Next Article in Journal
Projected Summer Tourism Potential of the Black Sea Region
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Groundwater Burial Depth on the Vegetation of the Dariyabui Oasis in the Central Desert
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Circular Economy Disclosure Responds to Institutional Determinants Empirical Evidences in Non-Financial European Firms
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/su16010374
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

How Is the Utilities Sector Contributing to Building a Sustainable Future? A Systematic Literature Review of Sustainability Practices

by
Gabriella D’Amore
*,
Maria Testa
and
Luigi Lepore
Department of Law, University of Naples “Parthenope”, Via G. Parisi, 13, 80132 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(1), 374; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010374
Submission received: 30 October 2023 / Revised: 23 December 2023 / Accepted: 27 December 2023 / Published: 31 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Performance Benefits of Circular Economy: Between Convergent and Conflicting Interests)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Utilities have a key role in the transition to a more economically and socially sustainable future. Driven by pressures from investors, regulators, government and society, companies across all sectors are setting bold ambitions for sustainability. However, they strongly depend on the utility industry meeting their own sustainability goals. Despite the relevance of their role, the determinants and obstacles to the adoption of sustainability practices by utility companies have been little investigated by scholars. This article aims to bridge this gap through a systematic literature review of 72 articles published from 1990 to 2023 in the accounting and management fields. After the analysis of bibliometric data and keywords used for science mapping, this study developed an in-depth review of the literature. Five different clusters, corresponding to the main research topics on which management and accounting literature has focused over the last 30 years, were identified. The results highlight that the expanding regulation and institutional pressures coming from governments, financial investors, consumers and society represent the primary factors that are driving utility companies toward sustainability. However, there are still several obstacles preventing utility companies from radically changing their business models, including the high costs associated with the technological and process innovations required. This study offers theoretical and practical contributions and policy implications. It contributes to systematizing literature on this topic, evidencing existing gaps and future research guidelines. It also outlines some managerial propositions that may be useful for practitioners, governments and policymakers.

1. Introduction

Over the last three decades, sustainability, defined as the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [1] has been at the heart of the international political agenda. The recent COVID-19 pandemic and the occurrence of environmentally impacting events have caught the attention of regulators, governments, investors and consumers who call on companies to change their production and consumption models to make them compatible with the UN Agenda 2030 targets. All these pressures have pushed companies worldwide to introduce environmentally and socially sustainable practices in their processes to align their business models with social values. A sustainable business model produces positive impacts and significantly reduces harmful effects on the environment and society through changes in how the organization and its value chain create and deliver value [2]. This would involve a complete rethinking of their missions, strategies and the ways through which the companies produce and distribute value among their stakeholders. Technology plays a pivotal role in accelerating the sustainability roadmap, offering low emissions and clean energy solutions, maximizing the use of renewable energy and reducing the use of natural resources.
In this scenario, utility companies play a pivotal role since other industries also depend on them to meet their own sustainability goals and to reduce their environmental impact through the use of renewable resources [3]. Utilities are companies providing essential public services. These services cover several areas, among which energy, water services, waste management and public transport “are essential to the transformation towards a sustainable economy and society” ([3] p. 2). These services are considered vital to the well-being and functioning of the communities, so they are to some extent regulated by the government, regardless of ownership structure and legal configuration. Indeed, the utility sector is populated by companies that differ significantly in size, type of services, ownership structure and other contextual factors. They range from very small companies providing a single service to large listed multi-utility companies that provide several different services to millions of inhabitants. All these factors impact the performance and sustainability of utility companies. Specifically, these are strongly influenced by the physical, social and economic characteristics of the served areas (such as the condition of the infrastructure, the geographical territory, the GDP per capita, etc.).
Regardless of the utility companies’ ownership structure (public/private), public governments all around the world play essential functions, including governance, financing, controlling, tariff setting and market regulation. For these reasons, the old-fashioned public/private ownership dichotomy, traditionally considered in the literature, has been overpassed by a network governance system where hybrid organizations operate under government control for public interest protection [4]. Utilities are expected to create value for their stakeholders and society by balancing their economic, social and environmental returns [5].
Indeed, their contribution to the sustainability challenge has been emphasized by the United Nations as part of Agenda 2030. They must take action to ensure access to secure, affordable, reliable and clean energy (Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6) and sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11). Furthermore, the utilities sector also plays a crucial role in sustainability by indirectly supporting sustainable development goals by industries in other sectors. The relevance of utility companies in driving the world towards sustainability has attracted the interest of academic scholars [5,6,7,8] who have mostly focused on the determinants of sustainability reporting and its effects on performance. Sustainability disclosure can help public organizations to create stakeholder engagement by providing information on stakeholders’ expectations [8,9]. In this way, companies may create long-term relationships with their stakeholders. Besides, showing that their actions fulfill the social contract [9,10] can help companies create legitimacy and consensus, which is particularly relevant for public sector organizations.
Although reporting on the contributions of utility companies to sustainability challenges has increased over recent decades [5,6,7,8], knowledge of the determinants that push utility companies to adopt sustainability, and the obstacles that they encounter when addressing sustainability challenges appear very limited and fragmented.
To fill this gap, this article describes a systematic literature review conducted to respond to the following targeted research questions (RQs, [11]):
RQ1: What are the determinants of the sustainability practices adopted by the utilities sector?
RQ2: What are the difficulties and obstacles hindering the adoption of sustainability practices by the utilities sector?
This study is based on a system of quantitative and qualitative methods used to establish and systematize scholars’ primary research positions and identify existing gaps.
Bibliometric analysis was used for mapping the scientific debate and the main topics. After that, an in-depth review of the literature was carried out on a collection of 72 articles published from 1990 to 2023 in the accounting and business management fields, gathered from the Scopus database. The findings evidence the increasing attention paid by scholars to the utility industry’s sustainability. A third of the studies focused on the determinants and effects of disclosure, evidencing the positive effects that legitimacy produces in terms of economic performance. The main determinants include the institutional pressure coming from regulations, governments, the international community and institutional investors. However, several works also highlight the high costs of innovating business processes, which emerged as one of the main obstacles to the adoption of sustainability practices. Furthermore, extending research to the solutions able to accelerate social and economic measures and considering artificial intelligence (AI) in its complexity, including the adverse effects, is also suggested. The successful use of AI strongly depends on education, training, context, government policies, financial resources, and cultural variables, which have been ignored in most studies.
Finally, this article outlines the main research trends in the academic debate developed over the last 30 years regarding the practices adopted by utility companies to contribute to the global sustainability challenge and the roles played by the several actors involved. This study contributes to advancing the knowledge on the field investigated by evidencing how the path towards sustainability is still long and far from achieving the imposed targets. It also outlines some research and managerial propositions that may be useful for academics, practitioners, governments and policymakers.
The remainder of this article is structured as follows. Section 2 explains the methodology used. Section 3 highlights the bibliometric data of the literature review conducted. Section 4 provides an in-depth analysis and discussion of the main research topics in the management and accounting research fields. Section 5 outlines the theoretical and practical implications, policy recommendations and limitations of this study, as well as the conclusions.

2. Methodology

This study is based on a system of quantitative and qualitative methods used to establish and systematize scholars’ primary research positions and identify existing gaps. A systematic literature review is a replicable, scientific and transparent process [12]. It represents a process characterized by high quality [13,14] and validity [15] and the likelihood of error and bias in this methodology is minimal [16].
The analysis protocol included three phases. The first was the construction of the study sample. Scopus database was used, as it is one of the most inclusive online platforms for systematic literature searches [17], containing over 24,000 indexed titles. It guarantees the reliability of the data collected, as these are always available and reproducible by software [18,19]. The research query included an accurate selection and combination of keywords. This step is crucial for identifying appropriate articles [20].
To include all the studies on utility company’s sustainability and CSR practices, two groups of search strings were used:
-
Group 1: includes all documents on utility companies and sustainability issues.
-
Group 2: collects all contributions on utility companies and their corporate social responsibility (CSR).
In the first group, the keywords “utility” OR “utilities” were combined with “sustainability” OR “sustainable development” OR “SDG” OR “sustainable development goals” OR “Agenda 2030” OR “UN Agenda” OR “ESG” OR “environmental social and governance” “environmental” OR “social”. In the second group, the words “utility” OR “utilities” were combined with the keywords “CSR” OR “corporate social responsibility”.
Research queries were executed for titles, abstracts, and keywords with the fields “business, management and accounting”.
Only articles written in English were included, as this is the language used by the international scientific community and many peer-reviewed academic journals.
Book chapters, editorials and articles from conference proceedings were excluded. No time limits were set, hence all articles published on this topic from 1990 to 2023 (default years for the Scopus database) were included, obtaining 509 documents in total.
The second step was to select articles through a manual content analysis carried out by meticulous reading of the abstracts. All articles unrelated to the investigated topic and out of the management and accounting perspectives (such as public policies, engineering, agriculture, the environment and biology) were excluded. This process resulted in the exclusion of 437 documents. In order to ensure higher reliability and validity of the protocol followed, the same query was launched in Google Scholar (limited to articles published in journals included in the SCImago Journal Rank) and the results of the selected sample were confirmed. The systematic approach Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used to minimize bias and errors (Figure 1). The final sample consisted of 72 relevant articles.
The third step consisted of reading the full texts of the articles selected. The criteria followed for the analysis of the articles were collectively established, such that each author examined the articles assigned independently and then the results were compared. The selected articles were classified into five different clusters, according to the research focus of the articles.

3. Data Analysis and Results

Quantitative analysis was conducted using the R Bibliometrix software, version 4.1.3 [21]. This software is a powerful tool that provides data analysis and graphics or data visualization.

3.1. Bibliometric Aspects of the Selected Articles

Analysis of the most recurrent words used in the articles helps us understand the aspects on which the academic debate has focused [22]. In Figure 2, the words “environmental” and “sustainability” occupy a central position, occurring 115 and 113 times in the sampled articles, respectively. The words “water” and “social” appear in the selected documents 100 and 75 times, respectively. This shows that when the literature addresses the discourse of sustainability practices adopted by utility companies, the focus is on environmental and social themes, and water utilities are the most investigated.
Figure 3 shows how academic debate on the investigated topic has developed through the years. The first article was published in 1996, but academic scholars’ interest started to increase in 2013 (Figure 3) and became very lively from 2016. This could be the result of increasing institutional and societal pressures on sustainability issues formalized after the approval of the 2030 Agenda in 2015 [23].
Figure 4 reveals another crucial aspect, the correlation between topics, and highlights the perspectives used by scholars to investigate this topic [21]. This picture evidences that the words “environmental” and “stakeholders”, “water” and “CSR”, “performance” and “practices” and “social” and “governance” are correlated.
This co-occurrence index evidences the crucial role of stakeholders in environmental issues, which has also been underlined in previous studies [24,25,26,27]. According to the stakeholder theoretical framework, stakeholder pressures prompt companies to consider social and environmental issues in their corporate decisions [6,28]. Reflecting stakeholder demands, companies are increasingly entering into ambitious sustainability commitments; thus, the relationship between stakeholder instances and sustainable practices appears clear.
The co-occurrence index also shows another strong interconnection: water issues and CSR [29,30]. The sustainability of water resources appears to be a central issue for academics investigating the CSR of utility companies. The water sector is a “sensitive” sector whose sustainability impacts environmental preservation and essential rights protection [10].
The analysis of author countries (Figure 5) reveals the most productive countries, using two different colors to highlight collaboration among authors from different countries. Orange represents “Multiple Countries Publications”—MCP; and green represents “Single Country Publication”—SCP.
Italian scholars are the most productive on the investigated topic, with 20 articles from a sample of 73. Spanish and US authors follow, with five articles each. Their attention has probably been stimulated by the institutional and regulatory context. Italian utility companies’ awareness of sustainability issues increased consistently after legislators obliged public interest companies to adopt Non-Financial Reporting [31]. This document has been adopted by Italian utility companies voluntarily to disclose their commitment and contribution to sustainability targets to gain legitimacy and consensus [32] and enhance stakeholder engagement [33].
Finally, the most successful and key journals that have published articles on this topic were also analyzed. Table 1 shows that several articles have been published by the Journal of Cleaner Production and Utilities Policy, accounting for 14 of the 72 articles. It is worth noting that sensitivity to sustainability practices by utility companies is demonstrated to the same extent by both journals dealing with utility issues and those focusing on industrial sustainability issues.

3.2. Content of the Selected Articles

Analysis of the content of the articles showed that the studies focused on specific themes. The trends in research topics (clusters) and their contents are listed in Table 2. This classification revealed that most scholars focused on the disclosure of sustainability practices.

3.2.1. Sustainability Practice Disclosure

The academic debate is populated by many contributions (22) on sustainability disclosure. Most of these articles were published after the approval of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (2014/95/EU) issued by the European Parliament, which obliges ‘public-interest entities’, such as listed companies, banks or insurance firms with more than 500 employees to produce a non-financial statement on environmental, social, employee, diversity, anti-bribery and anti-corruption issues, to encourage CSR (Pisano and Lepore, 2022 [6]).
The wide adoption of sustainability reporting tools could be a reaction of utility companies to institutional pressures coming from governments, regulators and society, to reduce their environmental impact and contribute to the global sustainability agenda (e.g., Fitfor55, COP26, Agenda 2030 and so on), especially the context where there are strong environmental concerns [34]. However, some studies [23,35] evidence that institutional pressures impact corporate decisions in the early stages only, when companies suffer coercive isomorphism, but after a while, firms are induced to adopt sustainability reports to imitate their competitors’ behaviors in a process called ‘mimetic isomorphism’. Sustainability disclosure is also influenced by internal corporate governance mechanisms. In particular, board independence and the presence of specific CSR/sustainability committees act as positive drivers of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure levels. Board size also has a positive impact on ESG disclosures [8].
In the last few years, companies have also used social media to build their CSR identities, obtain legitimacy [36] and create stakeholder engagement [37]. Indeed, the publication of sustainability information via Facebook pages is constantly growing, especially by large companies with mixed public/private ownership [38]. Utilities are employing social media mostly to communicate their environmental commitment [100], positively impacting performance. Likewise, Russo et al. found a positive association between the use of social media profiles of utility companies (e.g., Twitter) and their sustainability performances [35].
However, sustainability reporting suffers from some weaknesses, such as the lack of materiality and reliability. Several scholars [101,102,103,104] have noted the scarce reliability of these documents due to the communication of mostly qualitative data [105], which is difficult to measure and verify, as well as the presence of little quantitative data [39]. An empirical study [40] of Andalusian companies evidenced a low commitment of municipally owned water enterprises to ESG reporting [40]. A recent study showed that these reports include several unexplained figures and suffer from methodological inconsistencies [41]. However, assurance tools could enhance their reliability [42], making such reports useful in the decision-making processes of the company and its stakeholders. The reliability of sustainability reporting is associated with corporate social performance [43], while its materiality depends on the utility company’s maturity in adopting non-financial reporting in compliance with international accounting standards [44].
Their reliability is also undermined by the multitude of sustainability indicators used by companies in their reports [45]. The use of appropriate indicators is essential for realizing the dialogue between the company and its stakeholders and for involving them [46] in strategies and decision-making processes. Performance indicators play a paramount role in reliability and materiality, and their overall accountability [39,47]. Indicators should cover all three dimensions of sustainability. Some scholars [46] investigating electric utilities found that private and listed companies show better coverage rates than public and non-listed utility companies. In addition, while listed utility companies use Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards [106] for their sustainability reports, publicly owned companies do not show a significant association between non-financial reporting and their contributions to sustainable development [48]. Some studies have found the existence of a positive relationship between sustainability reporting quality and ESG performance, strengthened by the fact that utility companies suffer from the reputational risk associated with their role [49]. On the other hand, the risk that a sustainability report can be a mere “symbolic” document is clear [50] to the point that Vinnari and Laine [51] referred to environmental reporting as a “fashion” trend.
However, a recent study [52] evidenced that companies are extending their reporting from exclusive environmental issues to sustainability issues, moving from sustainable resource management to sustainable development practices and paying attention to concrete practices and outcomes. Integrated reporting, in this perspective, could be more effective in disclosing overall sustainability [53,54]. However, integrated reporting requires that sustainability be integrated into all business processes [55].

3.2.2. Sustainability Practices and Financial Issues

Sustainability actions can influence financial issues and vice versa. Previous studies found that the ecological modernization of utilities such as electricity is affected by credit rating agencies [56]. At the same time, environmental and social pillars are considered determinants for generating high financial performance [57]. As some scholars [58] have shown, ESG performance and economic performance are compatible. However, from an internal perspective, companies have to deal with several difficulties and need to afford large investments to make old processes and practices sustainable [59].
The relationship between sustainability practices and financial issues is complex. Corporate practices need to meet at least one of the three dimensions of sustainability to achieve high financial performance [57]. However, the combination of unbalanced practices favoring one dimension over another can generate profits in the short term but not the long term [57].
A recent study evidenced that the absence of CO2-equivalent emissions, the lack of incentives and the availability of environmental investments positively impact stock market returns [60]. At the same time, ESG performance can impact the cost of equity capital [61]. In particular, companies that pay attention to human rights benefit from the reduced cost of equity [61].
Environmental disclosure has been found to be negatively associated with the cost of debt, while social disclosure has been “unexpectedly” found to be positively associated with it [62]. However, an analysis of whether high ESG performance improves utility companies’ corporate efficiency and reduces the risk perception of credit-lending institutions shows that ESG factors are not useful complementary criteria for credit-lending banks [63]. In line with this, some scholars [64] investigating whether shareholders reward utility companies that have carbon-neutral goals with enhanced premiums, expressed through higher price-to-earnings multiples, found that there is no statistically significant enhanced premium in stock valuation. Recent research found that de-carbonization can contrast financial problems and favor social justice [65,66]. An in-depth analysis of a multinational energy and services company [67] showed the crucial role utility companies play in the transition to a carbon-neutral economy. In summary, the relationship between the adoption of sustainability practices and financial performance, as well as the cost of debt, finds no convergence in the literature.

3.2.3. Practices for Sustainability: The Relevance of the Circular Economy

Another recurring theme in the articles analyzed is the circular economy. Investing in innovative technologies for circular economy can provide both financial and environmental benefits [68].
The circular economy paradigm has been used to investigate the water [69] as well as the waste sectors [74]. Minoja and Romano [74], investigating circular economy in waste utilities, evidence that intellectual capital can play a key role in sustainability if the business commitment is fully integrated into all governance and managerial processes. This is especially true for public utilities, where there is less pressure on profits and dividends and the willingness to invest, and relationships with communities are stronger [74]. The circular economy lens has also been used to investigate how companies fulfill their responsibility in shaping sustainable supply chain strategies for innovative technologies, with a focus on the evolution of end-of-life management practices for lithium-ion batteries [70].
However, sustainable technologies have not yet reached mass markets and remain confined to niche ones, as they are economically attractive but are difficult to commercialize [71]. Recent studies have stressed the importance of open innovation in sustainability, paving the way for changes in companies’ future business models [72].
The analysis of this cluster evidenced a strong focus on the environmental dimension, which is considered central to improving the overall sustainability of public services [75,76,77,78,79]. According to some scholars [80], the firms’ level of internationalization positively and significantly impacts environmental sustainability, especially in developing countries; however, few studies have focused on social dimensions such as equity tariffs, security and constant distribution [81,82] or its integration with environmental issues [107].
Sustainability efficiency is another issue that has been investigated by academic scholars both in the water [83] and energy [84,85] sectors, where microgrid communities are proposed as a valid solution to creating sustainably beneficial energy systems [84,85]. However, some authors [86] have also evidenced the existence of operational obstacles to sustainability (such as allocated personnel or water losses), with obvious consequences in terms of certification policies (environmental and occupational health and safety).
Several indexes have been used to assess sustainability, including the benefit-of-the-doubt index [87] for overall sustainability, or specific indicators for each of the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, social and economic) [88,89,90]. Their integration in performance management systems could lead to more effective management and control of sustainability performance in utility companies [91]. Additionally, ESG performance, as disclosure, is strongly influenced by corporate governance mechanisms. In particular, as shown in the study by Mehmod and colleagues [92], board gender diversity positively impacts ESG performance. This impact increases if there are at least three female board members [92].
Finally, several scholars have agreed on the decisive role of stakeholder engagement in corporate strategies aimed at addressing sustainability [95,96,108]. Dialogue with stakeholders and their engagement drives sustainability innovations by utility companies [97]. To make their business models sustainable, utility companies have to promote the participation of different stakeholder groups and overcome the challenges of their conflicting interests [96,98,108]. Stakeholders’ interests can also influence the relationship between utility companies’ ownership structure and sustainability performance [31]. Stakeholders’ proactive involvement is crucial to developing, exploiting, replicating and scaling sustainable business models [74]. Key stakeholders should be involved in the company’s internal sustainable development process [99].
However, sustainability practices do not necessarily lead to sustainability performance [93], since there are several factors such as regulatory or technological issues that can positively or negatively affect them [109]. To obtain long-term sustainability, environmental management should be incorporated into a more holistic orientation towards corporate sustainability [73], and assurance tools should also be adopted [94].

4. Discussion

In response to RQ1, this study has found that there are essentially three types of determinants that push companies to adopt sustainability practices: regulation, the institutional pressure exerted by various actors (regulators, governments, consumers) and financial results. Regulation inevitably induces companies to adopt tools and practices to comply with legislative requirements. However, utility companies have shown great sensitivity to the new accountability requirements established by the Non-Financial Disclosure Directive (2014/95/EU), to the point that several studies [31,33,49,105] have evidenced the adoption of sustainability reporting tools in the utilities sector on a voluntary basis. This behavior finds explanation in legitimacy and stakeholder theory and is transversal to all sectors investigated (i.e., water, waste, energy). The sustainability disclosure does not appear to be influenced by the sector in which they operate, nor by their different ownership structures.
In particular, scholars [8,35,36,38] have highlighted how one of the driving reasons for adopting sustainability practices, and above all their communication with their stakeholders, derives from the positive effects that these actions are expected to produce on economic performances. Utilities support the costs associated with environmental and social disclosure because they believe that strengthening the relationships with their stakeholders can be profitable and positive for legitimacy and consensus, as confirmed by previous studies [6,7,8,28].
Stakeholder engagement enables companies to understand stakeholder needs, create long-term relationships with them [38,100] and create public value. However, publishing Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reports is not enough to create engagement and public value [48], and cooperation, dialogic communication and trust are required [38].
Several studies [39,101,104,105,110,111] have highlighted the importance of adopting assurance tools, such as GRI standards, to enhance the materiality and reliability of information provided and reduce information asymmetries that threaten stakeholder trust and engagement building [33,110,111].
This review evidences that there is an urgent need to enforce the reliability and materiality of utility companies’ non-financial disclosures [35] by introducing significant and comparable ESG performance indicators [39,45,46,47] and increasing the number of assurance tools [44].
At the same time, this literature review reveals that utility companies do not only disclose their commitment to sustainability, but their practices go beyond the talk level, confirming previous studies’ results [3]. Several studies investigated the sustainability practices and the impact these have on ESG performance [86,87,90,91]. Some studies evidenced that circular economy [68,69,74] and technological innovations [70,71,72] are essential to supporting utility companies’ change from traditional business models to sustainable business models [2]. However, the importance of investing in new technologies has been stressed in the energy and waste sectors more than in others.
On the other hand, the United Nations in the context of the 2030 Agenda has also underlined the decisive role of circular economy practices, especially in the water, energy and waste sectors, as well as the role of technology in offering eco-friendly solutions to meet the Sustainable Development Goals. However, this review evidences that both circular economy and technology innovations have been little investigated by the academic community, particularly when it comes to management and accounting in utility companies, especially when compared to disclosure.
Regarding RQ2, a review of the literature evidences the existence of several barriers. First of all, sustainable technologies have not yet reached mass markets [71], and are consequently costly. For instance, previous empirical studies on energy evidenced the difficulties they meet in adopting sustainability projects and practices [59,75]. Despite the large number of resources that the European Commission invested to finance the package of measures, known as the Green Deal, one of the main obstacles to utility companies’ sustainability is the financial difficulties that companies face in affording the large investments required [59]. This barrier makes sustainable technologies unaffordable, especially for small publicly owned utility companies that operate in low-income geographical contexts. The cost of environmental sustainability cannot be afforded by users and consumers, as otherwise, this would be detrimental to social sustainability.
This study also highlights the essential role that the availability of financial resources plays in the effective transition towards sustainable business models, which currently represents one of the main obstacles to achieving the goals set by the European Commission. At the same time, banks and financial institutions today seem to favor companies that already demonstrate that they have implemented sustainability practices and reached certain levels of ESG performance. The institutional pressure towards sustainability requires that banks themselves include sustainability parameters among the requirements for access to credit, to the point that several authors [56,61] have highlighted how the adoption of sustainability practices and their disclosure allow access to credit capital and financing at a lower cost. However, there is no convergence on the relationship between the ESG performance of utility companies and the cost of debt or access to credit [62,63].
Finally, some interesting considerations arise from a sectorial analysis. While some studies [8,37,38,44,49,55,57,61,62,63,64,92,94,108] investigated multi-utility or utility companies without focusing on a specific sector, others focused on specific sectors, analyzing their characteristics.
The first group of studies focused on water sector sustainability, analyzing the factors (social, economic, environmental, regulatory, technological) influencing the adoption of sustainability practices [82,83,107,109], while others focused on the disclosure of sustainability practices [36,40,51,52,54]. The role of stakeholders in the water sector is considered crucial [31,97] and their sentiments have been investigated through empirical analysis [100].
The second group of studies focused on the pathway taken by waste utility companies to sustainability goals [68,74,77,93,96], analyzing their strategies [93], assessing their performance through specific indicators [77], investigating the role of intellectual capital on sustainability practices [74] or that of technological innovations for applying circular economy principles [68] or planning SDG practices [96].
The third group of studies focused on the energy sector, analyzing operating sustainability reporting practices [35,39,41,42,43,46,50,53], or the role of Sustainable Open Innovation [72] or decarbonization practices [65,66,67]. Several studies evidenced the difficulties in adopting sustainability projects and practices [59,75] and the central role of credit rating agencies [56] or stakeholders [95,98,99] in the energy sector.
This sectorial analysis evidences that environmental sustainability issues are addressed equally in the three clusters identified. Thus, sensitivity to environmental sustainability is not affected by the sector nor by the different ownership structures. However, issues such as new technologies and the investments necessary are mainly discussed in the articles focusing on the waste and energy sectors, while governance issues are predominant in the water sector, where stakeholder involvement also appears crucial. This is probably due to the prevalence of public-owned utility companies operating in this sector, as their governance is strongly dependent on the regulatory government and stakeholders, especially citizens, and the socio-economic context in which they operate. As the OECD affirms, “water crises are governance crises”.

5. Conclusions, Implications and Limitations

In recent years, numerous accounting scholars [110,111,112] have focused their studies on the evaluation of business contributions to the Agenda 2030. This interest has been sparked by the rapid increase in sustainability reporting tools, adopted on a mandatory or voluntary basis, due to the introduction of Directive (2014)/95/EU.
However, the accounting literature has mostly focused on the determinants of disclosure [8,35,38,39,42,44,49], including the internal and external mechanisms of corporate governance [36,37,38], while little attention has been paid to the analysis of the determinants and obstacles that push companies to introduce sustainability practices, especially when you consider the utility industries. The need to analyze utility company practices is directly correlated with their specificities and the contribution they can make to the sustainability of companies across all sectors.
In recent years, utility companies have been asked to get on board and firm up their commitments and strategies toward sustainability challenges. They have declared their commitment in their sustainability reports, which have also been progressively adopted on a voluntary basis.
According to a recent report [113], utility companies worldwide are shifting to more sustainable practices to contribute to local, national and global sustainability targets, especially GHG emissions reduction. This move seems to be driven mostly by opportunities for economic value creation and pressing legislation. Analysis of the selected articles described here evidences the essential role played by utility companies in the ecological transition in all sectors. The energy sector, in particular, has a pivotal role in achieving the zero-carbon emissions target by 2050. This is followed by other utility industries such as water and waste, on which the attention of scholars has mostly been focused.
This research contributes to the sustainability debate through theoretical, managerial and policy implications. The theoretical contribution of the research consists of the identification of the main research topics investigated by accounting and management scholars, showing contrasting evidence and those requiring further exploration. The study evidences a great interest in disclosure, while the analysis of circular economy practices and technologies essential for transforming utility companies’ business models have been little explored. What emerges from the systematization of the study is the high fragmentation of the academic literature. There is a lack of studies that investigate the link between strategies, actions, performance and disclosure using an organic approach to evaluate their coherence. Some studies have attempted to correlate sustainability practices with performance, highlighting the existence of decoupling or greenwashing phenomena. This makes it clear that sustainability is still at an early stage, as it is not fully integrated into corporate strategies aimed at creating value, which would be essential for transforming their business models and meeting sustainable development goals.
According to this study, evaluating the obstacles that utility companies need to meet to transform their traditional business models into sustainable business models is particularly relevant for advancing scientific knowledge and sustainability challenges.
Sustainability reporting, whether voluntary or mandatory, is not directly and/or proportionally correlated with sustainability performance, hence it is necessary to focus attention on the practices that can support utility companies to address sustainability challenges. To date, this aspect has been little investigated, especially with reference to the utilities sector.
This review also offers a practical contribution, discussing the determinants and obstacles that utility companies experience when introducing sustainability practices into their business processes.
The managerial contribution of the research is represented by the identification of potential opportunities for managers interested in introducing sustainability practices in their businesses. In particular, the review underlines the potential benefits associated with the adoption of sustainable business model transformation and the obstacles that managers should overcome. Managers should improve the reliability and materiality of their reports, including more quantitative information and using assurance tools such as GRI standards and certifications, which can enhance the accountability of their organizations. Moreover, this review suggests that utility company managers should adopt tools that can ensure effective stakeholder participation and involvement. This would raise their awareness of the responsible use of resources. Sustainability will be achieved only with the support of all stakeholders. Utility companies should also improve their communication, transforming it from one-way to two-way, and allow consumers to participate actively in decision-making processes.
Finally, this study provides two insightful propositions for policymakers:
(Proposition 1) Diminishing the cost of technological innovations.
Several scholars have pointed out the importance of technological innovation in helping to transform traditional business models into more sustainable ones. However, the associated high costs are slowing down this transformation. Governments’ and regulators’ next efforts should be addressing this goal.
(Proposition 2) Increasing the reliability and materiality of sustainability reporting.
This work evidences the high relevance that scholars have paid to sustainability disclosures in recent decades. However, several empirical and theoretical studies highlight the lack of materiality in these reports due to the disclosure of qualitative information [105], which is not measurable or comparable, and the lack of specific indicators. The need to increase the materiality and reliability of voluntary disclosures, which should benefit from the extension of standard setter regulation and assurance tools such as GRI standards, clearly emerges. We suggest standard setters pay attention to the peculiarity of the utility sector, whose function of satisfying primary needs and creating public value should not be ignored.
This study is not free of limitations. We used accounting and management perspectives to investigate the determinants and obstacles that the utility sector experiences when addressing sustainability targets. Other perspectives or lenses could be used, obtaining different results. Moreover, it is important to note that the information in Scopus is updated every day, leading to variations in the number of articles [114]. As a result, the accuracy of the dataset obtained from Scopus may be disputed on a specific day.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D.; methodology, M.T.; software, M.T.; validation, G.D., M.T. and L.L.; formal analysis, G.D. and M.T.; investigation, G.D. and M.T.; resources, G.D. and M.T.; data curation, M.T. and G.D.; writing—original draft preparation, G.D. and M.T.; writing—review and editing, G.D., M.T. and L.L.; visualization, G.D. and L.L.; supervision, G.D.; project administration G.D. and L.L.; funding acquisition, G.D. and L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by University of Naples, Parthenope, Via Acton 38, Naples.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Commission on Environment and Development, Special Working Session. World commission on environment and development. Our Common Future 1987, 17, 1–91. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bocken, N.M.; Geradts, T.H. Barriers and drivers to sustainable business model innovation: Organization design and dynamic capabilities. Long Range Plan. 2020, 53, 101950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bauer, P.; Traxler, A.A.; Greiling, D. Management control by municipal utilities for value creation to achieve the sustainable development goals. Util. Policy 2023, 84, 101641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Warner, M.E.; Bel, G. Competition or monopoly? Comparing privatization of local public services in the US and Spain. Public Adm. 2008, 86, 723–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Garde Sanchez, R.; Rodriguez Bolivar, M.P.; Lopez Hernandez, A.M. Perceptions of stakeholder pressure for supply-chain social responsibility and information disclosure by state-owned enterprises. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2017, 28, 1027–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lepore, L.; Pisano, S. Environmental Disclosure: Critical Issues and New Trends; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Manes-Rossi, F.; Nicolò, G.; Tiron Tudor, A.; Zanellato, G. Drivers of integrated reporting by state-owned enterprises in Europe: A longitudinal analysis. Meditari Account. Res. 2021, 29, 586–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nicolo, G.; Zampone, G.; Sannino, G.; Tiron-Tudor, A. Worldwide evidence of corporate governance influence on ESG disclosure in the utilities sector. Util. Policy 2023, 82, 101549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cormier, D.; Gordon, I.M. An examination of social and environmental reporting strategies. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2001, 14, 587–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Di Vaio, A.; Trujillo, L.; D’Amore, G.; Palladino, R. Water governance models for meeting sustainable development Goals: A structured literature review. Util. Policy 2021, 72, 101255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Massaro, M.; Dumay, J.; Guthrie, J. On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2016, 29, 767–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tranfield, D.R.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Danese, P.; Manfe, V.; Romano, P. A systematic literature review on recent lean research: State-of-the-art and future directions. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 579–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Leonidou, E.; Christofi, M.; Vrontis, D.; Thrassou, A. An integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship development. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 119, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, C.L.; Chugh, H. Entrepreneurial learning: Past research and future challenges. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2014, 16, 24–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dada, O. A model of entrepreneurial autonomy in franchised outlets: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 206–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Elsevier. What Is Scopus about? 2022. Available online: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/15100/supporthub/scopus/related/1/ (accessed on 4 April 2022).
  18. Fink, A. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, 5th ed.; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  19. Krippendorff, K. Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Hum. Commun. Res. 2004, 30, 411–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aveyard, H. Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: A Practical Guide; McGraw-Hill Education: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  21. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Heimerl, F.; Lohmann, S.; Lange, S.; Ertl, T. Word cloud explorer: Text analytics based on word clouds. In Proceedings of the 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 6–9 January 2014; pp. 1833–1842. [Google Scholar]
  23. DiMaggio, P.; Powell, W.W. The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organisational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Carlisle, M.; Millar, M.I.; Jarosz Wukich, J. Shareholder primacy or stakeholder pluralism? Environmental shareholder proposals and board responses. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2023. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-07-2021-5377/full/html (accessed on 29 October 2023).
  25. Hossain, M.M.; Alam, M.; Hecimovic, Á.; Alamgir Hossain, M.; Choudhury Lema, A. Contributing barriers to corporate social and environmental responsibility practices in a developing country: A stakeholder perspective. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2016, 7, 319–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Scarpellini, S.; Marín-Vinuesa, L.M.; Aranda-Usón, A.; Portillo-Tarragona, P. Dynamic capabilities and environmental accounting for the circular economy in businesses. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2020, 11, 1129–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vitiea, K.; Lim, S. Voluntary environmental collaborations and corporate social responsibility in Siem Reap city, Cambodia. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2019, 10, 451–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Deegan, C.; Blomquist, C. Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the australian minerals industry. Account. Organ. Soc. 2006, 31, 343–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, Y.L.; Huang, M.C. Water usage reduction and CSR committees: Taiwan evidence. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 1070–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ji, Y.; Ji, M.; Yang, G.; Dong, S. Water resource management and financial performance in high water-sensitive corporates. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 2419–2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. D’Amore, G.; Landriani, L.; Lepore, L. Ownership and sustainability of Italian water utilities: The stakeholder role. Util. Policy 2021, 71, 101228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Suchman, M.C. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bonetti, L.; Lai, A.; Stacchezzini, R. Stakeholder engagement in the public utility sector: Evidence from Italian ESG reports. Util. Policy 2023, 84, 101649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Soares, R.A.; Abreu MC, S.D.; Rebouças SM, D.P.; Marino PD BL, P. The effect of national business systems on social and environmental disclosure: A comparison between Brazil and Canada. Rev. Bras. Gestão Negócios 2020, 22, 29–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Moseñe, J.A.; Burritt, R.L.; Sanagustín, M.V.; Moneva, J.M.; Tingey-Holyoak, J. Environmental reporting in the Spanish wind energy sector: An institutional view. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 40, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ligorio, L.; Caputo, F.; Venturelli, A. Sustainability disclosure and reporting by municipally owned water utilities. Util. Policy 2022, 77, 101382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Russo, S.; Schimperna, F.; Lombardi, R.; Ruggiero, P. Sustainability performance and social media: An explorative analysis. Meditari Account. Res. 2022, 30, 1118–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Giacomini, D.; Zola, P.; Paredi, D.; Mazzoleni, M. Environmental disclosure and stakeholder engagement via social media: State of the art and potential in public utilities. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1552–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mamun, M. Sustainability reporting of major electricity retailers in line with GRI: Australia evidence. J. Account. Organ. Chang. 2023, 19, 474–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Andrades, J.; Martinez-Martinez, D.; Herrera, J.; Larran, M. Is water management really transparent? A comparative analysis of ESG reporting of Andalusian publicly-owned enterprises. Public Money Manag. 2023, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dragomir, V.D. The disclosure of industrial greenhouse gas emissions: A critical assessment of corporate sustainability reports. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29, 222–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Miras-Rodríguez MD, M.; Di Pietra, R. Corporate Governance mechanisms as drivers that enhance the credibility and usefulness of CSR disclosure. J. Manag. Gov. 2018, 22, 565–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ates, S. The credibility of corporate social responsibility reports: Evidence from the energy sector in emerging markets. Soc. Responsib. J. 2023, 19, 756–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mio, C. Corporate social reporting in Italian multi-utility companies: An empirical analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2010, 17, 247–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Frank, A.G.; Dalle Molle, N.; Gerstlberger, W.; Bernardi JA, B.; Pedrini, D.C. An integrative environmental performance index for benchmarking in oil and gas industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133, 1190–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Slacik, J.; Greiling, D. Coverage of G4-indicators in GRI-sustainability reports by electric utilities. J. Public Budg. Account. Financ. Manag. 2020, 32, 359–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Palme, U.; Tillman, A.M. Sustainable development indicators: How are they used in Swedish water utilities? J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1346–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Traxler, A.A.; Greiling, D. Sustainable public value reporting of electric utilities. Balt. J. Manag. 2019, 14, 103–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Imperiale, F.; Pizzi, S.; Lippolis, S. Sustainability reporting and ESG performance in the utilities sector. Util. Policy 2023, 80, 101468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chelli, M.; Durocher, S.; Fortin, A. Substantive and symbolic strategies sustaining the environmentally friendly ideology: A media-sensitive analysis of the discourse of a leading French utility. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2019. Available online: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2018-3343/full/html (accessed on 29 October 2023). [CrossRef]
  51. Vinnari, E.; Laine, M. Just a passing fad? The diffusion and decline of environmental reporting in the Finnish water sector. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2013, 26, 1107–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tregidga, H.; Milne, M.J. From sustainable management to sustainable development: A longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental reporter. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2006, 15, 219–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Argento, D.; Culasso, F.; Truant, E. From sustainability to integrated reporting: The legitimizing role of the CSR manager. Organ. Environ. 2019, 32, 484–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Venturelli, A.; Ligorio, L.; de Nuccio, E. Biodiversity accountability in water utilities: A case study. Util. Policy 2023, 81, 101495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Paolone, F.; Sardi, A.; Sorano, E.; Ferraris, A. Integrated processing of sustainability accounting reports: A multi-utility company case study. Meditari Account. Res. 2021, 29, 985–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lynn, K. A triple ‘S’for sustainability: Credit ratings agencies and their influence on the ecological modernization of an electricity utility. Util. Policy 2013, 27, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Remo-Diez, N.; Mendaña-Cuervo, C.; Arenas-Parra, M. Exploring the asymmetric impact of sustainability reporting on financial performance in the utilities sector: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Util. Policy 2023, 84, 101650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sidhoum, A.A.; Serra, T. Corporate social responsibility and dimensions of performance: An application to US electric utilities. Util. Policy 2017, 48, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rosenberg, S. PSEG and the promise of wind power. CASE J. 2019, 16, 51–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. López-Cabarcos, M.Á.; Santos-Rodrigues, H.; Quiñoá-Piñeiro, L.; Piñeiro-Chousa, J. How to explain stock returns of utility companies from an environmental, social and corporate governance perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2023, 30, 2278–2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mio, C.; Fasan, M.; Scarpa, F. Materiality investor perspectives on utilities’ ESG performance. An empirical analysis of ESG factors and cost of equity. Util. Policy 2023, 82, 101555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hamrouni, A.; Uyar, A.; Boussaada, R. Are corporate social responsibility disclosures relevant for lenders? Empirical evidence from France. Manag. Decis. 2020, 58, 267–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Veltri, S.; Bruni, M.E.; Iazzolino, G.; Morea, D.; Baldissarro, G. Do ESG factors improve utilities corporate efficiency and reduce the risk perceived by credit lending institutions? An empirical analysis. Util. Policy 2023, 81, 101520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Peterson, T. Utility environmental commitments and shareholder performance. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Winkler, H.; Tyler, E.; Keen, S.; Marquard, A. Just transition transaction in South Africa: An innovative way to finance accelerated phase out of coal and fund social justice. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2021, 13, 1228–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wong FW, M.H.; Foley, A.; Del Rio, D.F.; Rooney, D.; Shariff, S.; Dolfi, A.; Srinivasan, G. Public perception of transitioning to a low-carbon nation: A Malaysian scenario. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2022, 24, 3077–3092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Breindel, H. Right now. For tomorrow: Launching a purpose-driven sustainability brand. Brand. J. Brand Strategy 2021, 10, 121–126. [Google Scholar]
  68. Orsini, L.P.; Leardini, C.; Danesi, L.; Guerrini, A.; Frison, N. Circular economy in the water and wastewater sector: Tariff impact and financial performance of SMARTechs. Util. Policy 2023, 83, 101593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. D’Inverno, G.; Carosi, L.; Romano, G. Environmental sustainability and service quality beyond economic and financial indicators: A performance evaluation of Italian water utilities. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2021, 75, 100852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Annunziata, E.; Rizzi, F.; Frey, M. How do firms interpret extended responsibilities for a sustainable supply chain management of innovative technologies? An analysis of corporate sustainability reports in the energy sector. Sinergie Ital. J. Manag. 2019, 37, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Vernay, A.L.; Sohns, M.; Schleich, J.; Haggège, M. Commercializing sustainable technologies by developing attractive value propositions: The case of photovoltaic panels. Organ. Environ. 2020, 33, 220–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lippolis, S.; Ruggieri, A.; Leopizzi, R. Open Innovation for sustainable transition: The case of Enel “Open Power”. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 4202–4216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Schaefer, A. Corporate sustainability–integrating environmental and social concerns? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2004, 11, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Minoja, M.; Romano, G. Managing intellectual capital for sustainability: Evidence from a Re-municipalized, publicly owned waste management firm. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Andrews, O.; Slater, A. Energy utilities tackle sustainability reporting. Corp. Environ. Strategy 2002, 9, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Beiranvand, D.N.; Firouzabadi, K.J.; Dorniani, S. A new framework for evaluation sustainable green service supply chain management in oil and gas industries. Teh. Glas. 2022, 16, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cruz, S.; Paulino, S. Public service innovation and evaluation indicators. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2013, 8, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Noussan, M.; Tagliapietra, S. The effect of digitalization in the energy consumption of passenger transport: An analysis of future scenarios for Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Leao, A.S.; Sipert, S.A.; Medeiros, D.L.; Cohim, E.B. Water footprint of drinking water: The consumptive and degradative use. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 355, 131731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gómez-Bolaños, E.; Hurtado-Torres, N.E.; Delgado-Márquez, B.L. Disentangling the influence of internationalization on sustainability development: Evidence from the energy sector. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Basiri, S.K.; Sobhani, F.M.; Sadjadi, S.J. Developing natural-gas-supply security to mitigate distribution disruptions: A case study of the National Iranian Gas Company. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 120066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Favre, M. Are Households Willing to Finance the Cost of Individual Water Supply? Case Study in Central Tunisia. Water Econ. Policy 2021, 7, 2150016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lombardi, G.; Stefani, G.; Paci, A.; Becagli, C.; Miliacca, M.; Gastaldi, M.; Giannetti, B.; Almeida, C. The sustainability of the Italian water sector: An empirical analysis by DEA. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 1035–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rafique, M.M.; Bahaidarah, H.M.; Anwar, M.K. Enabling private sector investment in off-grid electrification for cleaner production: Optimum designing and achievable rate of unit electricity. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 206, 508–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Warneryd, M.; Karltorp, K. Microgrid communities: Disclosing the path to future system-active communities. Sustain. Futures 2022, 4, 100079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Amaral, A.L.; Martins, R.; Dias, L.C. Drivers of water utilities’ operational performance–An analysis from the Portuguese case. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 389, 136004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mergoni, A.; D’Inverno, G.; Carosi, L. A composite indicator for measuring the environmental performance of water, wastewater, and solid waste utilities. Util. Policy 2022, 74, 101285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Gonçalves, E.; Werneck Capodeferro, M.; Jerônimo Smiderle, J.; Engel Guimarães, P.H. Sustainability of water and sanitation state-owned companies in Brazil. Compet. Regul. Netw. Ind. 2022, 23, 101–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Singh, M.R.; Mittal, A.K.; Upadhyay, V. Benchmarking of North Indian urban water utilities. Benchmarking Int. J. 2011, 18, 86–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Agovino, M.; Cerciello, M.; Garofalo, A.; Landriani, L.; Lepore, L. Corporate governance and sustainability in water utilities. The effects of decorporatisation in the city of Naples, Italy. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 874–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. George, R.A.; Siti-Nabiha, A.K.; Jalaludin, D.; Abdalla, Y.A. Barriers to and enablers of sustainability integration in the performance management systems of an oil and gas company. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mehmood, A.; De Luca, F.; Quach, H. Investigating how board gender diversity affects environmental, social and governance performance: Evidence from the utilities sector. Util. Policy 2023, 83, 101588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lamboglia, R.; Fiorentino, R.; Mancini, D.; Garzella, S. From a garbage crisis to sustainability strategies: The case study of Naples’ waste collection firm. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 186, 726–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Soyka, P.A.; Bateman, M.E. Greenhouse Gas Management: Are US Public Utility Companies Ready? Electr. J. 2011, 24, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Banerjee, S.B.; Bonnefous, A.M. Stakeholder management and sustainability strategies in the French nuclear industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2011, 20, 124–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sudhir, V.; Muraleedharan, V.R.; Srinivasan, G. Integrated solid waste management in urban India: A critical operational research framework. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 1996, 30, 163–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Annesi, N.; Battaglia, M.; Frey, M. Stakeholder engagement by an Italian water utility company: Insight from participant observation of dialogism. Util. Policy 2021, 72, 101270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Matos, S.; Silvestre, B.S. Managing stakeholder relations when developing sustainable business models: The case of the Brazilian energy sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Searcy, C.; McCartney, D.; Karapetrovic, S. Identifying priorities for action in corporate sustainable development indicator programs. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2008, 17, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Giacomini, D.; Paredi, D.; Sancino, A. Stakeholder interactions as sources for organisational learning: Insights from the water sector. Meditari Account. Res. 2022, 30, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Bebbington, J.; Laine, M.; Larrinaga, C.; Michelon, G. Environmental accounting in the European Accounting Review: A reflection. Eur. Account. Rev. 2023, 32, 1107–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jebe, R. The convergence of financial and ESG materiality: Taking sustainability mainstream. Am. Bus. Law J. 2019, 56, 645–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Madison, N.; Schiehll, E. The effect of financial materiality on ESG performance assessment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Scheyvens, R.; Hughes, E.; Pratt, S.; Harrison, D. Tourism and CSR in the Pacific, in Tourism in Pacific Islands: Current Issues and Future Challenges; Pratt, S., Harrison, D., Eds.; Routledge: Evanston, IL, USA, 2015; pp. 134–147. [Google Scholar]
  105. Cantele, S.; Tsalis, T.A.; Nikolaou, I.E. A new framework for assessing the sustainability reporting disclosure of water utilities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Global Reporting Initiative and SASB. A Practical Guide to Sustainability Reporting Using Gri and Sasb Standards and Climateworks Foundation; Global Reporting Initiative and SASB: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2021; pp. 1–42. [Google Scholar]
  107. Shrivastava, P.; Verma, M.K.; Murmu, M.; Ahmad, I. Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for the integrated urban water system. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 7, 290–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Truffer, B.; Voß, J.P.; Konrad, K. Mapping expectations for system transformations: Lessons from Sustainability Foresight in German utility sectors. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2008, 75, 1360–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Bhandari, P.; Creighton, D.; Gong, J.; Boyle, C.; Law, K.M. Evolution of cyber-physical-human water systems: Challenges and gaps. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 191, 122540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Bebbington, J.; Unerman, J. Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: An enabling role for accounting research. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2018, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bebbington, J.; Larrinaga, C.; Moneva, J.M. Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2008, 21, 337–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Unerman, J.; Bebbington, J.; O’dwyer, B. Corporate reporting and accounting for externalities. Account. Bus. Res. 2018, 48, 497–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Cisco—Annual Report 2022. Reimagining the Future of Connectivity. Available online: https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en_us/about/annual-report/cisco-annual-report-2022.pdf (accessed on 29 October 2023).
  114. Valenzuela-Fernandez, L.; Merigó, J.M.; Lichtenthal, J.D.; Nicolas, C. A bibliometric analysis of the first 25 years of the Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing. J. Bus.—Bus. Mark. 2019, 26, 75–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 00374 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart: article selection process.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart: article selection process.
Sustainability 16 00374 g001
Sustainability 16 00374 g002
Figure 2. Word cloud: a visual representation of the most used words.
Figure 2. Word cloud: a visual representation of the most used words.
Sustainability 16 00374 g002
Sustainability 16 00374 g003
Figure 3. Growth over time of the use of crucial words.
Figure 3. Growth over time of the use of crucial words.
Sustainability 16 00374 g003
Sustainability 16 00374 g004
Figure 4. Tree Map: keyword combinations.
Figure 4. Tree Map: keyword combinations.
Sustainability 16 00374 g004
Sustainability 16 00374 g005
Figure 5. Authors’ countries.
Figure 5. Authors’ countries.
Sustainability 16 00374 g005
Table 1. Article sources.
Table 1. Article sources.
SourcesArticles
Journal of Cleaner Production14
Utilities Policy14
Business Strategy and the Environment6
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management4
Meditari Accountancy Research3
Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal2
Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment2
Organization and Environment2
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences2
Technological Forecasting and Social Change2
Baltic Journal of Management1
Benchmarking1
Case Journal1
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy1
Competition and Regulation in Network Industries1
Corporate Environmental Strategy1
Electricity Journal1
International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering1
Journal of Accounting and Organizational Change1
Journal of Brand Strategy1
Journal of Management and Governance1
Journal of Public Budgeting Accounting and Financial Management1
Journal of Technology Management and Innovation1
Management Decision1
Public Money and Management1
Revista Brasileira de Gestao de Negocios1
Sinergie1
Social Responsibility Journal1
Sustainable Futures1
Tehnicki Glasnik1
Water Economics and Policy1
Total Papers72
Table 2. Relevant research topics.
Table 2. Relevant research topics.
No.TopicArticlesContent
1Sustainability practice disclosureAndrades et al., 2023; Argento et al., 2019; Ates, 2023; Chelli et al., 2018; Dragomir, 2012; Frank et al., 2016; Giacomini et al., 2020; Imperiale et al., 2023; Ligorio et al., 2022; Mamun, 2023; Mio, 2010; Miras-Rodriguez and Di Pietra, 2018; Mosene et al., 2012; Palme and Tillman, 2008; Paolone et al., 2021; Russo et al., 2022; Slacik and Greiling, 2020; Soares et al., 2020; Traxler and Greiling, 2019; Tregidga and Milne, 2006; Venturelli et al., 2023; Vinnari and Laine, 2013 [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]Analysis of sustainability disclosure: determinants and quality
2Sustainability practices and financial issuesBreindel, 2021; Hamrouni et al., 2020; Lopez-Cabarcos et al., 2023; Lynn, 2013; Mio et al., 2023; Peterson, 2022; Remo-Diez et al., 2023; Rosenberg, 2019; Sidhoum and Serra, 2017; Veltri et al., 2023; Winkler et al., 2023; Wong et al., 2022 [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]Analysis of the relationships between sustainability practices and financial issues
3Sustainability practices and circular economy Annunziata et al., 2019; D’Inverno et al., 2021; Orsini et al., 2023; Lippolis et al., 2023; Schaefer, 2004; Vernay et al., 2020 [68,69,70,71,72,73]Analysis of sustainability practices: circular economy and new technologies
4Sustainability practices and their performanceAgovino et al., 2021; Amaral et al., 2023; Andrews and Slater, 2002; Basiri et al., 2020; Beiranvand et al., 2022; Cruz and Paulino, 2013; Favre, 2021; George et al., 2016; Gomez-Bolanos et al., 2019; Goncalves et al., 2022; Lamboglia et al., 2018; Lombardi et al., 2019; Mehmood et al., 2023; Leao et al., 2022; Mergoni et al., 2022; Minoja and Romano, 2021; Noussan and Tagliapietra, 2020; Rafique et al., 2019; Shrivastava et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2011; Soyka and Bateman, 2010; Warneryd and Karltorp, 2022 [74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94]Analysis of the relationships between sustainability practices and their performance: different sustainability dimensions
5Sustainability practices and stakeholdersAnnesi et al., 2021; Banerjee and Bonnefous, 2011; D’Amore et al., 2021; Matos and Silvestre, 2013; Searcy et al., 2008; Sudhir et al., 1996 [31,95,96,97,98,99]Analysis of the relationships between sustainability practices and stakeholders’ role
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

D’Amore, G.; Testa, M.; Lepore, L. How Is the Utilities Sector Contributing to Building a Sustainable Future? A Systematic Literature Review of Sustainability Practices. Sustainability 2024, 16, 374. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010374

AMA Style

D’Amore G, Testa M, Lepore L. How Is the Utilities Sector Contributing to Building a Sustainable Future? A Systematic Literature Review of Sustainability Practices. Sustainability. 2024; 16(1):374. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010374

Chicago/Turabian Style

D’Amore, Gabriella, Maria Testa, and Luigi Lepore. 2024. "How Is the Utilities Sector Contributing to Building a Sustainable Future? A Systematic Literature Review of Sustainability Practices" Sustainability 16, no. 1: 374. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010374

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop