustainability and responsibility. This includes not only adherence to established instructions, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) initiative, but also the inclusion of frames that combine financial and non-financial performance (Biondi & Bracci, 2018).

In addition, there is a challenge for more robust theoretical frameworks that better capture the complexity of public sector responsibility and the multilateral nature of the stakeholders’ involvement (Hahn & Kühnen, 2013; Hazelton, 2013). Research should also focus on the development and verification of metrics to accurately measure the impact of the involvement of stakeholders on organizational results (Yu et al., 2017; Lodhia & Jacobs, 2013).

This involves exploring how digital platforms and technologies can facilitate more efficient and inclusive procedures for stakeholder involvement (Zhao & Patten, 2016; Vinnari & Laine, 2013). Finally, the solutions to these research gaps and questions are required from scientists from various disciplines, such as public administration, accounting, and organizational behavior, to develop a more comprehensive understanding and involvement of the stakeholders.

3.1.7. Thematic Map

To further investigate the study themes, we constructed a theme map using the Bibliometric package in the R statistical program (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). Using the metrics of centrality and density, this map sorts of research topics into several categories. A subject’s density shows how developed the research into that issue is, while its centrality shows how important it is within the area. The goal was to determine and categorize the important research topics. We began in the lower right corner and worked our way around the map, searching for themes. Topics with low density and high centrality in this area of study have already made significant contributions to the topic. Here, we found sustainable management, integrated reporting, and sustainability reporting as the main topics. These ideas form the backbone of sustainable accounting research for government agencies.

Figure 12 shows the integrated reporting, sustainability reporting, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in further detail. The map’s clusters indicate individual areas of interest for researchers. For example, “China” in Cluster 1 delves into CSR practices in China, “Sustainability Reporting” delves into reporting practices within local governments and stakeholder engagement, “Institutional Theory” into theoretical frameworks connected to sustainability practices, and “Bangladesh” into sustainability in Bangladesh. To provide a full picture of the sustainability reporting research landscape, we present clusters 5–9, which encompass topics such integrated reporting, non-financial reporting, literature reviews, sustainability management, and environmental performance.

3.1.8. Future Priorities

Table 3. Future priorities.

Cluster	Questions	Rationale
Red cluster	When it comes to public sector organizations (PSOs), what motivates them to implement CSR practices?	Understanding the motivations for CSR in PSOs can help develop targeted policies and interventions to promote responsible practices.
	How do these CSR practices impact the performance and public trust of PSOs in the long term?	Assessing the long-term impact of CSR on performance and public trust is crucial for evaluating its effectiveness and justifying investments.
	What are the specific challenges in applying sustainability reporting frameworks such as the GRI in PSOs?	Identifying challenges faced by PSOs in using frameworks such as the GRI can inform the development of more adaptable and user-friendly guidelines.
	How can digital technologies enhance CSR reporting and performance in PSOs?	Exploring the potential of digital tools can identify opportunities to improve efficiency, transparency, and impact of CSR efforts in PSOs.
Green cluster	How can sustainability reporting guidelines be standardized and effectively implemented across different regions and sectors in PSOs?	Standardized reporting frameworks would allow for better comparability of sustainability practices between PSOs in different contexts.
	What are the practicalities and challenges of implementing integrated reporting in the public sector?	Exploring the practicalities of integrated reporting in the public sector can help identify potential roadblocks and develop strategies for successful implementation.
	What is the relationship between CSR disclosures and competitive advantage in PSOs?	Understanding this relationship can inform decisions about the strategic use of CSR disclosures to enhance an organization’s competitive position.
	How can sustainability reporting formats and methodologies be improved for better comparability and usefulness?	Developing more consistent and user-friendly reporting formats can improve the usefulness of sustainability disclosures for stakeholders.
Blue cluster	What are the motivations behind sustainability reporting in PSOs, and how do they vary across organizations?	Understanding motivation can help tailor reporting practices to achieve specific goals and enhance effectiveness.
	How can integrated reporting practices enhance the value and reliability of sustainability disclosures in PSOs?	Integrating financial and non-financial information can provide a more holistic view of an organization’s performance and increase the credibility of disclosures.
	What is the link between sustainability reporting and organizational outcomes like public trust and stakeholder engagement?	Understanding this link can help demonstrate the value of sustainability reporting for PSOs by highlighting its positive impact on stakeholder relationships.
	How do PSOs balance positive and negative disclosures in sustainability reporting to maintain credibility?	Striking a balance between highlighting achievements and acknowledging challenges is essential for maintaining transparency and trust in sustainability reporting.
Yellow cluster	How effective are stakeholder engagement strategies in improving accountability and PSO performance?	Evaluating the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement can help PSOs develop better strategies to enhance public accountability and improve organizational performance.
	How can sustainability and accountability reporting be more comprehensively integrated in PSOs?	A more integrated approach can create a more unified view of an organization’s performance, encompassing both financial and non-financial aspects.
	What are the challenges in adopting and implementing reporting standards consistently across different regions?	Identifying these challenges can inform efforts to develop a more globally applicable approach to sustainability reporting in the public sector.
	How can digital platforms facilitate more effective and inclusive stakeholder engagement practices in PSOs?	Exploring the use of digital tools can help PSOs improve communication and collaboration with stakeholders, leading to more inclusive and effective engagement.

Note: This systematic review explores sustainability accounting in public sector organizations, identifying four key themes: sustainability reporting procedures, social responsibility management, integration into decision-making, and stakeholder engagement. It highlights challenges, future research directions, and the role of digital technologies in enhancing transparency and accountability.

presents sixteen questions that touch on key issues determined through bibliometric study. These questions require further exploration, and we discuss the appropriateness of these questions and why they are part of the analysis.

The increasing interest in the corporate social responsibility (CSR) within public sector organizations (PSOs) reflects the growing recognition of its potential to improve sustainability, responsibility, and organizational performance. However, a few gaps in the research remain, especially in terms of understanding why PSOs value CSR and the effects of these practices compared to the private sector (Hahn & Kühnen, 2013). Most of the existing literature focuses more on descriptive studies than on the processes to manage the acceptance of CSR and its impacts (Farneti & Guthrie, 2009; Greiling et al., 2015). In addition, more reliable methods for evaluating and reporting PSO sustainability (Adams et al., 2014; Dumay et al., 2010) are urgently needed, especially because PSOs face unique challenges in sustainable reporting frames such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (GRI 2013). In addition, some research is lacking; for example, regarding how CSR procedures develop over time and the role of stakeholders in influencing the announcement and implementation of CSR (Kaur & Lodhia, 2018; Williams et al., 2011). Studies have also emphasized differences in CSR practices across regions and types of PSOs, which shows the need for comparative research to identify proven procedures (Farneti & Siboni, 2011; Manes-Rossi et al., 2020).

In parallel with CSR, sustainability reporting has become a critical focus in the public sector. The increased demand for transparency has led to interest in this area, although several challenges persist, such as the inconsistent implementation of instructions for reporting sustainable facilities across regions and sectors (Dumay et al., 2010; Greiling et al., 2015). This inconsistency complicates the comparison of sustainability performances across PSOs (Adams et al., 2014). Research shows that the integration of financial and non-financial data, known as integrated data, can improve the quality of sustainability reports, offering a more holistic view of organizational performance (Guthrie et al., 2017; Manes-Rossi et al., 2020). However, the viability and challenges of integrated data need further research (Argento et al., 2019; Nicolò et al., 2020). In addition, the relationship between CSR disclosure and competitive advantage for PSOs needs further research, as well as the impact of the involvement of stakeholders on the relevance and authenticity of the sustainability report (Kaur & Lodhia, 2014; Zhao & Patten, 2016). An important area of interest is the discussion of hybrid organizations, such as state-owned enterprises operating at the intersection of the public and private sectors, which face unique challenges (Argento et al., 2019; Consolandi et al., 2020).

The credibility of sustainability reporting in PSOs is another area for future research. Research has shown that while sustainability reports are more common in PSO, they lack depth, undermining their credibility (Hahn & Kühnen, 2013; Farneti & Guthrie, 2009). PSOs often use sustainability reports to strengthen their credibility, but in most cases, the reports are for compliance with regulations rather than evidence of accepting responsibility (Adams et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2011). This raises questions about the usefulness and sincerity of the information presented, as PSOs tend to foreground positive results and conceal negative ones that have the potential to discredit their messages (Yu et al., 2017). Integrated reports that combine financial and non-financial information have been designed to increase the relevance and reliability of disclosures, which are valuable for decision-making (Farneti & Siboni, 2011). However, there is a need for more empirical research concerning the connection between reporting sustainability and organizational performance, especially in terms of the stakeholders, organizational credibility, and public confidence (Vinnari & Laine, 2013; Zhao & Patten, 2016).

In connection with the responsibility and involvement of stakeholders, the research underestimates the importance of transparency and involvement in public sector governance. Significant gaps remain in understanding the effectiveness of the involvement of stakeholders in increased credibility and improving the fragmented public sector (Kaur & Lodhia, 2019; Guthrie et al., 2017). In addition, the integration of sustainability reports with the wider framework of administration and governance remains unclear (Adams et al., 2014; Dumay et al., 2010). While PSOs often deal with stakeholders, negotiations tend to be superficial and focus more on compliance with regulations than on the integration of actual feedback into decision-making processes (Kaur & Lodhia, 2018; Farneti & Guthrie, 2009). To respond to these challenges, PSOs must adopt more comprehensive and advanced approaches to reporting sustainability and responsibility, integrating financial and non-financial metrics (Biondi & Bracci, 2018; Manes-Rossi et al., 2020). Future research should focus on the development of more robust theoretical frameworks that have incorporated a sophisticated understanding of public sector responsibility and the role of stakeholders in improving the public sector (Hazelton, 2013; Hahn & Kühnen, 2013).

Since PSOs are increasingly turning to digital technologies and platforms to facilitate the involvement of shareholders, the impact of these innovations on the efficiency of the connection and transparency of reporting (Zhao & Patten, 2016; Vinnari & Laine, 2013) should be further explored. The solutions to these research gaps and challenges will require cooperation across disciplines such as public administration, accounting, and organizational behavior to develop a more comprehensive understanding, the involvement of shareholders, and reporting in the public sector. In the end, this is expected to contribute to improving the credibility, transparency, and efficacy of PSOs in satisfying the growing demand for public responsibility, as shown in Figure 13.

4. Conclusions

4.1. Responses to Questions

This essay began by developing three research questions. RQ1 demonstrated a growing interest in this subject of research through an extensive review of the literature. This interest is, however, followed by what seems to be a fragmentation of scholarly contributions. Additionally, the research also identified a rise in global collaboration among scholars, suggesting an international effort at addressing sustainability issues.

Addressing RQ2, the research identified four main clusters via a co-occurrence network of terms: “corporate social responsibility” (red cluster), “sustainability reporting” (green cluster), “disclosure credibility” (blue cluster), and “stakeholder engagement” (yellow cluster). Additionally, the theme map identified AI as a main driver and sustainability as an emerging theme. For an in-depth overview, Bhatt et al. (2020) and Ferraro et al. (2022) have provided detailed discussions of the recent advances in these areas.

Finally, with respect to RQ3, future research in the field of sustainability accounting and public sector organizations can shape new dimensions of sustainability reporting and social responsibility in these organizations. Additionally, research regarding the legal innovations unleashed by smart contracts would be beneficial. By offering a clear research agenda, this article aims to encourage future research on these significant issues.

4.2. Possible Consequences

The following are possible theoretical and practical consequences from this review.

Theoretical consequences: The clusters can aid theoretical research into the public sector. For example, the focus of the red cluster on the performance of the CSR emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of the motivation for aiming toward CSR in PSOs. There is currently no robust framework for measuring sustainability in the public sector. As a result, this research suggests the need for complex CSR frames adapted to unique public sector mechanisms of responsibility and ethos.

Similarly, exploring sustainability reporting in terms of the green cluster reveals the inconsistent implementation and different levels of involvement of stakeholders. These findings point to the need for theoretical progress in several areas. First, public sector sustainability reports can be more easily compared if they follow established standards. Second, the integration of reporting procedures (financial and non-financial) can provide a more holistic view of organizational performance. Finally, understanding the relationship between the reporting on CSR and the competitive advantage in a PSO can inform strategic decision-making in the public sector.

In the same spirit, exploring disclosure credibility (the blue cluster) emphasizes the importance of understanding the motivation for and the various qualities of sustainability reporting. This research advocates for the promotion of integrated reporting procedures, a theoretical approach that can increase the value and reliability of disclosures. Moreover, to increase the value of public sector reporting, it is essential to investigate the link between sustainability reporting and organizational results (public trust, involvement of stakeholders). The development of more efficient reporting frames, informed by the cluster findings, can eventually lead to more credible and meaningful sustainability reporting.

Finally, the focus of the yellow cluster on stakeholder engagement shows theoretical gaps in understanding the effectiveness of the involvement of stakeholders, the integration of reporting standards, and the role of digital platforms in stakeholder engagement. These findings require the development of complex frames to lead effective stakeholder engagement. Moreover, the metrics for measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement on the performance of a PSO are also essential for understanding the effectiveness of these strategies. In conclusion, the integration of digital technologies into the issue of stakeholder engagement has the potential to improve inclusion and efficiency.

Practical consequences: The research results also have considerable practical implications for politicians, regulatory bodies, organizational leaders, and experts in the public sector. For example, the red cluster insight into CSR and its challenges can inform the development of targeted policies and interventions to support PSO procedures. In addition, policy makers can use this research to create CSR reporting frames and support the use of digital technologies for improved CSR reporting and performance.

Similarly, the green cluster’s emphasis on standardizing instructions for reporting and the integration of reporting procedures has practical consequences for improving the comparability, reliability, and usefulness of sustainability reporting. This can, in turn, inform the strategies of decision-making, strategic planning, and stakeholder engagement in PSOs.

In addition, a survey of disclosure credibility (blue cluster) shows support for integrated reports, improving the quality of reporting, and balancing positive and negative results for credibility. These actions contribute to more meaningful sustainability reporting and improved decision-making processes within PSOs.

Finally, the yellow cluster, focusing on stakeholder involvement, has practical consequences, such as accepting comprehensive approaches to sustainability and responsibility, including integrated frames and the use of digital platforms for the inclusive involvement of stakeholders. These events support transparency, sustainability accounting, confidence in stakeholders, and the performance of the organization.

4.3. Limitations

It is important to acknowledge that this study has limitations. One significant limitation is the exclusive dependence on the Web of Science database. This approach could lead to a narrower review of publications. To overcome this restriction, future literature reviews could include additional databases such as Elsevier–Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane, ensuring a more complex and diverse range of sources for analysis.

Focusing a study on sustainability accounting within the public sector or racing may not fully capture the nuances of the private sector. This limitation emphasizes the need for comparative studies that examine the differences and overlaps between sustainability initiatives in the public and private sectors. In addition, during the research process, the lack of journals specially devoted to public sector accounting, especially in connection with sustainability accounting, was considered. This lack of specialized publication area is likely to contribute to the limited availability of literature focused on this area. As a result, scientists often discuss accounting or sustainability more broadly, which may not always address the problems specific to the public sector. This observation underlines the importance of the development of multiple specialized publication platforms to support research and discourse on sustainability accounting in the public sector.

Moreover, even if the study provides valuable knowledge, it does not offer specific advice for experts or politicians. To solve this gap, future research should include recommendations that can be adapted to the needs of these stakeholders. By emphasizing the need for multiple journals focused on the sustainability of the public sector, this study contributes to the academic community by advocating for increased attention and resources to support this area. Such efforts could increase the visibility and impact of research on sustainability accounting in the public sector, which would eventually benefit scientists and experts.

However, it is important to recognize the limitation of only relying on quantitative bibliometric methods. While these methods provide structured data access to field mapping, they can overlook the nuances that qualitative approaches could reveal. Future research should integrate qualitative methods such as case studies or interviews, to complement the findings of this SLR. These methods could offer a deeper contextual understanding and emphasize the specific challenges facing public sector organizations in the implementation of sustainability accounting procedures.

4.4. Last Remarks

This study provides a valuable source for researchers by offering a comprehensive and current understanding of the issues in sustainability accounting in public sector organizations. It not only emphasizes the connection between sustainability accounting and the public sector but also provides thorough answers to the key questions that have appeared in the literature.

By focusing on both theoretical and practical aspects, this study bridges the gap between two domains and extends the conversation, offering solutions and recommendations. Through the robust and methodologically logical systematic overview of the literature (SLR), each phase combines the relationship between sustainability accounting and the public sector.

The SLR effectively maps the development of the field and draws on a wide range of global perspectives. Although sustainability accounting has significantly progressed in the private sector, its integration into public organizations is an area that requires attention. Authors such as Greiling et al. (2015), and Güngör Göksu (2023) emphasize the need for a greater emphasis on transparency and responsibility in the practical sustainability of the public sector.

Despite the global scope of the SLR, some geographical and institutional contexts remain understudied. For example, in developing countries, especially in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia, there is a remarkable lack of focus on sustainability accounting procedures. In addition, smaller public sector institutions, such as local municipalities, are often overlooked in favor of larger entities. Future studies should address these areas to ensure a more inclusive understanding of sustainability accounting across different contexts.

Recent research has emphasized the growing importance of non-financial reports, in line with the conclusion of this study that the public sector must accept more complex and integrated approaches to sustainability. The research routes identified in this study show exciting future directions to explore the overlap between sustainability and public sector organizations.

Authors such as Hazelton (2013) and Hossain et al. (2016) have noted that these directives emphasize the role of digital technologies in the transformation of sustainability reports and increasing transparency. The integration of digital tools such as blockchain and artificial intelligence into sustainability procedures are likely to affect the future of accounting in the public and private sector, providing new research and innovation opportunities.

Unlike previous studies that focused only on the private sector or sustainability accounting, we carried out a broad investigation that combines both domains; by introducing a unified framework, this study provides a more holistic view of the challenges and opportunities to integrate sustainability accounting into the public sector.

This research also expands the work of scientists such as Yu et al. (2017) and Zhao and Patten (2016), who demanded a deeper exploration of public sector reforms in connection with sustainability. In addition, the study encourages scientists to explore the role of accounting for a sustainable environment in achieving the objectives of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), an area that has gained increasing attention in recent years.

Increasing harmonization between the SDGs and reporting has been emphasized by scientists such as Secundo et al. (2020) and Shoeb et al. (2022), who stated the importance of integrating sustainability into public organizations’ policies and practices. This research emphasizes the need for further investigating how public sector entities can align their accounting procedures for sustainability with the global framework and contribute to wider social goals.

In conclusion, this study offers a well-rounded view of the state of sustainable accounting in public sector organizations and draws on the knowledge of global authors. It emphasizes the use of quantitative bibliometric methods and recommends incorporating qualitative methods such as case studies and interviews to provide richer knowledge in the future. It also identifies underrepresented geographical and institutional contexts and urges scholars to explore sustainability accounting procedures in developing regions and smaller public sector institutions. It provides valuable recommendations for future research, including the roles of digital technologies, transparency, and responsibility in the development of sustainability accounting procedures in the public sector. Through extending the scope of sustainability accounting research, this research encourages further investigation into the synergies between sustainability, management, and administration in the public sector and contributes to a wider dialogue to create more sustainable and responsible public institutions.