Does Sustainability Orientation Drive Financial Success in a Non-Ergodic World? A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

In today’s environment of increased uncertainty, firms face new challenges in aligning sustainability orientation (SO) with financial performance (FP). In this non-ergodic world, past trends offer limited insight into the future due to economic instability, geopolitical conflicts, trade wars, environmental and social disasters, sustainability policy and commitment reversals, etc. To investigate this, we conducted a systematic literature review and topic modelling with a latent Dirichlet allocation of 117 English peer-reviewed articles in management, business, economics, and finance related to SO and FP *. These articles, obtained from Scopus and Web of Science, were open-access and had reached the final publication stage. By integrating resource-based, institutional, and stakeholder theories, we aim to identify the current understanding of the SO concept and the mechanisms linking it to FP. Our findings show that sustainability-oriented firms are better equipped to achieve financial success in a non-ergodic world. However, outcomes vary widely based on context and duration, with existing literature revealing positive and negative relationships or no impact. Topic modelling identified 17 themes, such as stakeholder engagement, business performance, sustainability-oriented innovation and corporate sustainability. We propose five theoretical propositions and forward-looking research directions based on these findings. As a result, our study contributes to the existing academic literature by providing an integrated resource-based, institutional, and stakeholder theory view of the relationship between SO and FP for organisational resilience and outlining future research directions for managing this relationship in a non-ergodic world.

1. Introduction

Increasing environmental, social, and economic complexity have made sustainable development (SD) a central focus in higher education and business management. Escalating pressures from diverse stakeholders—including consumers, regulators, and investors—necessitate that organisations integrate these considerations into their strategies and operational frameworks (Tardin et al., 2024). Initially, sustainability was often perceived as a trade-off that could detract from short-term economic gains (Soo Sung & Park, 2018). However, the recent literature points to a complex and potentially synergistic relationship between SD processes and financial performance (FP) (Pérez & Sevillano, 2025).

Traditional strategic management assumes ergodicity—long-term averages resemble outcomes across possible states (Hitt et al., 2021). In stable contexts, past data offer reliable insights into the future. Today, however, businesses operate in a world of frequent new disruptions—including pandemics, escalating conflicts, geopolitical events, poverty, organised crime, illicit arms trafficking, and the worsening impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss (United Nations, 2024)—which challenge the notion that historical trends can predict future performance.

The new disruptions the world faces create conditions that can be characterised as a non-ergodic world, where historical data provide limited guidance on future outcomes because shocks and paradigm shifts continuously reset the business context (Dunn, 2000; Hitt et al., 2021; North, 1999), essentially becoming the new business-as-usual. We argue that this paradigm shift necessitates firms to integrate the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of SD into their strategies and decision-making processes. This strategic orientation, sustainability orientation (SO), builds resilience and long-term value. In this regard, SO in business, defined as the extent to which firms integrate sustainability principles into their culture, decision-making and processes, becomes increasingly relevant (Claudy et al., 2016; Khizar et al., 2021, 2022; Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010).

Despite extensive research (Ameer & Othman, 2012; Jha & Rangarajan, 2020; Khizar et al., 2021; Nwoba et al., 2021), we identified that the relationship between SO and FP remains inconclusive and theoretically fragmented, particularly in a non-ergodic world environment. Previous studies have produced conflicting results, with some showing a positive relationship (Eccles et al., 2014; Friede et al., 2015) and others highlighting short-term financial trade-offs (Delmas et al., 2015; Nelling & Webb, 2009) or no evidence that sustainability impacts FP (King, 2025). Moreover, 59% of our reviewed articles within this research investigated this relationship without integrating theories or using a single theory, leading to potentially fragmented findings as no single theory captures all multidisciplinary SD concepts (Cabezas et al., 2003). In addition, only 10.3% of the studies reviewed used qualitative or mixed-methods approaches.

To address these gaps, we integrate Resource-Based Theory (RBT), Institutional Theory (IT), and Stakeholder Theory (ST), highlighting their interaction rather than treating them as separate. We argue that RBT (Barney, 1991; Penrose, 1959) describes how firms develop internal capabilities for SD, while IT (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; J. W. Meyer & Rowan, 1977) highlights external pressures and regulatory forces that shape firm behaviour. Furthermore, ST (Clarkson, 1995; Freeman, 1984) bridges these perspectives by emphasising SD’s relational and ethical dimensions, arguing that firms must balance stakeholders’ expectations. By combining these three perspectives, we aim to identify the mechanisms that link SO to FP, set proposals for future research, and formulate the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ1: How is SO defined and conceptualised in the existing academic literature?
• RQ2: How can the relationship between a firm’s SO and FP be characterised?
• RQ3: What are the major themes emerging from recent research on SO and FP?
• RQ4: What knowledge gaps do the major themes reveal for future research?

Our study contributes to the existing literature on SO and FP in several ways. First, while prior research applies a diverse set of theories, our systematic literature review (SLR) is the first in the reviewed studies to jointly integrate RBT, ST, and IT to conceptualise SO and discuss its relationship with FP in a non-ergodic world. Second, we focus on SO and FP, distinguishing it from broader sustainability research centred on reporting (Dincer et al., 2023; Wagenhofer, 2024), regulatory policy analysis (Zetzsche & Anker-Sorensen, 2022), quantitative bibliometric analysis (Frerichs & Teichert, 2023; Zubeltzu-Jaka et al., 2024), etc. Third, to facilitate inductive theme discovery and lessen research bias, we conduct topic modelling using latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) in conjunction with the SLR. Fourth, we expand on this analysis to create theoretical propositions and future RQs. Lastly, we acknowledge that disruptions and uncertainty challenge SD. Therefore, we frame this study within the context of a non-ergodic world.

Following this introduction, Section 2 outlines our SLR and thematic analysis approach, including the literature identification, screening, and inclusion process alongside LDA topic modelling. Section 3 summarises the current understanding of sustainability orientation and proposes a new synthesis of this concept in a non-ergodic world. Section 4 presents the theoretical framework, outlining how RBT, IT, and ST inform the relationship between SO and FP to guide our study. Section 5 presents the SLR and topic modelling results, including the identified topics, the thematic analysis, and the theoretical propositions based on these themes. Section 6 discusses the findings, interprets the results, compares the ergodic and non-ergodic worlds in business management, and sets future RQs based on the findings and thematic analysis. Finally, Section 7 summarises the study’s contributions, implications, limitations, and future research directions.

2. Materials and Methods

In this article, we conducted an SLR using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology to ensure transparency and replicability in our study selection process (Moher et al., 2009), complemented with LDA topic modelling of article abstracts. Although we adhered to PRISMA 2020 guidelines (visualised in Figure 1) to reduce variability in reporting practices and ensure that all essential aspects of our review were thoroughly addressed (Page et al., 2021), the SLR and review protocol were not preregistered in a public repository.

2.1. Approach to Systematic Literature Review

We conducted the literature search for SLR in February 2025. Within the SLR, we searched the literature using two major academic databases, Scopus and Web of Science, which cover a broad range of high-quality journals in business, management, and economics (Linnenluecke et al., 2020). Based on the RQs, we identified relevant keywords to guide our search strategy. These keywords included “sustainab*”, “orient*”, “financ*”, and “perform*”. These terms formed the basis for constructing the search queries and identifying the initial set of literature, as indicated in Appendix A (Stage 1). Furthermore, to ensure the comprehensiveness of our SLR, we included publications up to 2024 (Stage 2).

During the screening process, we filtered the results to include English articles in relevant subject areas (e.g., management, business, economics, and finance) in the final publication stage (Stages 3–6). Notably, we focused solely on peer-reviewed journal publications in this process. For a comprehensive SLR based on full-text availability, we then narrowed our focus to open-access articles (Stage 7). Finally, we merged Scopus and Web of Science data and eliminated duplicates (Stage 8). However, not all of these studies were related to our research. To ensure relevance with SO and FP, we manually screened the titles and abstracts (Stage 9). We then obtained full-text copies of the articles (Stage 10) and reviewed them to comprehensively assess their relevance to our research topic (Stage 11). Throughout this process, we used a data extraction sheet in Microsoft Excel to document and guide the screening process.

We acknowledge that the inclusion/exclusion criteria may introduce bias and that excluding non-English articles, books, theses, dissertations, and working papers could lead to the omission of relevant studies. To mitigate this and ensure the validity, replicability and reliability of our study, we aimed to include a wide range of peer-reviewed research from all journals indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. Furthermore, to improve triangulation and reduce source and geographic bias, using research from various academic databases is considered a best practice (Alaka et al., 2018; Schlosser et al., 2007; Weiss & Kanbach, 2022). Therefore, we did not apply additional filters like journal quality, geography, or minimal citations for SLR. Through this rigorous process, we obtained a final sample of 117 articles for in-depth analysis, LDA topic modelling, thematic analysis, theoretical proposition formulation and future RQs.

We collected and documented the data obtained through SLR using an integrated data extraction sheet in Microsoft Excel. For each study, we captured key details, including the title, authors, year of publication, DOI, summary, research method, limitations and theories applied. To reduce the risk of bias in the selected studies, we conducted a second review of the information in the datasheet. We further synthesised the data in this research using tables, figures and discussion. We also summarised the key findings and identified gaps in the literature. These elements were vital for synthesising the data and effectively addressing the RQ1 and RQ2.

2.2. Approach to Thematic Analysis

In addition to the SLR, we conducted LDA topic modelling on the abstracts of the included 117 articles. For the bibliometric and topic modelling analyses, we utilised RStudio (version 2024.12.1) with relevant packages (Bibliometrix for bibliometric analysis and LDAShiny for topic modelling) due to its flexibility and powerful tools for managing and analysing large datasets within the R programming environment (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017; De la Hoz-M et al., 2021; Donthu et al., 2021).

LDA is a probabilistic model discovering latent topics in large text corpora (De la Hoz-M et al., 2021; Mo et al., 2024). By reducing potential researcher bias in identifying key topics, we used LDA to support RQ3 and RQ4 by uncovering prevalent SO–FP research themes. LDA treats each document (in our case, each article abstract) as a mixture of topics and each topic as a distribution of words, allowing us to identify hidden thematic structures without prior labelling (Blei et al., 2003; Mo et al., 2024). We used the LDAShiny package in R to perform this analysis. Furthermore, to carry out the LDA, we pre-processed the abstract texts as follows:

• converting all text to lowercase;
• removing special characters (e.g., /, ‘, “);
• manually removing section labels in abstracts (e.g., “purpose”, “methodology”, “results”);
• removing any copyright statements;
• removing all numerical characters;
• removing common stop words with no lexical meaning.

Perplexity is an information-theoretic measure where lower values indicate better model predictive ability (Bahl et al., 1983). Consequently, we evaluated model fit using a perplexity curve to determine the appropriate number of topics for LDA (Maier et al., 2018). As shown in Figure 2, perplexity scores improved as the number of topics increased up to a point of 17 topics and then gradually levelled off. We have chosen this specific threshold to effectively balance model accuracy with clarity of interpretation. This threshold resulted in distinct and interpretable topic clusters, and increasing the number of topics beyond this point did not significantly improve perplexity. Figure 2 indicates this with a dashed vertical line at 17 topics and a zoomed-in version to emphasise it.

Appendix B presents the 17 topics with their top 15 most probable keywords, along with each topic’s coherence (a measure of internal consistency) and prevalence (the proportion of the corpus covered by that topic) score. We considered these keywords and revisited the corresponding articles to label and interpret the topics, giving each topic a descriptive label. Furthermore, we manually grouped the 17 topics into five broader thematic categories based on semantic similarity. This categorisation was guided by the extent to which each topic reflected economic, environmental, and social dimensions of SD or conceptual linkages with SO or FP. The topic themes supported us in the further identification and formulation of theoretical propositions and future RQs. The following section provides the existing definitions and understanding of the meanings of SO.

3. Defining Sustainability Orientation

The concept of SO is relatively new in the management literature and has been defined differently. Broadly, the academic literature refers to the degree to which a firm (or sometimes an individual manager) prioritises and integrates environmental, social, and economic principles of SD into its decision making. However, there is no universally accepted definition, but several complementary perspectives exist. Therefore,

Table 1. Definitions of sustainability orientation and their common characteristics.

No.	Definition
1	…a modern approach that involves expanding the economic dimensions of the enterprise’s activity by incorporating environmental protection measures and social responsibility (Turkes, 2024).
2	…the integration of economic, environmental, and social orientation (Jagani & Hong, 2022).
3	…a strategic resource, which can lead to competitive advantage and superior (financial) performance (Claudy et al., 2016).
4	…not merely for a firm’s long-term survival, but also for preservation of social ecosystems at large (Hong et al., 2019).
5	…a combination of economic, green, and social/ethical motives (Haldar, 2019).
6	…the level of concern about the environmental protection and social responsibility of individuals, and consists of items that measure the underlying attitudes and personal traits on environmental protection and social responsibility (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010).
7	…becomes integrated in the organisation when the organisation has both a managerial orientation toward sustainability and an innovation capability (Pagell & Wu, 2009).
8	…illustrates how sustainability factors and issues are executed and performed at an organisation (Emamisaleh & Taimouri, 2021).
9	…the culture, principles, and behaviours that helps firms commit to the creation of superior sustainable practices and efficiently invest resources necessary to develop appropriate new green products, leading to superior green innovation performance (Cheng, 2020).
10	…linked to environmental performance, while social capital and organisational resilience are linked to economic performance (Vallet-Bellmunt et al., 2024).
11	…considered as an organisational resource and a dynamic capability that can yield competitive advantage and superior firm performance (Khizar et al., 2022).

Source: Prepared by the authors based on the systematic literature review.

summarises the current understanding of SO based on the reviewed articles under SLR, categorising and highlighting common characteristics in bold (SD dimensions), italics (capabilities, resources, competitive advantage), and underlined style (resilience).

We argue that most reviewed definitions converge on three common elements. First, 45.5% of definitions include economic, environmental, and social priorities as core components of SO (Haldar, 2019; Jagani & Hong, 2022; Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010; Turkes, 2024; Vallet-Bellmunt et al., 2024), aligning with SD’s and triple bottom line foundational elements. Furthermore, 18.2% of definitions focus on sustainability, which should include these SD dimensions (Emamisaleh & Taimouri, 2021; Pagell & Wu, 2009). This structure reflects an understanding that SO requires integrating a triple bottom line to achieve SD as part of business management concepts. From the ST and IT perspectives, this integration responds to external pressures by encouraging organisations to adopt practices aligned with societal expectations.

Second, 36.4% of definitions describe SO as a strategic resource or capability contributing to long-term outcomes, such as competitive advantage, innovation, and firm-level performance (Cheng, 2020; Claudy et al., 2016; Khizar et al., 2022; Pagell & Wu, 2009). These interpretations place SO within the RBT, viewing it as a dynamic capability supporting FP objectives when effectively developed and applied. There is also a distinction between firm-level SO and individual-level SO. In this study, we argue that both levels are related—managers with a personal SO are more likely to drive their firms towards sustainability (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010).

Third, 27.3% of definitions position SO within the resilience and continuity area. In this context, SO is associated with a firm’s ability to function under uncertainty or disruptions (Emamisaleh & Taimouri, 2021; Hong et al., 2019; Vallet-Bellmunt et al., 2024). This aligns with the idea that SD considerations are necessary for legitimacy, stability, and operational viability in a non-ergodic world. From the ST and IT perspectives, maintaining resilience requires managing diverse stakeholder relationships and aligning their expectations with organisational sustainability practices.

Many definitions note that SO implies viewing SD initiatives not as a cost centre or constraint but as an opportunity for innovation and value creation (Cheng, 2020; Pagell & Wu, 2009). This aligns with our theoretical framing: a firm with an SO seeks to align profit goals with societal goals, finding ways to create economic value by addressing environmental and social issues. The evolution of the SO concept also reflects the growing maturity of the field: it has shifted from viewing SD as peripheral to treating it as integral to how a firm defines its purpose and success. Based on this review of the SO concept and its various definitions, the following section explores the theoretical foundation that guided our study.

4. Theoretical Framework

Recent years have witnessed a series of turbulent and disruptive events, including the COVID-19 pandemic and escalating geopolitical conflicts such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the US–China trade conflict, the India–Pakistan border clashes, and the rising tensions in the Middle East, particularly highlighted by the Israel war with Hamas and Iran. These events, coupled with occurrences like the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the imposition of US tariffs on goods from various countries, stagnant Eurozone economy, inflation in EU and US, and natural disasters such as floods in Spain, Afghanistan, Brazil, Hungary, and Pakistan, tropical storm Trami, wildfires in the US, Canada, Mexico, Croatia, the UAE, and Chile, and an earthquake in Taiwan, have underscored both the urgency and the challenges associated with SD.

Continuous disruptions can hinder long-term sustainability planning, as organisations may be forced to prioritise immediate crisis responses over proactive sustainability initiatives (Conard, 2013; Funtowicz et al., 1998). Therefore, maintaining focus on environmental and social goals amid ongoing shocks is a significant hurdle (Singh, 2016). In this context, as part of our SLR, we reviewed the applied theories and summarised them in

Table 2. The most applied theories within sustainability orientation and financial performance research.

Theory Name	Single Theory Application	Multi-Theory Application	Total Theory Application	% of Reviewed Studies
Stakeholder Theory	8	28	36	30.8%
Resource-Based Theory	4	13	18	15.5%
Institutional Theory	4	8	12	10.4%
Natural Resource-Based View	2	7	9	7.9%
Upper Echelons Theory	3	5	8	7.1%
Agency Theory	1	6	7	6.3%
Legitimacy Theory	0	7	7	6.3%
Dynamic Capabilities Theory	2	5	7	6.4%
Stewardship Theory	2	2	4	3.7%
Resource Dependency Theory	0	3	3	2.8%
Signalling Theory	0	3	3	2.8%
Neoclassical Economic Theory	1	2	3	2.8%

Source: Prepared by the authors based on the systematic literature review. This list includes theories applied in at least three reviewed studies.

to examine the relationship between SO and FP and to explore how firms balance economic, environmental, and social goals from a theoretical perspective.

Furthermore, Table 2 summarises the main theories in the selected 117 articles, distinguishing between single- and multi-theory applications. ST, RBT, and IT were the most frequently used and integrated frameworks. Furthermore, the Natural Resource-based View and the Dynamic Capabilities Theory, extensions of the RBT, are among the most widely used theories in this research field. However, no study HAS integrated all three theories simultaneously. Therefore, we propose to combine them to develop a more comprehensive understanding of SO’s relationship with FP, especially in contexts of uncertainty and disruption in a non-ergodic world.

4.1. Resource-Based Theory

RBT posits that firms achieve sustained competitive advantage by developing and deploying resources and capabilities that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and well-organised—commonly referred to as the VRIO framework (Barney, 1991; Kozlenkova et al., 2014). Traditionally rooted in value creation logic (Barney et al., 2021), this classic RBT has been criticised for a narrow focus on economic outcomes and a materialist orientation that may overlook broader societal and environmental goals (Bell & Dyck, 2011).

Two extensions of RBT address this shortfall. The Natural Resource-Based View extends RBT by explicitly including the natural environment in the firm’s resource base (Hart, 1995). It identifies three sustainability-related capabilities—pollution prevention, product stewardship, and SD—as distinct drivers of competitive advantage (Hart & Dowell, 2011). We argue that these sustainability-related capabilities, alongside classical RBT (focusing on the economic dimension of SD), fulfil the VRIO criteria by being cost-saving or revenue-generating (valuable), difficult for competitors to replicate (rare), embedded in culture and complex processes (inimitable), and supported by organisational commitment (organisational).

Furthermore, the Dynamic Capabilities Theory extends RBT by explaining how firms adapt and renew their resource base in response to change (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003; Teece, 2007). In the context of SD, we argue that this involves sensing and seizing new SD opportunities and transforming the resource base accordingly. While the Natural Resource-Based View recognises SD as a capability, it primarily focuses on environmental resources. In this context, we further argue that SO, rather than SD, is a capability, illustrating how a firm cultivates its resources and competencies to advance SD. Furthermore, Dynamic Capabilities Theory underscores the importance of continuous evolution, which, together with the Natural Resource-Based View, is particularly relevant for firms navigating uncertainty in a non-ergodic world.

From an RBT perspective, we suggest that SO can be seen as an inside-out strategic resource and capability that, if developed effectively, yields performance benefits and provides a sustained competitive advantage. By proactively addressing environmental and social issues, firms can also increase their resilience to shocks and disruptions—for example, by complying early with regulations, preparing for environmental and geopolitical disasters or avoiding reputational issues—thereby protecting FP in a volatile environment. However, RBT alone cannot account for why firms embark on SD in the first place when it might not yield immediate returns.

4.2. Institutional Theory

IT explains how external forces such as regulations, norms, and societal expectations shape organisational behaviour (Scott, 2008). Firms are embedded in broader institutional environments and often adopt practices to gain legitimacy and support from key stakeholders, including regulators, investors, and the public (Herold, 2018; Nasta et al., 2024). While IT helps understand how SD processes diffuse across organisations, it has been criticised for its strong emphasis on isomorphism—the tendency of organisations to become similar over time—which may overlook the adaptive and context-specific strategies required for practical SD (R. E. Meyer & Höllerer, 2014).

In the context of SD, we argue that IT sheds light on various pressures that motivate firms to adopt SD processes: regulatory pressures (e.g., laws, mandates), normative pressures (e.g., industry best practices and societal expectations), and cognitive pressures (e.g., imitating peers or leading firms in the face of uncertainty) (Burdon & Sorour, 2020; Pasamar et al., 2023; Sine et al., 2022; Willmott, 2015). To survive and thrive, organisations must adapt to these evolving cultural and normative frameworks (Scott et al., 2004). From this perspective, IT reflects an outside-in process, whereby external forces shape internal strategies and decision-making—in contrast to the inside-out view of RBT, where SD arises from internal capabilities.

Importantly, the inside-out perspective of RBT and the outside-in of IT are not mutually exclusive. Firms can transform external sustainability pressures into enduring capabilities—moving beyond mere compliance (often critiqued as greenwashing) towards broad innovations. This adaptive capacity becomes especially valuable in a non-ergodic world with fluid and unpredictable institutional landscapes. Notably, the potential impact of the EU’s Omnibus I1 and the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement2 and UN Loss and Damage fund3, as well as a review of the membership in UNESCO4 signals increased fragmentation of global SD policy. Still, IT does not fully explain how firms differ in their responses or how they leverage stakeholder relationships in this process.

4.3. Stakeholder Theory

ST views value creation as a collaborative process in which stakeholders act as both beneficiaries and contributors—an essential aspect of sustainable business models (Freudenreich et al., 2020). The survival and success of a firm depend on effectively balancing and managing diverse stakeholder interests (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984). SO should, therefore, be inherently stakeholder-centred, addressing a wide range of expectations while balancing economic, environmental, and social objectives—often referred to as the triple bottom line of people, planet, and profit (Elkington, 1997). However, ST has been criticised for offering limited guidance on achieving sustainability outcomes, suggesting a need for theoretical extensions (Clifton & Amran, 2011).

One such extension is the Organisation-Stakeholder Fit (O-S Fit) Theory, which emphasises the compatibility between an organisation and its individual stakeholders (Bundy et al., 2018; Parmar et al., 2010). O-S Fit Theory introduces two core dimensions: value congruence (similarity in values and beliefs) and strategic complementarity (mutual ability to provide needed resources) (Bundy et al., 2018). High fit along these dimensions fosters trust, predictability, attraction, and communication, whereas misfits can result in conflict or disengagement (Bundy et al., 2018; Hess & Hess, 2016). Proactively involving stakeholders through dialogue, partnerships, and transparent reporting can help a firm anticipate concerns, collaborate on solutions, and secure the “social licence to operate,” particularly in a non-ergodic world.

We argue that ST bridges RBT and IT by focusing on relational and ethical drivers. ST highlights outside-in mechanisms (stakeholder pressures pushing firms toward SD) and inside-out mechanisms (proactive stakeholder engagement driving innovation). In practice, this means embedding stakeholder considerations of the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of SD into decision making (e.g., stakeholder engagement processes, transparent sustainability reporting, co-creation of solutions with communities, etc.), thereby influencing the SO of a firm. Furthermore, in a non-ergodic, unpredictable context, strong stakeholder relationships may act as a buffer and a source of resilience.

4.4. Combination of the Theoretical Framework

By combining these three frameworks, we propose an integrated conceptualisation of SO:

SO is a proactive and holistic strategic stance that integrates environmental, social and economic considerations into values, resources, decision making and operations to create long-term value and achieve SD at individual, group, organisational, regional, national and global levels. It reflects an internal capability—developing unique resources and competencies for SD—while responding to external opportunities and threats and aligning with surrounding stakeholder interests.

We propose that the basis for attaining SD at all levels, from the individual to the global, is SO, as shown in Figure 3. At the organisational level, a truly sustainability-oriented firm should view sustainability as a core principle, integrating it into all levels of business management concepts and practices to achieve SD. It should leverage internal capabilities (RBT), meet external expectations (IT), and balance stakeholder needs and demands (ST) to achieve a sustained competitive advantage in a non-ergodic world. Notably, many existing definitions focus on organisational-level SO, but this process begins with individuals and groups, each contributing to establishing SO within firms to advance towards SD.

We argue that, in a non-ergodic world, inside-out and outside-in effects within the SO have a particularly significant impact. Ergodicity, which is defined as the situation in which the expectation value of an observable equals its time average (Meder et al., 2021), is a relevant concept in an ergodic world. However, a non-ergodic world is characterised by the opposite—historical data and trends are unstable due to discontinuous and unpredictable disruptions and, when interconnected, even polycrises. Accordingly, traditional models may need revision to reflect this non-ergodic behaviour and better represent actual economic dynamics (Peters, 2019). Moreover, after these disruptions and polycrises, equilibrium does not revert to the state before them (Dunn, 2000; Hitt et al., 2021; North, 1999), changing and creating a new business-as-usual. Therefore, organisations must respond and adopt business management concepts prioritising SD, flexibility, responsiveness, and resilience. In this context, Figure 3 depicts a dynamic configuration, where volatility and change through inside-out and outside-in impacts continuously reshape the business-as-usual, including interaction between internal capabilities, institutional demands, and stakeholder relationships.

RBT contributes to the idea that SO can be an internal strategic resource and a capability for competitive advantage. IT contributes to the recognition that external forces compel and shape a firm’s sustainability actions. Furthermore, ST contributes the understanding that engaging with stakeholders and addressing their concerns is crucial for long-term success. This integrated theoretical understanding is summarised in

Table 3. Summary of the combined theoretical framework.

Theory and Impact on Sustainability Orientation	Focus	Key Implications
Resource-Based Theory: inside-out	Firm’s internal resources and capabilities (Barney, 1991; Penrose, 1959)	Unique value creation, innovation, competitive advantage
Institutional Theory: outside-in	External institutions and societal norms (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; J. W. Meyer & Rowan, 1977)	Compliance, legitimacy, norms, sector-wide change
Stakeholder Theory: inside-out and outside-in	Stakeholder interests and relationships (Clarkson, 1995; Freeman, 1984)	Ethical responsibility, performance improvement

Source: Prepared by the authors based on the reviewed theories. In this study, we argue that inside-out impact shows how the firm’s internal capabilities impact the external environment, while outside-in impact shows how the external environment affects the firm’s sustainability orientation.

. It sets the scene for the next section, which examines the relationship between SO and FP in the existing academic research through SLR and LDA topic modelling.

5. Sustainability Orientation and Financial Performance

This section presents the findings from our SLR and the LDA topic modelling, organised around key emerging themes. We used SLR as it is characterised by structured methods of synthesising results, which lead to an unbiased literature search with enhanced efficiency and quality (Pahlevan-Sharif et al., 2019). In this context,

Table 4. Main information about the articles included in the systematic literature review.

Description	Results
Timespan (years)	2008:2024
Sources (number of journals)	78
Articles (number)	117
Annual growth rate (%)	23.7
Article average age (years)	3.4
Average citations per article (number)	50.2
Keywords (number of keywords plus the author’s keywords)	925
Authors (number)	360
Single-authored articles (number)	13
Co-Authors per article (number)	3.3
International co-authorships (%)	40.2

Source: Prepared by the authors based on the bibliometric analysis in Bibliometrix.

summarises the evolution of academic research on SO and FP. We systematically reviewed 117 articles published in this area between 2008 and 2024, which showed a consistent annual growth rate of 23.7%. Our analysis included 360 authors publishing in 78 journals, averaging 3.3 co-authors per article. The average age of the articles (3.4 years) shows the recent nature of this research. Moreover, the average citation rate of 50.2 citations per article underlines the relevance and applicability of the research. Furthermore, the international collaboration rate of 40.2% demonstrates the global scope of SO and FP research.

Notably, we excluded all non-open-access articles at Stage 7 of the SLR to ensure a comprehensive review of the available full-text articles. In this context, four open-access articles were unavailable for inclusion/exclusion at Stage 10. Accordingly, we acknowledge this potential bias arising from the missing results. The LDA topic modelling further identified 17 topics, which are grouped under five broader thematic categories corresponding to the three dimensions of SD alongside SO and FP as standalone groups. We also review the relevant academic literature from the 117 reviewed articles to contextualise these themes and propose further theoretical propositions.

5.1. Sustainability Orientation and Financial Performance: Overall Relationship

The relationship between sustainability and FP has been the subject of extensive empirical research. While findings vary, many studies find that firms with a strong SO tend to achieve better financial results, supporting the adage that firms can “do well by doing good”. For example, entrepreneurial and environmental SOs have been positively associated with firm performance (Roxas et al., 2017). Similarly, among family and non-family firms, environmental SO was linked to better performance (Adomako et al., 2019). A meta-analysis of more than 2000 studies concluded that sustainability and FP are generally not in conflict, with the majority finding a positive relationship (Friede et al., 2015).

However, the relationship is not uniformly positive in all contexts. Some research suggests that sustainability initiatives involve substantial upfront investments and implementation challenges, potentially leading to short-term financial declines (Wu et al., 2018). Others highlight trade-offs, showing that under certain conditions, additional environmental expenditures yield diminishing financial returns (Delmas et al., 2015) or that when controlling for other factors, the apparent financial benefit of processes such as CSR can disappear, suggesting no direct short-run effect (Nelling & Webb, 2009). These findings indicate that SO alone does not guarantee financial success—rather, its effectiveness is contingent upon thoughtful implementation and a long-term strategic horizon.

It is important to note that contextual variables affect the SO-FP relationship, especially in a non-ergodic world where our current business-as-usual has been affected by various disruptions and shocks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, trade wars, economic stagnation and natural disasters. Furthermore, prior studies have shown that industry characteristics, regulatory frameworks, consumer preferences, and firm size influence this relationship’s strength and direction (Ameer & Othman, 2012; Rajnoha et al., 2016). Studies also demonstrate that high levels of external uncertainty can alter how firms perceive and manage sustainability (Gonzalez-Ramos et al., 2023).

Market pressure can condition the relationship between available resources and sustainability-related investment. For example, external market pressures influence how financial resource slack affects sustainability expenditure, which is linked to SO (Boso et al., 2017). Firms that actively engage stakeholders—by embedding stakeholder expectations and feedback into decision making—tend to experience more favourable financial outcomes from their sustainability strategies (Adomako et al., 2019; Danso et al., 2020). Organisational resilience is another key factor, especially in a non-ergodic world—firms with higher levels of social capital and resilience are better equipped to translate sustainability investments into financial benefits, particularly during periods of disruption (Vallet-Bellmunt et al., 2024).

The role of shocks, crises, and disruptions has become increasingly prominent in academic research. For example, economic crises can alter the effectiveness of drivers of environmental performance, impacting the relationship between SO and FP (Arco-Castro et al., 2024). The COVID-19 pandemic has been identified as a crisis that controversially impacted the relationship between ESG (environmental, social and governance) and FP in the banking sector (Yuen et al., 2022). Natural disasters have also been noted as significant setbacks that test organisational resilience, influencing how firms with an SO respond and maintain FP (Carmeli et al., 2020). Notably, performance downturns during crises may increase managerial attention to SD issues, prompting reassessment and, in some cases, leading to learning and innovation (Andersen, 2022; Dvorsky et al., 2023).

Although a robust SO frequently correlates with enhanced FP, this relationship is not universal, especially in a non-ergodic world. Instead, it is influenced by various organisational, strategic, environmental, and relational factors. Future research should explore these mechanisms, concentrating on conditional effects, longitudinal dynamics, and sectoral, geographical and cultural variations.

Furthermore, we argue that FP and the economic dimension of SD are related but not synonymous. FP evaluates a firm’s monetary outcomes over a specific timeframe, such as profitability, sales growth, market value, etc. (Herli et al., 2024; Kiran et al., 2024; Ononye et al., 2022; Valdez-Juarez et al., 2024). In contrast, the economic dimension of SD extends beyond this and contributes to economic productivity and societal well-being (Baxter & Chipulu, 2023; Straková, 2015; Turkes, 2024). Furthermore, it is inherently connected to the triple bottom line, requiring balance across all three SD dimensions (Chistov et al., 2023; Ghassim & Bogers, 2019; Karman & Savaneviciene, 2021; Zubeltzu-Jaka et al., 2024). Notably, lacking clarity in this area can lead to a sustainability paradox where firms prioritise FP or specific dimensions of SD over broader SD outcomes, creating tensions in business sustainability (Albertsen, 2025; Hahn et al., 2018). Therefore, we propose that the FP of firms with a well-established and balanced SO should result from sustainable performance, including activities and decisions aligned with all dimensions of SD.

5.2. Topic Modelling

Using LDA topic modelling on the corpus of 117 reviewed article abstracts, we identified 17 distinct topics, which we manually grouped into five broader categories corresponding to key dimensions of SD: (1) SO as a concept, (2–4) three dimensions of SD, and (5) FP outcomes. Appendix B provides the detailed results of the topic modelling, including the 15 most frequent terms associated with each topic, which we considered when grouping the topics into categories.

Table 5. Summary of themes derived from the topic modelling using latent Dirichlet allocation.

Category Name	Topic Name and ID
Sustainability and sustainability orientation as a concept	Sustainability Orientation (Topics 16 and 11)
	Structural Equation (Topic 2)
	Corporate Sustainability (Topic 1)
Environmental dimension	Environmental Disclosure and Performance (Topics 10 and 13)
	Oriented Innovation (Topic 5)
Social dimension	Gender Diversity (Topic 8)
	Corporate Social (Topic 7) and Social Responsibility (Topic 6)
	Stakeholder Engagement (Topic 4)
Economic dimension	Business Performance (Topic 3)
	Bank Performance (Topic 12)
Financial performance	Financial Performance (Topics 14, 15 and 17)
	Sustainable Performance (Topic 9)

Source: Prepared by the authors based on the results of topic modelling using LDA.

further summarises the themes derived from the LDA topic modelling.

The topic modelling results reveal that SO influences FP through multiple pathways. Some themes emphasise internal capabilities and innovation (aligning with RBT). Other themes highlight external legitimacy and compliance (aligning with IT). Yet others underscore stakeholder relationships and governance (aligning with ST). The integrated perspective is that a firm’s SO is a versatile construct functioning on all these levels: it is simultaneously an internal resource, a capability, an external adaptive response, and a stakeholder commitment. This integrated view is crucial for understanding why and how sustainability-oriented firms can financially outperform their peers, especially under conditions of high uncertainty in a non-ergodic world.

Despite these insights, gaps remain in understanding the link between SO and FP. Findings suggest that while SO is generally beneficial, its effectiveness varies across industries, firm sizes, and geographic regions (Rajnoha et al., 2016, 2017). Moreover, methodological limitations in existing empirical studies—such as potential endogeneity issues, selection bias, and inconsistent sustainability metrics—pose challenges in establishing clear causality (Pinzon-Castro & Maldonado-Guzman, 2023; Zumente & Bistrova, 2021). Addressing these limitations will require further empirical validation and comparative studies on SO and FP across different institutional and cultural settings.

5.3. Thematic Analysis

We developed a set of five theoretical propositions derived from our LDA topic modelling in response to the identified gaps. These propositions are grounded in the insights from the reviewed 117 articles of our SLR.

Proposition 1.

A clearly defined and strategically integrated SO is a strategic resource and internal capability that promotes innovation, value creation, and long-term resilience against environmental, social, and economic disruptions.

A clearly defined and strategically integrated SO is a dynamic capability that supports value creation, continuous innovation, and long-term organisational resilience in a volatile business environment. Our LDA topic modelling confirms the importance of SO conceptualisation and modelling frameworks (Topic 1, 2, 11, 16 from Appendix B). As articulated through RBT (Barney, 1991) and Dynamic Capabilities Theory (Teece, 2007), SO can become a VRIO resource when embedded across strategic functions. Evidence indicates that a proactive SO is more than mere compliance; it is a fundamental approach to how a firm operates and strives for competitive advantage (Vallet-Bellmunt et al., 2024). Empirical studies have found that a strong SO can positively influence financial and environmental outcomes (Fatoki, 2019; Wu et al., 2018).

SO, in the existing literature, is linked to organisational resilience, which helps firms manage change effectively and recover from disruptions (Vallet-Bellmunt et al., 2024). By proactively integrating SD considerations, firms can build long-term sustainability and overcome vulnerabilities (Esposito et al., 2023; Turkes, 2024). The market, including customers and investors, increasingly values sustainability performance and makes it a relevant factor in their decisions (Zumente & Bistrova, 2021). Notably, a focus on the triple bottom line through SO contributes to the long-term survival and sustainability of the firm (Esposito et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2022).

Proposition 2.

In a world of green policy and commitment reversals, and escalating environmental disruptions, firms that proactively embed environmental SD into corporate governance, strategic planning, and reporting frameworks are more adept at maintaining legitimacy and operational resilience.

Firms incorporating environmental concerns into their strategic planning and disclosure frameworks are more adept at managing institutional expectations and preparing for environmental uncertainties. The Natural Resource-Based View (Hart, 1995) and IT (Scott, 2008) collectively suggest that proactive environmental innovation and transparency boost efficiency and legitimacy. Our LDA topic modelling results highlight environmental disclosure and sustainability-driven innovation (Topics 5, 10, 13 from Appendix B) as mechanisms that allow firms to adapt to shocks while reinforcing stakeholder confidence. The existing literature suggests that firms adopting environment-friendly policies can improve their image with investors, governments, and lenders (Cosma et al., 2021).

Notably, integrating sustainability into business processes helps firms maintain legitimacy with stakeholders and secure their licence to operate (Busch et al., 2024). Environmental management processes can help firms avoid environmental disasters, fines, and the need for amends (Almada et al., 2022). The transparent reporting of environmental data can reduce information asymmetry and enhance an organisation’s transparency, potentially improving investment efficiency and legitimacy (Kiran et al., 2024). However, prioritising environmental problems requires firms to understand their actions within interdependent ecosystems, leading to broader sustainability initiatives (Busch et al., 2024).

Proposition 3.

Firms that prioritise social responsibility and actively engage with stakeholders, promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, can enhance stakeholder trust and robust reputational resilience in a world of growing political tensions, military conflicts, and social disasters.

Social responsibility, stakeholder inclusivity, and ethical governance processes are essential to a credible and effective SO. In this context, ST (Freeman et al., 2021; Parmar et al., 2010) posits that balancing diverse interests promotes long-term trust and reputational capital. Our LDA topic modelling results underscore the importance of diverse boards (Topic 8 from Appendix B), stakeholder engagement (Topic 4 from Appendix B), and authentic CSR commitments (Topics 6 and 7 from Appendix B). Timely stakeholder engagement allows firms to communicate their sustainability commitments, enabling stakeholders to evaluate adherence to non-financial missions and hold firms accountable, fostering trust (She & Michelon, 2023).

A large body of research in different contexts highlights the vital role of diversity, equity and inclusion from the leadership and management of firms (Issa & Hanaysha, 2023; Myeni & Singh, 2024; Wale, 2015; Zubeltzu-Jaka et al., 2024). Notably, firms with gender-diverse boards and dedicated CSR committees tend to achieve better sustainability outcomes (Bigelli et al., 2023), which can translate into reputational and financial benefits. The existing literature indicates that sustainability-oriented innovation, often driven by stakeholder engagement, acts as a capability that helps firms respond to sustainability challenges and improve competitiveness, which can enhance stakeholder confidence and trust in the firm’s long-term vision (Ghassim & Bogers, 2019).

Proposition 4.

Firms can leverage SO to gain a competitive advantage and bolster their resilience against macroeconomic shocks and induced disruptions caused by sudden policy changes, geopolitical tensions, and trade wars.

Strategic deployment of SO enables firms to improve weather macroeconomic volatility. RBT emphasises the value of integrating sustainability into cost structures and innovation pathways (Barney, 1991; Hart & Dowell, 2011), while IT highlights the importance of alignment with sector-specific norms (Herold, 2018; Nasta et al., 2024). Our LDA topic modelling results indicate that SO improves efficiency and risk responsiveness across sectors, including financial services (Topics 3 and 12 from Appendix B). SO is a capability that enables enterprises to undertake risky and innovative initiatives, contributing to long-term competitive advantages and superior FP (Turkes, 2024). Organisational resilience, the ability to recover from disruptions, can be enhanced by a firm’s ability to sense and seize opportunities in SD (Vallet-Bellmunt et al., 2024).

Furthermore, traditionally measured by financial metrics, performance evaluation is evolving to encompass environmental and social impacts, reflecting a more holistic view of organisational effectiveness (Fatoki, 2019). Management is critical in navigating this shift and integrating sustainable processes into core strategies and operations (Hristov et al., 2022). The UN Sustainable Development Goals provide the overarching framework for this integration (Ghassim & Bogers, 2019). At the corporate level, this involves, for example, embedding SD in governance structures and accountability mechanisms (She & Michelon, 2023).

Proposition 5.

The financial advantages of SO are not immediate and are contingent upon context and firms’ capacity to utilise their dynamic capabilities and external expectations effectively.

Institutional, strategic, and temporal contingencies shape the SO-FP relationship. We argue that the benefits of SO are not immediate; they accrue over time and often depend on how firms deploy their internal capabilities and interpret external constraints. It takes time to implement sustainability thinking into a firm’s competitive strategic mindset and for sustainability-oriented dynamic capabilities to generate growth returns (Klein et al., 2021; Yi & Demirel, 2023). Our LDA topic modelling results confirm this, highlighting FP (Topics 9, 14, 15, 17 from Appendix B) as an outcome influenced by governance quality, stakeholder alignment, sectoral characteristics, etc. Existing research shows that sustainability-driven innovation can improve cost efficiency and create competitive advantages, increasing profitability (Hang et al., 2022; Hristov et al., 2022).

The existing research also notes that the adverse effect of financial slack on sustainability expenditure becomes positive when levels of market pressure are higher but more negative when levels of political connectedness are more significant in developing economies (Boso et al., 2017). Achieving positive, sustainable performance can create long-term value and competitive advantage (Ghassim & Bogers, 2019; Karman & Savaneviciene, 2021). Therefore, understanding the interplay between these factors is crucial for firms seeking sustained success (Rajnoha et al., 2016, 2017). It also requires a strategic commitment (formed by SO) to integrate social and environmental considerations into business operations (Baxter & Chipulu, 2023; Hristov et al., 2022).

A solid understanding of FP is crucial for assessing an organisation’s health and management effectiveness (Herli et al., 2024). However, achieving strong triple-bottom-line performance demands a dedicated strategy that integrates sustainability considerations into all operations, reflecting the evolving understanding that profitability must coincide with social and environmental responsibility (Baxter & Chipulu, 2023; Hristov et al., 2022). Collectively, these five propositions outline a comprehensive framework linking SO to FP through all dimensions of SD and under different conditions. In this context, the following section discusses our main results and contributions.

6. Discussion

This study investigated the link between SO and FP in a non-ergodic world where past trends have limited predictive power for future decision making (Hitt et al., 2021; North, 1999). Decision making is one of the critical processes in which SO’s economic, social and environmental dimensions must be integrated (Claudy et al., 2016; Khizar et al., 2021, 2022; Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010). By conducting an SLR following PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009; Page et al., 2022) and applying topic modelling with LDA (Mo et al., 2024), we identified 117 articles and 17 topics highlighting the mechanisms through which SO and financial outcomes are being explored.

One challenge in the existing literature is the lack of a single consensual definition of SO. Different authors have conceptualised SO in various ways, leading to a potential paradox whereby organisations might prioritise FP over long-term SD outcomes if SO is not clearly defined (Carmine & De Marchi, 2023; Durden, 2008). To address this gap, we propose conceptualising SO using the RBT, IT and ST (see Section 4). This integrated definition views SO as a proactive, holistic strategic stance that embeds environmental, social, and economic considerations for its development throughout the firm’s values, resources, decision making and processes, aligning internal capabilities with external pressures and opportunities and stakeholder expectations.

The results show that while a strong SO is generally associated with positive FP, its impact remains highly context-dependent (Eccles et al., 2014; Friede et al., 2015). Thus, sustainability initiatives do not always yield immediate financial benefits due to initial investment costs, regulatory constraints and short-term trade-offs (Crisóstomo et al., 2011; Delmas et al., 2015; Nelling & Webb, 2009). Furthermore, our findings confirm that no single theory fully explains the relationship between SO and FP. RBT suggests that sustainability-oriented firms can develop unique internal capabilities that provide a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Hart & Dowell, 2011). However, sustainability investments are often driven by external pressures such as regulatory mandates and industry norms, which can be explained by IT (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 2008).

Firms operating in highly regulated environments may experience more significant financial returns from sustainability initiatives due to compliance pressures and evolving industry standards (Herold, 2018; Nasta et al., 2024). Moreover, firms and their SOs do not operate in isolation. ST highlights that organisations must align with the expectations of investors, employees, and consumers to achieve financial benefits (Clarkson, 1995; Freeman, 1984). This suggests that firms engaging in proactive stakeholder management—such as maintaining diverse boards and transparent sustainability reporting—are likelier to see improved financial outcomes (Bigelli et al., 2023; Dobija et al., 2023). By integrating these three theoretical perspectives, we can better explain the conditions under which SO impacts FP.

A sustainability-oriented firm should incorporate economic, environmental, and social factors into its business management concepts, operational processes, and decision making. Furthermore, sustainability should not be viewed as an additional burden or limitation but rather as a valuable opportunity and a guiding principle that shapes its overall approach. Another important insight from our analysis is the role of the non-ergodic world. Traditional strategic management assumes ergodicity with stable probabilities and predictable patterns, which may not hold in today’s continuous disruptions. Therefore, in

Table 6. Comparison of ergodic vs. non-ergodic world in business management.

Characteristic	Ergodic World	Non-Ergodic World	Implications for Firms
Predictability	Relatively high; past data reliably predict the future	Relatively low; past data are less reliable for future predictions	Traditional forecasting methods may be less effective; scenario planning and agility are needed.
Equilibrium	Stable, predictable long-term equilibrium	Lack of stable, predictable long-term equilibrium	Cannot expect a return to pre-disruption states; continuous adaptation is required.
Role of the past	Significant; used for forecasting and planning	Limited disruptions create new contexts and the new business-as-usual environment	Historical data are less reliable; real-time monitoring and learning are needed.
Nature of change	Gradual, incremental	Rapid, discontinuous, and interconnected	Organisations must be flexible and responsive to sudden shifts and cascading effects.
Focus of strategy	Long-term static planning based on predictions	Dynamic adaptation and building resilience	Shift from rigid plans to agile strategizing and the ability to evolve and adjust.
Implications	Emphasis on efficiency and optimisation	Focus on adaptability, resilience, and learning	Building dynamic capabilities becomes paramount for survival and sustained competitive advantage.

Source: Created by the authors based on study findings.

, we compare an ergodic and a non-ergodic world regarding key business assumptions and strategic implications, which, we argue, are crucial when forming and realising a firm’s SO.

This comparison underscores why strategies must evolve: under these conditions, adaptability and resilience, alongside strong SO materialising through decision making, become crucial for long-term success. Firms and their managers need agile strategies, real-time learning, and dynamic capabilities alongside new strategic management approaches in a non-ergodic world, such as strategic foresight and a shift in emphasis towards strategic moves in the short term, e.g., business model innovation, to survive and thrive when historical patterns no longer hold (Járfás, 2023; Joglekar & Phadnis, 2021; Mitroff & Alpaslan, 2003; Schoemaker et al., 2018).

We argue that in the non-ergodic world environment, adopting an SO can be a part of building organisational resilience. This involves developing internal capabilities for potential economic, social and environmental disruptions, aligning with evolving regulations, norms, best practices, and stakeholder expectations. Additionally, continuous innovation is required to handle disruptions effectively. Therefore, based on our findings and LDA topic modelling results, we further suggest several directions for future research in

Table 7. Summary of theoretical propositions and future research questions.

Theoretical Proposition	Topic Theme	Future Research Questions
A clearly defined and strategically integrated SO is a strategic resource and internal capability that promotes innovation, value creation, and long-term resilience against environmental, social, and economic disruptions.	Sustainability orientation (Topics 16 and 11)	1. How does the impact of SO on FP vary across industries, sectors, cultural contexts or market conditions?
	Structural equation (Topic 2)	2. What are the key mediating factors through which SO affects financial outcomes?
	Corporate sustainability (Topic 1)	3. Under what conditions (e.g., firm size, leadership commitment, culture, etc.) does integrating sustainability into strategy yield financial benefits?
In a world of green policy and commitment reversals and escalating environmental disruptions, firms that proactively embed environmental SD into corporate governance, strategic planning, and reporting frameworks are more adept at maintaining legitimacy and operational resilience.	Environmental disclosure and performance (Topics 10 and 13)	1. How do different cultural or regulatory contexts influence the effectiveness of sustainability transparency and disclosures?
	Oriented innovation (Topic 5)	2. How does sustainability-driven innovation contribute to environmental performance and long-term firm adaptability to natural disasters?
Firms that prioritise social responsibility and actively engage with stakeholders, promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, can enhance stakeholder trust and robust reputational resilience in a world of growing political tensions, military conflicts, and social disasters.	Gender diversity (Topic 8)	1. How do diversity, equity and inclusivity on boards influence the implementation and outcomes of sustainability-oriented initiatives?
	Corporate social responsibility (Topic 6 and 7)	2. To what extent do proactive CSR initiatives translate into FP improvements, and how do stakeholder expectations or industry characteristics impact it?
	Stakeholder engagement (Topic 4)	3. What forms of stakeholder engagement most effectively translate SO into reputational resilience? 4. How does corporate governance impact the relationship between SO and FP?
Firms can leverage SO to gain a competitive advantage and bolster their resilience against macroeconomic shocks and induced disruptions caused by sudden policy changes, geopolitical tensions, and trade wars.	Business performance (Topic 3)	1. What internal business processes are most enhanced by SO, and how do they influence economic performance?
	Bank performance (Topic 12)	2. How does the SO influence FP, risk management, and disclosure, and what role do financial intermediaries play?
The financial advantages of SO are not immediate and are contingent upon context and firms’ capacity to effectively utilise their dynamic capabilities and external expectations.	Financial performance (Topics 14, 15 and 17)	1. How does the SO implementation affect measurable financial outcomes?
	Sustainable performance (Topic 9)	2. What composite metrics can capture SD performance across economic, environmental, and social dimensions in a non-ergodic world?

Source: Created by the authors based on study findings.

.

As outlined above, future research should explore various questions, including examining contextual mechanisms and developing new metrics and methods, to enhance our understanding of how and under what circumstances SO can contribute to financial success. By investigating these propositions, scholars can test the generalisability of our findings across different settings and refine theoretical models to account for the complexity and contingency of the non-ergodic world.

7. Conclusions, Limitations, Implications and Future Research Areas

7.1. Conclusions

This study contributes to the growing academic literature on sustainable development (SD) and sustainability orientation (SO) by reviewing prior research and identifying key topics that explain the link between SO and financial performance (FP) from a multi-theoretical perspective. In this study, we also clarified how SO is defined and conceptualised in current research (RQ1) by proposing a unified definition that combines the Resource-Based, Institutional, and Stakeholder Theory perspectives. This integrated definition encapsulates SO at all application levels (from individual to global) as both a compliance-driven necessity and a strategic opportunity.

It is important to note that no single sample or model can guarantee knowledge or truth, as other samples and methods may provide conflicting or supporting evidence (King, 2025). In this context, our findings reveal that sustainability-oriented firms are better equipped to achieve resilience and financial success in a non-ergodic world. However, outcomes vary widely based on contextual factors such as industry characteristics, regulatory frameworks, and stakeholder engagement (RQ2) (Delmas et al., 2015; Friede et al., 2015). Furthermore, we argue that adopting an SO can be part of building organisational resilience in a non-ergodic world environment. This involves developing internal capabilities to withstand potential economic, social, and environmental disruptions. Additionally, it involves aligning with evolving external regulations, norms, best practices, and stakeholder expectations.

This study contrasts prior research that views sustainability and financial outcomes as aligned or conflicting by discussing the long-term and short-term benefits and trade-offs of the SO-FP relationship in a non-ergodic world. Furthermore, our findings highlight that the relationship’s strength depends on contextual variables like industry norms, culture, regulatory expectations, and disruptions. We argue that in such a non-ergodic world, where past patterns may be unreliable, SO can be an internal strategic resource and capability, enhancing organisational resilience and adaptability.

Our findings suggest that there has been a significant increase in academic focus on SO and FP issues. This is evident from the annual growth rate of 23.7% for SO and FP articles. The average age of the articles (3.4 years) highlights the recent nature of this research. Furthermore, the collaborative global research community is further illustrated by an average of 50.2 citations per document and 40.2% international co-authorship. These findings reflect the widespread recognition of SO and FP topics within academic research.

Through topic modelling with latent Dirichlet allocation, we identified five major thematic areas in recent SO–FP research (RQ3), corresponding to the SO, FP and environmental, social and economic dimensions of SD. These themes elucidate the mechanisms linking SO to FP—from innovation and efficiency gains to stakeholder trust and risk management. Finally, by analysing these themes, we uncovered several knowledge gaps and used them to formulate five theoretical propositions and associated future research questions (RQ4). Together, answering these four RQs has allowed us to develop a research agenda to encourage further research on how SO can drive FP under conditions of uncertainty in a non-ergodic world.

7.2. Limitations

Despite the contributions of this study, we acknowledge several limitations. First, as a systematic literature review, our analysis is inherently limited by the scope of the Scopus and Web of Science databases and the inclusion criteria we used. Even after thorough identification and strict identification, screening and inclusion criteria, some relevant studies—e.g., unpublished studies or studies not indexed in the searched databases—may have been missed. Second, we acknowledge the potential for the inherent risk of bias within the individual studies included and publication bias. To mitigate this, we included only peer-reviewed articles in the final publication stage. Third, our topic modelling analysis with latent Dirichlet allocation was conducted on article abstracts, which, while providing a concise summary of 117 reviewed articles, may not capture all nuances of the findings or theoretical discussions present in the full texts. Fourth, we integrated three theories: Stakeholder Theory, Institutional Theory, and Resource-Based Theory. Although the examined research has not included these theories simultaneously, additional theories could be used to improve knowledge of the relationship between SO and FP in a non-ergodic world. Fifth, although we integrated several theoretical frameworks, our study is conceptual and integrative; we did not empirically test the relationships proposed by these theories. Sixth, this study does not claim causal generalisability.

7.3. Implications

Theoretical Implications: Our findings reinforce the importance of multi-theoretical approaches to sustainability research, which allows for addressing a wide range of stakeholder expectations while balancing economic, environmental, and social objectives. Resource-Based Theory explains how firms develop the internal capabilities (Barney, 1991) necessary for SO, Institutional Theory highlights the role of external pressures in shaping firm behaviour (Scott, 2008), and the Stakeholder Theory further emphasises the relational and ethical aspects (Freudenreich et al., 2020). Combined with these views, our theoretical propositions and future research agenda can guide future theoretical development.

Practical Implications: For managers, our findings suggest that SO should not be viewed as a cost burden but as an opportunity to gain a competitive advantage and build resilience before economic, social, and environmental disasters materialise. Our findings also imply that SO should not be treated as an ancillary function but rather as a strategic resource and capability that can build resilience in a non-ergodic world.

Policy Implications: For policymakers, our findings highlight the influence of institutional pressures on corporate behaviour and SO formation. Regulatory frameworks that reward transparency, long-term planning, and stakeholder alignment can strengthen the mechanisms through which SO contributes to FP. By doing so, policies can be tailored to foster sustainable business practices that contribute to broader SD objectives.

7.4. Future Research Areas

Looking ahead, we encourage researchers to build on our theoretical propositions with empirical studies. Future work could investigate how internal capabilities, institutional constraints, and stakeholder engagements interact in practice to influence financial outcomes—for example, using longitudinal data to see how changes in SO affect performance over time or employing structural equation modelling and other advanced methods to unpack mediation and moderation effects. Comparative and panel studies across different industries, sectors, national cultures, regions, and firm sizes would also be valuable to test the robustness of our theoretical propositions in various contexts. Additionally, the research could explore new metrics and data sources for capturing triple-bottom-line performance as firms start to report SD data. Furthermore, future research could conduct an in-depth content analysis of SO definitions and, using keywords and topics obtained through topic modelling with latent Dirichlet allocation, evaluate the extent to which current SO research reflects the concept of SO. Such efforts would provide a more fine-grained understanding of sustainability-driven financial results in a non-ergodic world, complementing our review.