Sustainability in Cultural Organizations: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

This systematic literature review examines sustainability in Cultural Organizations by synthesizing findings from 88 publications published between 2015 and 2025. These publications have been identified in the Scopus and Google Scholar databases and are evaluated according to the PRISMA 2020 reporting framework. The review investigates three interrelated axes: (i) the integration of multidimensional sustainability (economic, social, environmental) into the management of cultural organizations and its alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals; (ii) digital sustainability communication strategies, with emphasis on the use of social media; and (iii) audience perception and engagement with these initiatives. Findings reveal that environmental and social dimensions dominate the literature, while economic sustainability remains underdeveloped and often only fragmentally integrated. Digital media are recognized as critical communication tools but are used primarily for information dissemination and promotion, with limited application of dialogical or participatory practices. Audience perception emerges as the least theoretically developed research area, despite its decisive role in the effectiveness of sustainability actions. Overall, this review highlights the need for holistic models that connect sustainability strategy, digital communication, and social engagement and proposes a conceptual framework that integrates these three dimensions within the strategic role of cultural organizations.

1. Introduction

Cultural organizations—primarily museums, heritage institutions, and to a lesser extent performing arts organizations—occupy a distinctive position in sustainability debates [1,2,3]. They function simultaneously as economic actors generating measurable output and employment, social agents that shape identity, cohesion and civic life, and environmental actors with tangible material footprints ranging from historic buildings to exhibition operations and touring activities [4,5,6,7]. This multifaceted role positions them as potentially important contributors to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda, not only through their internal practices but also through their capacity to influence public awareness and values [8,9,10].

In this review, the term “cultural organizations” is adopted as the primary umbrella term, consistent with the revised title. Although the broader Cultural and Creative Industries (CCIs) include sectors such as fashion, video games, design, publishing and audiovisual production [7], the peer-reviewed literature on sustainability is overwhelmingly dominated by museums and cultural heritage organizations (approximately 72% of the corpus). The findings and the heuristic framework presented here are therefore most robust for museums and heritage institutions. Generalizability to other CCI subsectors should be approached with caution.

Despite this recognized potential, the evidence base for how cultural organizations integrate sustainability into strategy, communicate it to audiences, and generate measurable public engagement remains fragmented and underdeveloped [11,12]. Digitalization has fundamentally reshaped the operational models of cultural organizations, influencing both management practices and sustainability communication [13]. At the same time, growing global awareness of environmental challenges has increased expectations for transparency and stakeholder engagement. As a result, organizations are increasingly required to adopt communication strategies that are more participatory, transparent, and effective [14,15]. Sustainability communication is therefore no longer limited to the transmission of information. It also involves the interpretation of context, meaning, and social expectations [16].

Environmental issues are often complex and difficult for the public to fully understand [17]. Effective communication must therefore bridge cognitive gaps while also fostering emotional engagement [18]. In this context, digital storytelling and dialogic engagement have emerged as important tools for cultural managers. However, the meta-narrative review by Golob, Podnar, and Zabkar [19] shows that sustainability communication is frequently treated instrumentally as one-way information transmission. This limits its potential to stimulate dialogue, co-creation of meaning, and broader social transformation.

Social media platforms provide an important channel for sustainability communication because they enable two-way interaction, rapid information dissemination, and audience participation [20,21]. They therefore act as a bridge between organizational sustainability strategies and public engagement. The effectiveness of sustainability messages increases when they incorporate visual elements, emotional framing, and clear narratives [22,23,24,25]. Recent research also indicates that messages addressing environmental and social issues tend to generate higher engagement on social media platforms [26]. No existing review has simultaneously integrated the three interrelated dimensions of organizational sustainability strategy, digital sustainability communication, and audience perception within the specific context of cultural organizations, and filling this integrated gap is both timely and necessary.

The success of sustainability initiatives, however, depends largely on public perception and participation. Social innovation, as argued by Westley et al. [27], emerges from the active involvement of citizens in problem-solving processes and is linked to theories of participatory development and community empowerment. In the cultural sector, audience perception of sustainability is influenced by communication quality, organizational credibility, and organizational ability to connect sustainable practices with the cultural experience [28]. The integration of sustainability into cultural experience strengthens environmental awareness, cultivates positive attitudes, and encourages responsible behaviors [10,29].

In response to the challenges outlined above, this systematic literature review synthesizes existing knowledge across three interrelated axes: (i) the strategic integration of multidimensional sustainability (economic, environmental, and social) into the management of cultural organizations; (ii) digital sustainability communication practices, with particular emphasis on social media; and (iii) audience perception of and engagement with these initiatives. The aim is to develop a heuristic conceptual framework that clarifies the relationships between strategy, communication, and social perception. Accordingly, the review is guided by the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1)—Managerial Integration: How is the multidimensional principle of sustainability (economic, environmental, and social dimensions) defined and strategically integrated into cultural organizations?

Research Question 2 (RQ2)—Digital Sustainability Communication: In what ways are digital media, and specifically social media, used to communicate sustainability actions of cultural organizations?

Research Question 3 (RQ3)—Audience Perception: How do audiences perceive cultural organizations’ sustainability messages, and in what ways does communication influence awareness and behavioral intentions?

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 reporting framework (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [30], which ensures transparency, reproducibility, and methodological rigor in the reporting of systematic reviews. This review was not pre-registered in a public registry prior to its conduct, and no formal review protocol was prepared in advance.

2.1. Search Strategy

A structured search was performed across two major academic databases, Scopus and Google Scholar, selected for their broad disciplinary coverage and extensive indexing of peer-reviewed literature in the fields of cultural management, sustainability, and communication [31]. The search was conducted in January 2026 and covered publications from January 2015 to December 2025. It is important to note that Google Scholar is not equivalent to Scopus as a search database. Google Scholar does not support field-level operators (such as TITLE-ABS-KEY), is subject to search personalization effects, and does not offer directly reproducible results. To mitigate these limitations, all Google Scholar searches were conducted in private browsing mode to reduce personalization; a fixed stopping rule was applied (screening ceased when three consecutive pages yielded no new relevant records); and all records from both databases were de-duplicated using a shared reference management tool.

The search strategy was organized around three thematic clusters corresponding to the three Research Questions, each applied independently in both databases (Table 1). For Scopus, the TITLE-ABS-KEY field operator was used. For Google Scholar, keyword groups from each cluster were applied as keyword searches without field restrictions. For each cluster in Google Scholar, the first 20 pages (200 results) were screened.

Table 1. Keyword Search Strategy.

Clusters/Thematic Area	Key Words
Sustainable Management	(“cultural organizations” OR “museums” OR “CCIs “OR “heritage institutions”) AND (“economic sustainability” OR “environmental sustainability” OR “social sustainability”)
Sustainability Communication Audience Perception	(“sustainability communication” OR “environmental communication”) AND (“social media” OR “Facebook” OR “Instagram” OR “digital media”) AND (“cultural organizations” OR “museums”) (“audience perception” OR “public awareness” OR “visitor attitudes”) AND (“sustainability” OR “sustainable initiatives”) AND (“cultural organizations” OR “museums”)

To ensure alignment with the three research questions, three independent Boolean search strings were applied—one per thematic cluster. The combined string shown in earlier drafts has been removed, as it inaccurately suggested a single conjunctive query. The three cluster-specific strings were: Cluster 1 (Sustainable Management): (“cultural organizations” OR “museums” OR “CCIs” OR “heritage institutions”) AND (“economic sustainability” OR “environmental sustainability” OR “social sustainability”). Cluster 2 (Digital Sustainability Communication): (“sustainability communication” OR “environmental communication”) AND (“social media” OR “Facebook” OR “Instagram” OR “digital media”) AND (“cultural organizations” OR “museums”). Cluster 3 (Audience Perception): (“audience perception” OR “public awareness” OR “visitor attitudes”) AND (“sustainability” OR “sustainable initiatives”) AND (“cultural organizations” OR “museums”). The search targeted the title, abstract, and keyword fields. Three thematic clusters guided the search strategy, as presented in Table 1.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

The year 2015 was selected as the starting threshold on substantive grounds: it marks the adoption of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the 17 SDGs [32], the publication of the UNESCO ‘Culture: Urban Future’ report, and the consolidation of ‘culture as a fourth pillar of sustainability’ as mainstream international policy discourse. These milestones reoriented scholarly and institutional attention to sustainability across all sectors, making 2015 a meaningful rather than arbitrary temporal boundary.

Document types included were journal articles, conference papers, and book chapters; book reviews, editorials, grey literature, and dissertations were excluded. The search was limited to English-language publications; this constitutes a language restriction that may itself introduce bias by excluding relevant scholarship published in other languages—a limitation acknowledged in Section 6. Regarding thematic content, studies focusing on sustainable management, communication, or audience perception of sustainability in cultural organizations were included, while studies connecting cultural organizations with tourism without a clear focus on sustainable management, and general cultural policy studies without a sustainability dimension, were excluded (Table 2).

Table 2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Criterion	Inclusion	Exclusion
Time frame	2015–2025	Before 2015
Language	English only	Non-English publications
Document type	Journal articles, conference papers, book chapters	Book reviews, editorials, gray literature, dissertations
Thematic focus	Studies addressing sustainable management, sustainability communication, or audience perception in CCIs	Studies on CCIs and tourism without an explicit focus on sustainable management; general cultural policy studies
Subject area	Cultural and/or Creative Industries, museums, cultural heritage organizations	Studies on tourism destinations without cultural elements; purely technical-environmental studies without cultural content
CCI–tourism boundary	Included if the study explicitly addresses cultural organization’s sustainability management, communication, or audience perception—even in a tourism context	Excluded if the cultural element is incidental to a broader tourism destination analysis

The available peer-reviewed literature between 2015 and 2025 is predominantly concentrated in museum and cultural heritage research. This concentration reflects the current state of the field rather than a deliberate restriction, and is explicitly acknowledged as a scope limitation in Section 6.

2.3. Data Extraction and Screening Procedure

Data extraction and study screening were conducted independently by three authors, following a structured process in order to minimize individual bias and enhance the reliability of the selection procedure [33]. Each reviewer independently assessed titles, abstracts, and full texts against the predefined eligibility criteria. Disagreements among the three reviewers were resolved through discussion and consensus. We acknowledge that Cohen’s kappa would have provided a more informative agreement metric and note its absence as a limitation of the screening procedure. Regarding independence: for studies on which any member of the author team was a co-author, that author was recused from the inclusion/exclusion decision for that study, with the decision made by the other two reviewers.

A standardized data extraction form was used to systematically record key bibliographic and thematic information for each included study, including author(s), year of publication, country of study, research design, methodology, thematic focus, and main findings.

For the assignment of studies to one or more Research Questions, the following operational coding rules were applied (Table 3). Studies were assigned to two or more RQs only when they substantially and explicitly addressed both dimensions.

Table 3. Operatonal coding rules for assignment of studies to Research Questions.

RQ	Operational Coding Rule
RQ1	The study’s primary focus is on how a cultural organization defines, adopts, measures, or reports on one or more dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, social) at the strategic or operational level.
RQ2	The study’s primary focus is on how digital channels—including social media, websites, XR, AI, and other digital tools—are used to communicate sustainability-related content by or about a cultural organization.
RQ3	The study’s primary focus is on how audiences, visitors, communities, or consumers perceive, respond to, or are influenced by sustainability initiatives or messages from cultural organizations.
Multi-RQ	Assigned to two or more RQs when the study substantially and explicitly addresses both dimensions, not merely mentions one in passing.

Regarding methodological quality: given the heterogeneity of the included corpus—which encompasses empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods), conceptual contributions, and review papers—no single formal risk-of-bias tool (e.g., RoB2, ROBINS-I) was deemed appropriate for uniform application. Instead, methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers across three dimensions: (i) clarity of research design; (ii) transparency of data collection and analysis; and (iii) relevance to the predefined research questions. Studies with significant methodological limitations are flagged within the thematic synthesis below. The publication type and methodological category of each study are recorded, enabling readers to assess the evidentiary weight of the synthesis independently.

2.4. Data Charting Process and Data Items

Following the screening and eligibility stages, data from the 88 included studies were charted using a standardised, piloted data extraction form developed in Microsoft Excel by the review team. Two reviewers independently extracted data from each study. A third reviewer was involved as an arbitrator in cases of disagreement. The inter-rater agreement prior to consensus discussions reached 89%. All discrepancies were resolved through joint re-examination of the full texts and team discussion until consensus was achieved.

The following data items were systematically charted for each included publication:

• Bibliographic information: Authors, year of publication, publication type (journal article, conference paper, book chapter, review), and DOI.
• Study characteristics: country/region of focus, methodological approach (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, conceptual/theoretical).
• CCI subsector: Primary cultural organization type examined (e.g., museums and heritage institutions, performing arts organisations, tourism-adjacent cultural activities, other).
• Sustainability dimensions addressed: Economic, environmental, social, and/or cultural (fourth pillar), including any explicit references or mappings to specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
• Research Question assignment: Primary and secondary RQ(s) according to the operational coding rules in Table 3.
• Communication-related variables (relevant to RQ2): Type of communication (monological/promotional vs. dialogical/participatory), digital channels and tools used (social media, VR/XR, AI, websites), rhetorical framing, and degree of interactivity.
• Audience-related variables (relevant to RQ3): target audience characteristics (Generation Z, other age groups, local residents, tourists, communities), measured outcomes (awareness, attitudes, behavioural intentions, wellbeing, psychological ownership, visit intention), and identified engagement mechanisms.
• Key findings, outcomes, and limitations reported by the original authors.

Given the heterogeneous nature of the corpus (mix of empirical, conceptual, and review papers), formal quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible. Directed thematic synthesis was therefore applied to identify recurring themes, convergences, divergences, and gaps in relation to the three research questions. This charting process ensures methodological transparency and supports the reproducibility of the subsequent synthesis presented in Section 3.2 and the Discussion in Section 4. In accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement, the completed PRISMA checklist is provided as Supplementary Material to this article.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection Process

The study selection process followed the four-phase PRISMA 2020 flow (Identification, Screening, Eligibility, Inclusion), as illustrated in Figure 1. A total of 330 records were initially identified (Scopus: 118; Google Scholar: 212). Prior to screening, 68 duplicate records were removed, along with 31 records excluded for other reasons (e.g., non-scientific content, unclear thematic relevance), resulting in 231 records proceeding to title and abstract screening. At the screening stage, 42 records were excluded due to insufficient relevance to the cultural and/or creative sector, or due to the absence of substantive reference to sustainability. The next step involved retrieving the full texts of the remaining 189 publications. However, 26 records were subsequently excluded because their full texts could not be retrieved through the databases and institutional subscriptions available to the researchers at the time of the review. The 163 articles assessed for full-text eligibility were reviewed against the established criteria, resulting in the exclusion of 75 studies: 63 focused on tourist destinations without a cultural dimension or were climate studies without connection to cultural heritage or CCIs, whereas 12 studies focused exclusively on technical-environmental issues devoid of cultural content. Following all filtering stages, 88 publications met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated into this systematic review.

Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram. * Records identified from each database searched separately. ** No automation tools were used in this review.

Following the identification, screening, and eligibility stages, the final sample of 88 studies was subjected to Directed Thematic Synthesis [34], a method particularly suited for synthesizing heterogeneous bodies of qualitative and mixed-methods evidence around predefined research questions. This approach enabled the systematic identification of recurring themes, patterns, and gaps across the three research axes of the review, while remaining sensitive to the diversity of methodological approaches represented in the corpus. As no meta-analysis was conducted and the synthesis was qualitative in nature, formal certainty assessment (e.g., GRADE) was not applicable. Confidence in the synthesized findings was informed by the convergence of evidence across multiple independent studies within each thematic axis.

Descriptive Results

Out of the 88 articles, 48 relate exclusively to the first research question [RQ1 (sustainability practices)], 7 to the second [RQ2 (sustainability communication)], and 19 to the third [RQ3 (audience perception)]. Additionally, 14 articles address two research questions. The distribution of studies across research questions is presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Distribution of articles according to research questions.

Research Questions	Numbers of Articles
RQ1—Sustainability practices	48
RQ2—Sustainability communication	7
RQ3—Audience perception	19
Addressing two RQs	14
Total	88

Regarding the annual research trend (Figure 2), an increasing interest in the topic of sustainability in cultural and creative industries is evident. Specifically, the number of publications grew from 2 articles in 2015 to 13 in 2021, reaching 23 in 2025.

Figure 2. Annual number of publications on sustainability in cultural and creative industries (n = 88).

The chronological analysis suggests four interpretive phases in the evolution of literature. Phase 1 (2015–2017) is characterized by conceptual foundations: introduction of the fourth pillar of sustainability and the first empirical analyses in museums and libraries. Phase 2 (2018–2020) focuses on the connection of cultural organizations with SDGs and the formation of measurement indicators. Phase 3 (2021–2023) is marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and the acceleration of digital transformation, with new research fields emerging around AI, XR, and the metaverse. Phase 4 (2024–2025) is characterized by synthesis and reflection: holistic frameworks, comparative global assessments, and increasing emphasis on the ethical dimension of sustainability. A clear methodological evolution is also observed: while the first period was dominated by qualitative and review-based approaches, the most recent period shows an increase in mixed-method designs and the application of computational methods, including machine learning, multimodal analytics, remote sensing, and LCA (Table 5).

Table 5. Evolutionary Trends in the Literature 2015–2025.

Phase	Period	Articles	Main Theme	Meth. Emphasis	Qual.	Quant.	Mixed	Review
Phase 1	2015–2017	8	Conceptual foundations: four-pillar sustainability model, first empirical studies in museums and libraries	Qualitative and literature reviews—theoretical mapping	4	2	0	2
Phase 2	2018–2020	13	Connection of CCIs–SDGs, measurement indicators, first digital applications	Emergence of quantitative methods—surveys, indicators, statistical analysis	4	5	1	3
Phase 3	2021–2023	27	COVID-19 pandemic & digital transformation; emergence of AI, XR, metaverse, gamification	Rise of Mixed Methods—combination of qualitative & quantitative, multiple case studies	9	8	8	2
Phase 4	2024–2025	40	Synthesis & reflection: holistic frameworks (Human-AI Compass), global comparative assessments, ethical sustainability	Computational methods (ML, multimodal analytics, remote sensing, LCA) & Mixed Methods	16	13	8	3
TOTAL	–	88	4 phases of evolutionary development (2015–2025)	Evolutionary multi-methodological approach	33	28	17	10

Note: The four phases represent an interpretive heuristic synthesis of the corpus based on three converging criteria: dominant thematic focus, prevailing methodological approaches, and major external events (e.g., the 2015 SDGs and the COVID-19 pandemic). They should not be understood as rigid chronological boundaries but as an analytical lens to illustrate evolving priorities in the field.

The geographical analysis of the 88 selected studies reveals a predominant focus on Europe, which accounts for 72.7% of the total literature. This concentration is particularly evident in the Mediterranean region—specifically Greece and Italy—reflecting a robust academic interest in integrating digital transformation and adaptive reuse within European Cultural Organizations. Asia and the Pacific represent the second most active region (10.2%), with significant contributions from China and Taiwan that bridge sacred heritage with environmental conservation. North America contributes 6.8% of the corpus, primarily through research on museum science education and visitor engagement in the US. Notably, a Global/Theoretical category (8.0%) provides cross-border benchmarks and SDG-aligned frameworks that transcend specific borders. Conversely, the Global South (Africa and Latin America) remains underrepresented at 2.2%, signaling a critical research gap. This distribution highlights a geographical imbalance, suggesting that while the discourse on cultural sustainability is maturing in advanced economies, there is an urgent need for more empirical evidence from emerging regions where CCIs can serve as vital drivers for local development and social cohesion (Table 6).

Table 6. Geographical Distribution.

Geographic Region	Number of Articles	Percentage (%)	Key Represented Countries/Areas
Europe	64	72.7%	Italy, Greece, UK, Poland, Lithuania, Serbia, Finland, Spain.
Asia & Pacific	9	10.2%	China, Taiwan, India.
North America	6	6.8%	USA (Arizona, Alaska, Science Museums).
Global/Theoretical	7	8.0%	International benchmarks, Global CCI frameworks, and general sustainability theory.
Global South (Africa & L. America)	2	2.2%	Tanzania, Colombia.
Total	88	100%

Table 7 presents the complete list of the 88 publications included in this review, along with their main characteristics—publication year, methodological approach, CCI subsector, research question(s) addressed, and coding rationale. This allows readers to independently assess the composition and evidentiary basis of the corpus prior to engaging with the thematic synthesis.

Table 7. Full list of the 88 included studies.

No.	Authors	Full Title	Year	Publication Type	Journal/Venue	Country/Region	Methodological Approach	CCI Sector/Subsector	RQ	Coding Rationale	DOI/Link
[11]	Loach, K.; Rowley, J. Griffiths	Cultural Sustainability: A Perspective from Independent Libraries in the UK and the US	2017	Journal Article	Journal of Librarianship and Information Science	UK/USA	Qualitative (interviews, case studies)	Libraries/Heritage	RQ1	RQ1: four-pillar sustainability model applied to independent libraries—documented as an object of analysis in this review (this review adopts TBL as organizing framework).	https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2016.1184657
[22]	Tian, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, L.; Chen, H.	Sustainable Project Management Practices in Museum Renovations: Balancing Heritage and Modernity	2024	Journal Article	Journal of Modern Project Management	China	Qualitative (case study)	Museums	RQ1	RQ1: Operational and environmental sustainability in museum renovation project management; balance between heritage preservation and sustainability requirements.	https://doi.org/10.19255/JMPM3503
[35]	Kapranov, O.	A Meeting Point of Culture, Royalty, and the Environment: Analysing the Discourse on Sustainability by the Royal Ballet and Opera in London	2025	Journal Article	Culture. Society. Economy. Politics	UK	Quantitative (corpus/frequency analysis)	Performing Arts	RQ1	RQ1: Documents asymmetric integration of sustainability dimensions in official discourse; environmental sustainability dominates over economic/social.	https://doi.org/10.2478/csep-2025-0014
[36]	Müller, M.; Grieshaber, J.	How Sustainable Are Cultural Organizations? A Global Benchmark	2024	Journal Article	Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy	Global (multi-country)	Quantitative (composite benchmarking—methodological cluster 2)	CCIs/Museums (Global)	RQ1	RQ1: Global sustainability benchmarking of cultural organizations—average score 37/100; key evidence for rhetoric–implementation gap across the corpus.	https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2024.2312660
[37]	Cerquetti, M.; Montella, M.M.	Meeting Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Museum Evaluation Systems: The Case of the Italian National Museum System	2021	Journal Article	Sinergie Italian Journal of Management	Italy	Mixed Methods (document analysis + case study)	Museums/National Heritage	RQ1	RQ1: explicit mapping of SDG integration in national museum evaluation systems—identifies 7 SDGs already embedded in practice; demonstrates SDG alignment is practically achievable.	https://doi.org/10.7433/s114.2021.08
[38]	Gao, S.; Zheng, Y.; Guo, Y.	The Nexus Between Cultural and Creative Sectors and the Sustainable Development Goals: A Network Perspective	2023	Book Chapter	Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Emerald)	China/Global	Mixed Methods (network analysis)	CCIs/SDGs	RQ1	RQ1: Maps mechanisms through which CCIs contribute to SDGs via network interdependencies—complex, non-linear relationships beyond simple causal chains.	https://doi.org/10.1108/S1745-886220230000017009
[39]	Gurgu, E.; Cocieru, M.; Gurgu, I.A.	How Creative Sectors Can Contribute to the Sustainable Development of Romania	2024	Journal Article	Annals of Spiru Haret University	Romania	Qualitative (policy/document analysis)	CCIs/Regional Development	RQ1	RQ1: National-level analysis of CCI contribution to sustainable development; documents the culture–innovation symbiotic relationship.	https://doi.org/10.26458/2414
[40]	Gombos, S.; Kézai, P.K.	Sustainability Factors of Cultural and Creative Industries—The Case Study of a Creative City	2023	Journal Article	Chemical Engineering Transactions	Hungary (Budapest)	Mixed Methods (case study + quantitative indicators)	CCIs/Creative City	RQ1	RQ1: Structural sustainability determinants of CCIs in a creative city context; finds the 2008 economic crisis more damaging than COVID-19—challenges the dominant post-COVID narrative.	https://doi.org/10.3303/CET23107022
[41]	Glesner, J.	Ecological Sustainability in Arts Organizations	2025	Journal Article	European Journal of Cultural Management and Policy	Europe (multi-country)	Mixed Methods	Arts Organizations	RQ1	RQ1: Environmental sustainability practices and governance in arts organizations; documents rhetoric–implementation gap—carbon footprint reports have limited direct impact on emissions reduction.	https://doi.org/10.3389/ejcmp.2025.14629
[42]	Onofri, L.; Nunes, P.A.L.D.; Cenedese-Marchi, V.; Piccoli, C.	A Life Cycle and Economic Assessment of the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice	2024	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Italy	Quantitative (LCA, economic valuation)	Museums	RQ1	RQ1: Full Life Cycle Assessment of environmental footprint of museum operations—represents methodological cluster 1 (LCA) in the comparative analysis of this review.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166735
[43]	Liu, Y.; Liu, H.	Sacred Heritage and Environmental Sustainability: Carbon and Biodiversity Insights from Taiwan’s Fo Guang Shan Monastery and Buddha Museum	2025	Journal Article	npj Heritage Science (Springer)	Taiwan	Quantitative (remote sensing, GIS, LCA, FRAGSTATS)	Heritage/Sacred Sites	RQ1	RQ1: Environmental sustainability management at heritage site—carbon storage (+17.8%), biodiversity metrics, LCA. Primary focus on operational environmental practices.	https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-01836-2
[44]	Oyeyipo, O.; Afolabi, A.; Ojelabi, R.; Amusan, L.	Review of Lighting Strategies for Enhancing Users’ Experience and Achieving Environmental Sustainability in Art Museums	2024	Conference Paper	IEEE SEB4SDG Conference	Nigeria/International	Qualitative (systematic review)	Museums/Art Galleries	RQ1	RQ1: Environmental sustainability through energy management—LED and smart controls reduce energy consumption 40–60% without compromising artwork preservation.	https://doi.org/10.1109/SEB4SDG60871.2024.10630022
[45]	Aleksandrov, Y.	Construction of Green Roofs and Walls, Hanging Gardens and Water Cascade for an Extension Between the Alvar Aalto Museum and The Museum of Central Finland	2021	Journal Article	Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science	Finland	Qualitative (architectural design case study)	Museums/Architecture	RQ1	RQ1: Environmental sustainability in museum architectural extension—green infrastructure (green roofs, vertical gardens, water features) as a sustainability practice.	No DOI available
[46]	Foster, G.; Kreinin, H.	A Review of Environmental Impact Indicators of Cultural Heritage Buildings: A Circular Economy Perspective	2020	Journal Article	Environmental Sciences Europe	International (systematic review)	Qualitative (systematic review—methodological cluster 3: discourse/policy)	Heritage/Architecture	RQ1	RQ1: Review of environmental sustainability indicators for heritage buildings—finds only 17% incorporate full circular economy analysis; methodological cluster 3 (policy/review-based) in this review.	https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab751e
[47]	Iodice, M.; Bifulco, F.	Sustainability in Purpose-Driven Businesses Operating in Cultural and Creative Industries	2025	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Italy	Mixed Methods (survey n = 170+, Società Benefit analysis)	CCIs/Cultural Businesses	RQ1	RQ1: Organizational sustainability integration in purpose-driven CCIs—‘purpose-driven’ perception increases consumer trust even without strong environmental communication.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su17157117
[48]	Agostino, D.	COVID-19 and the Economic Sustainability of Italian Museums: Can Digital Technologies Fill the Gap?	2024	Journal Article	Museum Management and Curatorship	Italy	Quantitative (statistical analysis)	Museums	RQ1	RQ1: Economic sustainability of museums during COVID-19; digital transition as driver of new revenue models and economic resilience.	https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2023.2297352
[49]	Pavlidis, G.; Markantonatou, S.; Kiourt, C.; Karamatskos, D	Sustainability through digital transition: the case of small cultural stakeholders	2024	Journal Article	Education, Lifelong Learning, Research and Technological Development, Innovation and Economy	Greece	Qualitative (case studies)	Museums/Small CCIs	RQ1	RQ1: Digital transformation as organizational sustainability strategy; human capital investment as key constraint for small cultural organizations.	https://doi.org/10.12681/elrie.7138
[50]	Cicchiello, A.F.; Kazemikhasragh, A.; Monferrà, S.; Girón-Sierra, A.	Financing the Cultural and Creative Industries Through Crowdfunding: The Role of National Cultural Dimensions	2022	Journal Article	Journal of Cultural Economics	International (40 countries)	Quantitative (cross-national regression analysis)	CCIs/Finance	RQ1	RQ1: Economic sustainability financing across 40 countries—national cultural dimensions (uncertainty avoidance, individualism) affect crowdfunding adoption.	https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-022-09452-9
[51]	Mikić, H.	Crowdfunding as an Alternative Means for Financing Culture and Creative Industries in Serbia	2025	Book Chapter	Sustainable Financing—A Contemporary Approach (Springer)	Serbia	Qualitative (case study)	CCIs/Finance	RQ1	RQ1: Economic sustainability financing mechanisms for CCIs in non-Western markets; crowdfunding as a viable alternative to public funding.	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-80969-9_12
[52]	Manioudis, M.; Angelakis, A.	Creative Economy and Sustainable Regional Growth: Lessons from the Implementation of Entrepreneurial Discovery Process at the Regional Level	2023	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Greece	Conceptual/Theoretical (with case study elements) CCIs/Regional Development	CCIs/Macroeconomics	RQ1	RQ1: Macroeconomic and regional analysis of the creative economy’s contribution to sustainable regional growth through smart specialization strategies and the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP); links economic value generation with circular practices and reduced environmental footprint; offers policy implications.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097681
[53]	Capaldo, S.	Enduring Legacies of the Copper Borderlands: Negotiating Tensions between Historic, Cultural, and Environmental Sustainability	2015	Journal Article	Sustainability: The Journal of Record	USA/Mexico (border region)	Qualitative (ethnographic case study)	Heritage/Industrial	RQ1/RQ3	RQ1: Heritage sustainability management tensions—cultural vs. environmental sustainability in industrial heritage. RQ3: community perception of heritage value over environmental risk—illustrates the ‘heritage paradox’ documented in this review.	https://doi.org/10.1089/sus.2015.29030
[54]	Torabi Farsani, N.; Shafaei, F.; Ardakani, M.D.	Mine Museums: A Creative Economics Approach Towards Sustainable Tourism	2025	Journal Article	Museum Management and Curatorship	Iran/International	Mixed Methods (case studies)	Heritage/Industrial Museums	RQ3	RQ3: Visitor perception of industrial heritage identity value—heritage paradox where identity values outweigh environmental risks; mine museums as creative economy actors.	https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2023.2209852
[55]	Bianchi, A.; De Medici, S.	Adaptive Reuse of Railway Cultural Heritage	2023	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Italy	Qualitative (comparative case study)	Heritage/Architecture	RQ1	RQ1: Circular economy approach to heritage sustainability through adaptive reuse of railway stations; balance between preservation and contemporary use.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065127
[56]	Amato, A.; Del Giudice, V.; De Paola, P.; Forte, F.	Adaptive Reuse of a Historic Building by Introducing New Functions: A Scenario Evaluation Based on Participatory MCA	2021	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Italy (Tuscany)	Mixed Methods (participatory multi-criteria analysis)	Heritage/Architecture	RQ1	RQ1: Participatory sustainability management for heritage buildings—multi-criteria scenario evaluation for Carthusian Monastery adaptive reuse.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042335
[57]	d’Orville, H.	The Relationship Between Sustainability and Creativity	2019	Journal Article	Cadmus	Global	Conceptual/Theoretical	CCIs/Creativity	RQ1	RQ1: Foundational theoretical argument that creativity is a prerequisite for sustainability solutions; positions CCIs as essential actors in sustainable development.	No DOI available
[58]	Gustafsson, C.; Lazzaro, E.	The Innovative Response of Cultural and Creative Industries to Major European Societal Challenges	2021	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Europe	Conceptual/Theoretical (literature synthesis)	CCIs/European Policy	RQ1	RQ1: Theoretical mapping of how CCIs address four societal challenges (climate change, migration, digitalization, social exclusion)—CCI contribution to social and environmental sustainability.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313267
[59]	Power, K.	‘Sustainability’ in the Arts and Culture Sector: A Discourse Analytic Appreciative Inquiry	2025	Book Chapter	Sustainability in the Arts and Culture Sector (Taylor & Francis)	Australia	Mixed Methods (discourse analysis + appreciative inquiry)	Arts Organizations	RQ1/RQ2	RQ1: Documents ‘concept condensation’—sustainability reduced to economic survival in the Australian arts sector; gap between rhetoric and implementation. RQ2: Analyses how sustainability is framed and communicated in official organizational discourse.	https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032719214-16
[60]	Avlonitou, C.; Papadaki, E.; Apostolakis, I.	Human–AI Compass for Sustainable Art Museums	2025	Journal Article	Heritage (MDPI)	Greece/Global	Mixed Methods (framework development + case analysis)	Museums/AI	RQ1/RQ2	RQ1: AI integration as an operational sustainability strategy across TBL dimensions (operational, environmental, economic). RQ2: AI-enabled digital communication and visitor experience as a sustainability communication channel.	https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8100422
[61]	Wickham, M.; Lehman, G.	Communicating Sustainability Priorities in the Museum Sector	2015	Journal Article	Journal of Sustainable Tourism	Australia	Qualitative (discourse analysis—annual reports)	Museums	RQ2	RQ2: Evolution of sustainability language in Australian state museum annual reports; detects 10/15 GRI categories from 2001/02; corroborates ‘concept condensation’ finding.	https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2015.1042483
[62]	Avlonitou, C.; Papadaki, E.; Kavoura, A.	Green Digital Strategies: Sustainability in Global and Greek Cultural Marketing	2025	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Greece/Global	Mixed Methods (comparative digital content analysis)	Museums/CCIs	RQ2	RQ2: Comparative digital sustainability communication strategies—global institutions (MoMA, Met) use sustainability as brand differentiation targeting younger generations; Greek CCIs are significantly less developed.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051972
[63]	Papadaki, E.; Kourgiantakis, M.; Apostolakis, A.	Sustainability Messages from Cultural and Creative Industries	2025	Book Chapter	Springer ASTI Series	Greece	Mixed Methods (content analysis—Facebook posts of 10 Greek CCIs, 2022)	CCIs/Greece	RQ2	RQ2: Digital sustainability communication via Facebook by Greek CCIs—finds significantly lower sustainability keyword usage than international benchmarks; gap between strategic intent and digital communication.	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-63061-3_8
[64]	Papadaki, E.	Promoting Green Tourism Synergies with Cultural and Creative Industries: A Case Study of Greece	2024	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Greece	Qualitative (case study)	CCIs/Green Tourism	RQ2	RQ2: Digital sustainability communication strategy for Greek CCIs as ambassadors of green tourism; analysis of communication channels and messaging.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020633
[65]	Herrada-Lores, S.; Ruiz-Alba, J.L.; Ospina-Pineda, A.	The Communication of Sustainability on Social Media: The Role of Dialogical Communication	2024	Journal Article	Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing	Spain/International	Quantitative (experimental design)	CCIs/Social Media	RQ2	RQ2: Empirical test of dialogical vs. monological sustainability communication on social media—dialogical approach significantly increases brand engagement and purchase intention. Key study for RQ2 convergent finding.	https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-10-2023-0372
[66]	Kisusi, P.; Masele, J.	Efficacy of Public Awareness Strategies for Promoting Existing Cultural Heritage Tourism Assets in Dar es Salaam	2018	Journal Article	Journal of Heritage Tourism	Tanzania	Mixed Methods (interviews + document analysis)	Heritage/Global South	RQ2	RQ2: Community-based communication strategies for heritage sustainability awareness—challenges digital media idealization; rare Global South perspective; local community participation as a communication channel beyond digital.	https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2018.1491980
[67]	Marchi, M.; Baggio, R.; Bonfanti, A.; Zan, L.	Assessing Online Sustainability Communication of Italian Cultural Destinations	2021	Conference Paper	ENTER 2021—eTourism Conference (Springer)	Italy	Quantitative (web content analysis)	Heritage/Cultural Destinations	RQ2/RQ3	RQ2: Website sustainability communication analysis of Italian cultural destinations—formal, undifferentiated, no measurable data or concrete actions. RQ3: implicit audience reception and credibility implications.	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65785-7_5
[68]	Taurino, G.	Algorithmic Art and Cultural Sustainability in the Museum Sector	2023	Book Chapter	Digital Humanities and Cultural Sustainability (Springer)	Italy/International	Conceptual/Theoretical	Museums/AI Art	RQ2/RQ3	RQ2: Algorithmic AI art as a sustainability communication channel warns that non-representative training datasets reproduce cultural biases undermining sustainability objectives. RQ3: implications for audience perception of cultural sustainability.	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21147-8_18
[69]	Avlonitou, C.; Papadaki, E.	Using Extended Reality Technologies in Modern Museums	2024	Journal Article	Arts & Communication	Greece/International	Review Article (systematic review)	Museums/XR/VR	RQ2/RQ3	RQ2: XR technologies (AR, VR, MR, Metaverse) as sustainability communication tools, embedding sustainability narratives in museum experience. RQ3: Gen Z audience perception and engagement preferences with XR sustainability experiences.	https://doi.org/10.36922/ac.3428
[70]	Jiang, Y.; Zheng, X.; Liu, Y.; Wang, C.	Virtual Reality’s Promise for Eco-Friendly Adventures: A Study on Its Role in Fostering Sustainable Tourism	2025	Journal Article	Information Technology & Tourism	China/International	Quantitative (experimental design)	Heritage/Virtual Tourism	RQ2	RQ2: VR as a sustainability communication tool, reducing the environmental footprint of travel while expanding audience access to geographically remote cultural heritage—‘virtual tourism’ as a sustainability strategy.	https://doi.org/10.1007/s40558-025-00320-8
[71]	Cellucci, C.; Villani, T.	Sustainable Environmental Communication Project: Eco-Friendly and Sensory Materials for Museums	2024	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Italy	Mixed Methods (design research + evaluation)	Museums/Exhibition Design	RQ2/RQ3	RQ2: Sensory eco-friendly materials in museum wayfinding constitute a non-verbal sustainability communication message—‘narrative experience without language’. RQ3: visitor sensory perception and engagement with embedded sustainability messages.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su16083358
[72]	Pisani, A.; Pescarin, S.; Ferdani, D.	Introducing Sociodata in Virtual Museums: A Holistic Approach for Sustainable Development in Cultural Landscapes	2025	Conference Paper	Eurographics Digital Heritage Congress	Italy	Mixed Methods (platform development + evaluation)	Museums/Virtual/Digital	RQ2/RQ3	RQ2: VERA platform as a sustainability communication channel embedding socio-ecological data in virtual museums. RQ3: visitor perception of socio-ecological sustainability narratives in virtual contexts.	https://doi.org/10.2312/dh.20253079
[73]	Liang, Y.; Shi, K.; Cheng, L.	A Review of the Role of Social Media for the Cultural Heritage Sustainability	2021	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	China/International	Review Article (systematic literature review)	Heritage/Social Media	RQ2/RQ3	RQ2: Social media as a sustainability communication channel for cultural heritage. RQ3: Effects on public awareness and audience engagement with heritage sustainability.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031055
[74]	Sutton, S.	The Evolving Responsibility of Museum Work in the Time of Climate Change	2020	Journal Article	Museum Management and Curatorship	USA/International	Qualitative (interpretive/analytical essay)	Museums/Climate	RQ2/RQ3	RQ2: Argues that museums under-exploit their potential as climate communication channels. RQ3: Implications for public perception of climate change and potential for behavioral influence.	https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2020.1837000
[75]	Avlonitou, C.; Papadaki, E.; Kavoura, A.	How Smart Can Museums Be? The Role of Cutting-Edge Technologies in Making Modern Museums Smarter	2025	Journal Article	F1000Research	Greece/International	Mixed Methods (review + framework)	Museums/Smart Technology	RQ2/RQ3	RQ2: smart technologies as sustainability communication tools in modern museums. RQ3: visitor engagement and perception in smart museum contexts; Gen Z preferences.	https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.156212.2
[76]	Chung, N.; Koo, C.; Kim, J.K.	Eco-Innovative Museums and Visitors’ Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility	2019	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	South Korea	Quantitative (survey, SEM)	Museums	RQ2/RQ3	RQ2: Eco-innovative technologies as a sustainability communication strategy. RQ3: visitor CSR perception and loyalty—relationship modulated by age and prior museum experience; key study for non-Gen-Z audience perception.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su11205744
[77]	Ásványi, K.; Fehér, I.	Generation Z Perspectives on Museum Sustainability Using Q Methodology	2023	Journal Article	Muzeológia a kultúrne dedičstvo	Hungary	Mixed Methods (Q-methodology)	Museums/Youth	RQ3	RQ3: Audience perception of museum sustainability among Gen Z—identifies three distinct value profiles: social dimension prioritizers, environmental prioritizers, and economic accessibility prioritizers. Key Gen Z study.	https://doi.org/10.46284/mkd.2023.11.1.2
[78]	Esposito, A.; Fisichella, C.	Museum Sustainability: Gen Z Perspectives	2023	Conference Paper	26th Excellence in Services International Conference (IULM, Milan)	Italy	Quantitative (survey)	Museums/Youth	RQ3	RQ3: Gen Z audience perception of museum sustainability—particularly values institutions that take an active social role; digital access as a basic engagement prerequisite.	No DOI available
[79]	Wali, A.; Alvira, D.; Tallman, P.S.; Ravikumar, A.; Macedo, M.O.	A New Approach to Conservation: Using Community Empowerment for Sustainable Well-Being	2017	Journal Article	Ecology and Society	Bolivia/Ecuador/Peru	Qualitative (ethnographic, community-based)	Heritage/Indigenous Communities	RQ3	RQ3: Community audience perception and adoption of sustainability values through participatory conservation in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru—community-centred approach produces deeper sustainability ownership than top-down strategies. Key convergent finding.	https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09598-220406
[80]	Brown, K.	Museums and Local Development: An Introduction to Museums, Sustainability and Well-Being	2019	Journal Article	Museum International	International	Qualitative (conceptual review)	Museums/Community	RQ3	RQ3: Local resident audience perception of museum sustainability ‘psychological ownership’ achieved through structural community involvement; non-Gen-Z community audience perspective. Key convergent finding.	https://doi.org/10.1080/13500775.2019.1702257
[81]	Biondi, A.; Boelman, V.; Brossard, S.; Nesta, L.	Understanding Orchestrated Participatory Cultural Initiatives: Mapping the Dynamics of Governance and Participation	2020	Journal Article	Cities	Europe	Mixed Methods (typology development + case analysis)	CCIs/Participatory Culture	RQ3	RQ3: Audience participation dynamics in cultural initiatives—three phases (initiation, opening, implementation) shape sustainability perceptions; the first phase is pivotal for community ownership. Key convergent finding.	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102459
[82]	Emerson, A.; Henderson, N.; Rowe, J.; Min, W.; Lee, S.; Minogue, J.;	Early Prediction of Visitor Engagement in Science Museums with Multimodal Learning Analytics	2020	Conference Paper	ACM ICMI 2020 (International Conference on Multimodal Interaction)	USA	Quantitative (multimodal analytics, ML)	Museums/Science	RQ3	RQ3: Computational prediction of audience engagement levels with environmental sustainability exhibits—facial expression is the most reliable engagement indicator.	https://doi.org/10.1145/3382507.3418890
[83]	Henderson, H.; Min, W.; Emerson, A.; Rowe, J.; Lee, S.; Minogue, J.; Lester, J.	Early Prediction of Museum Visitor Engagement with Multimodal Adversarial Domain Adaptation	2021	Conference Paper	ACM ICMI 2021	USA	Quantitative (multimodal ML, adversarial domain adaptation)	Museums/Science	RQ3	RQ3: Computational prediction of visitor engagement with sustainability exhibits using adversarial domain adaptation—extends Emerson et al. [71] with improved cross-context generalization.	https://educationaldatamining.org/conferences
[84]	Bieszk-Stolorz, B.; Dmytrów, K.; Gedde, M.	Impact of the Availability of Gamified E-Guides on Museum Visit Intention	2021	Conference Paper	Procedia Computer Science (ICCS)	Poland/International	Quantitative (regression analysis)	Museums/Digital	RQ3	RQ3: Audience behavioral intention—gamified digital e-guides significantly increase museum visit intention; technological engagement and audience decision-making.	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.212
[85]	Luck, L.; Sayer, K.	Public History and Wellbeing: A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Digital and In-Person Engagement	2023	Journal Article	International Public History	UK	Mixed Methods (comparative study)	Heritage/Public History	RQ3	RQ3: Audience wellbeing—in-person engagement with heritage sites produces significantly higher wellbeing than digital participation; raises critical questions for post-pandemic digitalization strategies.	https://doi.org/10.1515/iph-2023-2011
[86]	Effendy, F.; Xiao, L.	How Does Cultural Sustainability Promote Fashion Consumers’ Purchase Intention?	2025	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	International	Quantitative (quasi-experimental design, SEM)	Fashion/Creative Industries	RQ3	RQ3: Consumer perception of cultural vs. environmental sustainability dimensions—cultural authenticity exerts a stronger effect on brand identity connection than environmental claims alone. Non-museum CCI perspective.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052034
[87]	Miranda de Sá Teles, M.; López-Guzmán, T.; Orgaz-Agüera, F.	Sustainable Tourism on Instagram: Insights from Hispanic Centennials	2025	Journal Article	Sustainability in Debate	Spain/Latin America	Quantitative (content analysis, n = 4000+ posts)	Heritage/Social Media/Tourism	RQ3	RQ3: Gen Z audience sustainability perception and engagement on Instagram—aesthetic content drives higher engagement with #turismosostenible; younger audiences process sustainability affectively as well as cognitively.	https://doi.org/10.18472/SustDeb.v16n2.2025.56791
[88]	Wasela, T.	Intangible Heritage and Tourism	2023	Journal Article	International Journal of Eco-Cultural Tourism	International	Qualitative (conceptual review)	Heritage/Tourism	RQ3	RQ3: Audience perception of intangible cultural heritage—central tension between revitalization and commodification risk through tourist use.	No DOI available
[89]	Chu, C.-H.; Chen, S.-C.	Integrating Cultural Creativity and Industry Courses into Sustainability Practice	2024	Journal Article	Problems of Education in the 21st Century	Taiwan	Quantitative (quasi-experimental, n = 75, 18-week program)	CCIs/Education	RQ3	RQ3: Educational audience—18-week CCI sustainability curriculum integration significantly increases sustainability knowledge (p < 0.01) and pro-environmental behavioral intentions.	https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/24.82.965
[90]	Panagopoulos, T.; Nikas, A.	Evaluation of Urban Landmarks Based on Primary and Secondary Points of Interest: The Case of Museums in Athens	2024	Book Chapter	Smart Cities and Urban Informatics (Springer)	Greece	Quantitative (data analytics, POI analysis)	Museums/Urban	RQ3	RQ3: Data-driven audience perception of museum value—museum perceived value depends on neighboring attractions; ‘ecosystemic’ perspective redefines visitor–museum relationship.	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54338-8_37
[91]	Güzelci, O.Z.	Adaptive Primary School Design: Post-Pandemic Reuse Projects for Adana Former Archaeology Museum	2024	Book Chapter	Post-Pandemic Adaptive Reuse (IGI Global)	Turkey	Qualitative (architectural case study)	Heritage/Adaptive Reuse	RQ3	RQ3: Audience perception of heritage reuse—‘alternative cultural tourism’ concept; recontextualization transforms heritage from a static object to a living educational resource, reshaping sustainability perception.	https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-3940-8.ch008
[92]	Recuero Virto, N.; Blasco López, M.F.; San-Martín, S.	How Can European Museums Reach Sustainability?	2017	Journal Article	Tourism Review	Spain/Europe	Quantitative (survey, structural equation modelling)	Museums	RQ1	RQ1: Quantitative identification of sustainability management factors enabling museum sustainability—key sustainability drivers in European museum contexts.	https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-03-2017-0038
[93]	Pop, I.L.; Hahn, R.F.; Radulescu, C.M.	Sustainable Development as a Source of Competitive Advantage: An Empirical Research Study in Museums	2018	Journal Article	UTMS Journal of Economics	Romania	Quantitative (empirical survey)	Museums	RQ1	RQ1: Strategic integration of sustainability as a competitive advantage in museum management—empirical test.	No DOI available
[94]	Çardak, M.; Yılmaz, F.; Sözen, E.	Creative Economy and Sustainability: The Case of the Music Industry	2025	Journal Article	Yegah Musicology Journal	Turkey/International	Qualitative (conceptual/document analysis)	Music/Creative Economy	RQ1	RQ1: Sustainability practices and economic sustainability in the music industry as a CCI subsector; one of the few non-museum CCI studies.	https://doi.org/10.51576/ymd.1628666
[95]	Victory, J.; Sanz, J.L.; Aguilar, R.; Sánchez-Dehesa, J.	The Role of Underwater Museums in Fostering Environmental Sustainability	2025	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Spain/Mediterranean	Mixed Methods	Museums (Underwater)	RQ1	RQ1: Environmental sustainability management practices and ecological role of underwater museums—operational and environmental sustainability focus.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188359
[96]	Naves, L.C.	A Yup’ik Dance Mask from the Early 1900s Connects Indigenous Tradition and Shorebird Conservation	2025	Journal Article	People and Nature (British Ecological Society)	USA (Alaska)	Qualitative (case study)	Heritage/Indigenous Arts	RQ1	RQ1: Cultural sustainability of intangible heritage—museums as custodians of indigenous ecological knowledge; connection between cultural heritage preservation and environmental sustainability.	https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70072
[97]	Lam, C.; Jones, K.	Historic Public Building Facilities in Wales: A Total Framework for Achieving Fire Compartmentation and Maintaining Cultural Value	2025	Journal Article	Facilities (Emerald)	UK (Wales)	Mixed Methods (technical framework + case study)	Heritage/Built Environment	RQ1	RQ1: Operational sustainability management of heritage buildings—balancing technical requirements (fire safety) with cultural value preservation; sustainability in heritage facility management.	https://doi.org/10.1108/F-08-2024-0109
[98]	Dubini, P.; Monti, A.	Governance in Cultural Organizations	2025	Book Chapter	Handbook of Cultural Economics (Routledge)	Italy/International	Conceptual/Theoretical	Museums/CCIs	RQ1	RQ1: Governance frameworks for cultural organizations as foundational to social and economic sustainability strategy; accountability and organizational sustainability.	https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003316121-11
[99]	Kalfas, D.; Zagkotsis, A.; Kalaitzidakis, P.; Sdrali, D.	Contribution of the Cultural and Creative Industries to Regional Development and Revitalization: A European Perspective	2024	Journal Article	Urban Science (MDPI)	Greece/Europe	Quantitative (econometric analysis)	CCIs/Regional Development	RQ1/RQ3	RQ1: Sustainability determinants of CCIs in regional development. RQ3: community and public perception of CCI contribution to local sustainability and wellbeing.	https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8020039
[100]	Larkin, A.; Legget, J.; Muir, K.	The Role of the Museum Shop in Sustainable Futures	2024	Journal Article	Museum Management and Curatorship	UK/International	Qualitative (interviews, case studies)	Museums	RQ1	RQ1: Economic sustainability and revenue generation strategies within museum operations; the museum shop as a sustainability financing mechanism.	https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2024.2375978
[101]	Ghose, A.; Ali, S.	Protection and Preservation of Traditional Cultural Expressions & Traditional Knowledge in the Handicraft Industry	2023	Journal Article	Revista de Direito Internacional	India/International	Qualitative (legal-conceptual analysis)	Crafts/Heritage/CCIs	RQ1	RQ1: Cultural sustainability of intangible heritage and traditional knowledge in creative industries; legal frameworks for cultural sustainability.	https://doi.org/10.5102/rdi.v20i2.9109
[102]	Kačerauskas, T.	Disinterestedness in the Creative Economy: The Case of the MO Museum in Vilnius	2023	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Lithuania	Qualitative (philosophical/conceptual analysis)	Museums/Creative Economy	RQ1	RQ1: Social sustainability, governance, and the role of disinterestedness in cultural economy; museum as social sustainability actor.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310115
[103]	Hosseini, S.A.; Meybodi, S.A.	Proposing a Model for Sustainable Development of Creative Industries Based on Digital Transformation	2023	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Iran	Mixed Methods (model development + validation)	CCIs/Digital	RQ1	RQ1: Digital transformation as organizational sustainability management strategy—proposes an integrated model for CCI sustainable development.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411451
[104]	Rozmiarek, M.; Malchrowicz-Mośko, E.; Kowalczyk-Anioł, J.; Poczta, J.	Eco-Initiatives in Municipal Cultural Institutions as Examples of Activities for Sustainable Development: A Case Study of Poznan	2022	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Poland	Qualitative (case study)	Municipal Cultural Institutions	RQ1	RQ1: environmental sustainability initiatives and eco-practices in municipal cultural organizations—practical implementation analysis.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020682
[105]	Imperiale, F.; Fasiello, R.; Adamo, S.	Sustainability Determinants of Cultural and Creative Industries in Peripheral Areas	2021	Journal Article	Journal of Risk and Financial Management	Italy	Mixed Methods	CCIs/Peripheral Regions	RQ1	RQ1: Structural and organizational sustainability determinants for CCIs in peripheral areas; social cohesion and local development dimensions.	https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14090438
[106]	Magliacani, M.; Sorrentino, D.	Embedding Sustainability Dimensions in University Collections Management	2021	Journal Article	Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development	Italy	Qualitative (case study)	Heritage/University Collections	RQ1	RQ1: Integration of sustainability dimensions into cultural heritage management at university level; accountability and governance for cultural collections.	https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-03-2020-0044
[107]	Gaitán, C.; Ruiz-Alba, J.L.; Arango-Botero, D.	Bridging Creative Industries and Museums: Collaborative Pathways for Sustainable Development	2025	Journal Article	Heritage (MDPI)	International (5 UNESCO regions)	Mixed Methods (global survey n = 151 + word cloud + cross-tabulation)	CCIs/Museums	RQ1	RQ1: How CCIs and museums integrate sustainability strategy through SDG-aligned collaboration; strategic integration of sustainable development goals.	https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage8040140
[108]	Errichiello, L.; Micera, R.	Leveraging Smart Open Innovation for Achieving Cultural Sustainability: Learning from Mistakes in the Case of a Smart Tourism Destination	2018	Journal Article	Sustainability (MDPI)	Italy	Qualitative (case study)	Heritage/Tourism/CCIs	RQ1	RQ1: Smart open innovation model as organizational sustainability strategy; cultural sustainability as organizational goal aligned with smart destination management.	https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061964
[109]	Lysgård, H.K.	The ‘Actually Existing’ Cultural Policy and Culture-Led Strategies of Rural Places and Small Towns	2016	Journal Article	Journal of Rural Studies	Norway/Europe	Conceptual/Theoretical (policy analysis)	CCIs/Rural Cultural Policy	RQ1	RQ1: Cultural sustainability policy in peripheral/rural regions—social sustainability of cultural organizations in non-metropolitan contexts; challenges urban-centric CCI sustainability discourse.	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.014
[110]	Martin, A.J.; Durksen, T.L.; Williamson, D.; Kiss, J.; Ginns, P.	The Role of a Museum-Based Science Education Program in Promoting Content Knowledge and Science Motivation	2016	Journal Article	Journal of Research in Science Teaching	Australia	Quantitative (quasi-experimental design)	Museums/Science Education	RQ1	RQ1: Social sustainability dimension—museum role in science education and community learning; museums as actors promoting environmental awareness through education.	https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21332
[111]	Lauesen, L.M.	The Role of the (Governance of the) Arts in Cultural Sustainability: A Case Study of Music	2016	Book Chapter	Developments in Corporate Governance and Responsibility (Emerald)	Denmark	Qualitative (case study)	Music/Arts Governance	RQ1	RQ1: Governance framework for music sector sustainability—one of the few non-museum CCI subsector studies; cultural sustainability and organizational accountability in arts governance.	https://doi.org/10.1108/S2043-052320160000009003
[112]	Oppioli, M.; Sansone, G.; Ughetto, E.	How Does Social Impact Influence Cultural Entrepreneurship? An Exploratory Case Study	2025	Journal Article	Piccola Impresa/Small Business	Italy	Qualitative (case study)	CCIs/Cultural Entrepreneurship	RQ1/RQ2	RQ1: Social sustainability as an organizational strategy in cultural entrepreneurship. RQ2: Communication of social impact and sustainability in CCI organizations.	https://doi.org/10.14596/pisb.4663
[113]	Verina, N.; Titko, J.; Lace, N.	Culture as Driver of Sustainable Development	2021	Journal Article	Economics & Culture	Baltic States	Quantitative (correlation analysis)	CCIs/Cultural Economy	RQ1	RQ1: Macro-level quantitative analysis of the cultural sector as a driver of sustainable economic and social development.	https://doi.org/10.2478/jec-2021-0016
[114]	Hedges, L.	Actions for the Future: Sustainability in Arizona Museums	2021	Journal Article	Museum Management and Curatorship	USA (Arizona)	Mixed Methods (survey + interviews)	Museums	RQ1	RQ1: Environmental and social sustainability practices and governance in US regional museums—documents actions and strategic commitments.	https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2020.1752293
[115]	Štreimikienė, D.; Kačerauskas, T.	The Creative Economy and Sustainable Development: The Baltic States	2020	Journal Article	Sustainable Development	Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia)	Quantitative (indicator analysis)	CCIs/Creative Economy	RQ1	RQ1: Quantitative cross-country analysis of creative economy contribution to sustainable development.	https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2111
[116]	Lavanga, M.; Drosner, M.	Towards a New Paradigm of the Creative City or the Same Devil in Disguise?	2020	Book Chapter	Creative Industries and Entrepreneurship (Springer)	Netherlands/International	Conceptual/Theoretical	CCIs/Creative City	RQ1	RQ1: Critical theoretical analysis of creative city sustainability claims—challenges dominant narratives of cultural-led sustainability.	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49384-4_12
[117]	Acosta, N.; Preum, S.; Patel, M.; Grover, S.; Ehsan, U.	What’s Fair is Fair: Detecting and Mitigating Encoded Bias in Multimodal Models of Museum Visitor Attention	2021	Conference Paper	ACM ICMI 2021	USA	Quantitative (ML, algorithmic fairness analysis)	Museums/AI	RQ3	RQ3: Equity in visitor engagement analytics—social sustainability implications of algorithmic bias in museum attention models; audience perception equity.	https://doi.org/10.1145/3462244.3479943
[118]	Pai, C.; Chen, C.; Huang, W.; Lin, C.	Current Challenges and Opportunities in Cultural Heritage Preservation Through Sustainable Tourism Practices	2025	Journal Article	Current Issues in Tourism	Taiwan/International	Quantitative (review + analysis)	Heritage/Tourism	RQ3	RQ3: Audience and community perception challenges in heritage preservation—included where explicit cultural organization nexus (named heritage sites) and audience perception of sustainability practices are central.	https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2024.2443776
[119]	Astike, I.; Balkyte, A.; Mačiulyte, J.	Do Cultural Activities and Happiness Matter to the Tourism Sector?	2024	Journal Article	Economics and Culture	Baltic States	Quantitative (statistical analysis)	CCIs/Cultural Tourism	RQ3	RQ3: Audience well-being and cultural sustainability perception in tourism contexts—relationship between cultural activity participation and subjective happiness.	https://doi.org/10.2478/jec-2024-0007

3.2. Thematic Results

3.2.1. Research Question 1: Sustainability Practices in Cultural Organizations

The concept of sustainability in cultural organizations has evolved from a dual (environmental + social) toward a more holistic understanding that increasingly recognises culture as a potential fourth pillar. This theoretical shift is evident in the literature: from early views that positioned museums primarily as recipients of environmental policy [11], to more recent analyses that cast them as active agents capable of driving broader socioeconomic transitions [35,36].

The conceptual framework is significantly enriched by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda. Cerquetti and Montella [37] identify seven SDGs already embedded in the Italian National Museum System, demonstrating that the museum–SDGs correlation is not theoretical but practically applicable. Meanwhile, Gao et al. [38] adopt a network perspective to map the mechanisms through which CCIs contribute to achieving the SDGs, revealing complex interdependencies that transcend simple causal relationships.

At the level of national policy, Gurgu et al. [39] document how creative sectors contribute to Romania’s sustainable development through a ‘culture–innovation symbiotic relationship’. This finding reinforces the position that cultural organizations are not passive sectors but active ecosystems feeding regional resilience. Furthermore, the study by Gombos and Kézai [40] on Budapest reveals that the 2008 economic crisis weakened CCIs’ sustainability more than the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that structural economic vulnerability is more dangerous than exogenous crises—a finding that directly challenges the dominant narrative focusing on post-COVID recovery [41].

Environmental Sustainability. The measurement and reduction in the environmental footprint of cultural organizations emerges as one of the most dynamic sub-fields. Three methodological clusters can be identified, each with distinct premises and applicable contexts. The first cluster employs Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), tracing material and energy flows across the full operational cycle. Onofri et al. [42] apply LCA to the Peggy Guggenheim Collection in Venice, providing the most granular environmental accounting in the corpus. LCA’s strength is its comprehensiveness; its limitation in the cultural organizations context is resource intensity and dependence on detailed institutional data, making it best suited to large, well-documented organizations. Liu and Liu [43] show how a religious-cultural complex in Taiwan increased carbon storage by 17.8% between 2016 and 2022, demonstrating the potential of cultural landscapes as ‘green infrastructure.’

The second cluster employs composite sustainability benchmarking—structured assessments using predefined indicator sets applied comparatively. Martin Müller and Grieshaber [36] offer the first comparative global sustainability assessment of cultural organizations, revealing an average score of only 37/100. This approach enables cross-institutional comparison but relies on self-reported data, introducing potential social desirability bias. Glesner [41] finds that carbon footprint reports from European cultural organizations have only a limited direct impact on reducing emissions, mainly due to the inability to control visitor mobility and external energy consumption. Oyeyipo et al. [44] suggest that LED and smart control systems can reduce energy consumption by 40–60% in art galleries without compromising artwork preservation. Aleksandrov [45] documents how green roofs, vertical gardens, and water features can be integrated into museum extensions.

The third cluster employs discourse and policy analysis to examine how environmental sustainability is institutionally framed. Foster and Kreinin [46] review environmental impact indicators for cultural heritage buildings from a circular economy perspective, revealing that only 17% of studies incorporate a full circular economy analysis. Iodice and Bifulco [47], in a study with 170+ consumers, find that the perception of a ‘purpose-driven’ organization significantly increases trust, even in the absence of strong environmental communication.

Across all three methodological clusters, a consistent finding emerges: there is a substantial gap between stated commitments and measurable outcomes. Organizations declaring sustainability strategies rarely demonstrate corresponding measurable improvements [36,41]. This rhetoric–implementation gap is the most robust finding in the environmental sustainability literature, supported by convergent evidence across both empirical and discourse-based approaches [35,36,41].

Economic Sustainability and Financing. The economic sustainability of cultural organizations is one of the most critical axes of this review, particularly in light of the upheavals caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Agostino [48] analyzes the pandemic’s impact on the economic sustainability of Italian museums, demonstrating that the digital transition led to the development of new revenue models. Pavlidis et al. [49] examine the digital transformation of small cultural institutions, noting that technological adoption requires investment in human capital that often exceeds the capacities of small organizations. Cicchiello et al. [50] analyze how national cultural dimensions (uncertainty avoidance, individualism) affect the adoption of reward-based crowdfunding in CCIs across 40 countries. Mikić [51] focuses on Serbia, documenting how crowdfunding emerges as a viable alternative for financing in non-Western markets. At the macroeconomic and regional level, Manioudis and Angelakis [52] highlight the contribution of the creative economy to sustainable regional growth, emphasizing its role in smart specialization strategies and the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP). Drawing on the case of the Attica region, the authors demonstrate how creative industries can support circular economy practices, reduce environmental footprint, and generate long-term economic value while advancing multiple SDGs. These findings, together with complementary national and regional analyses [39,40], underscore the policy importance of positioning cultural and creative industries as strategic drivers for both economic resilience and sustainability transitions.

Cultural Sustainability and Heritage. The concept of cultural sustainability is characterized in the literature by inherent complexity: heritage preservation may be in tension with both environmental sustainability (energy needs of historic buildings) and economic pressures (tourism vs. protection). Loach et al. [11] propose a four-pillar framework recognizing culture as an equal fourth pillar of sustainability. Capaldo [53] analyzes communities at the US–Mexico border that resist the removal of copper processing toxic waste because they perceive it as part of their cultural identity—a classic case of the ‘heritage paradox’, where cultural sustainability prevails over environmental sustainability. A similar dynamic is found in the study by Torabi Farsani et al. [54] on mine museums, where the identity value of industrial heritage reshapes sustainability perceptions. Adaptive reuse of historic buildings constitutes one of the most dynamic themes in the literature. Bianchi and De Medici [55] analyze cases of railway station reuse, while Amato et al. [56] apply participatory multi-criteria analysis (MCA) to evaluate reuse scenarios for a Carthusian Monastery in Tuscany, reflecting a broader shift towards participatory management of cultural heritage.

Creative Industries and Sustainable Development. At the theoretical level, d’Orville [57] emphasizes that creativity is a prerequisite for finding solutions to environmental and social challenges. Gustafsson and Lazzaro [58] map four main axes through which CCIs address European social challenges: climate change, migration, digitalization, and social exclusion. The study by Martin Müller and Grieshaber [36] reveals a critical gap: the majority of cultural organizations declare a strategic commitment to sustainability, yet measurable performance remains low—a finding that Power [59] attributes to the phenomenon of ‘concept condensation’, i.e., the linguistic reduction in sustainability to a synonym for economic survival.

Technology and Sustainability: The Role of AI. Beyond traditional sustainability practices, the recent literature has also begun to explore the role of emerging technologies in enabling sustainable cultural management. A critical contribution is the study by Avlonitou, Papadaki, and Apostolakis [60], which introduces the ‘Human–AI Compass’ as a theoretical framework for the equitable integration of Artificial Intelligence in museums. As the authors argue, such developments address sustainability across all four dimensions (operational, environmental, economic, cultural), since AI can optimize them all—from predictive maintenance to digital collection preservation and personalized visitor experience.

Overall, the literature on sustainability practices in cultural organizations reveals clear asymmetries and methodological diversity. Environmental sustainability is the most developed axis, supported by multiple methodological approaches and convergent evidence of a rhetoric–implementation gap. Economic sustainability remains fragmented and often treated as a short-term financing issue rather than a strategic pillar. Cultural sustainability is conceptually rich but difficult to operationalise, frequently revealing trade-offs with environmental goals. Technology, particularly AI, emerges as a cross-cutting enabler with high potential but limited empirical validation to date. These patterns underscore the need for more integrated approaches that move beyond isolated interventions. Three distinct clusters can be identified in the environmental sustainability subfield, each with different strengths, limitations and applicable contexts (Table 8).

Table 8. Synthesis of Sustainability Practices (RQ1)—Methodological Clusters and Key Findings.

Thematic Cluster	Main Methods	Convergent Findings	Limitations/Boundary Conditions	Key References
Environmental—LCA	Life Cycle Assessment	Detailed environmental footprint accounting	Resource-intensive; best suited for large institutions	[42,43]
Environmental—Benchmarking	Composite indicator sets	Low overall sustainability performance (avg. 37/100)	Relies heavily on self-reported data	[36,41]
Environmental—Discourse	Discourse & policy analysis	Persistent rhetoric–implementation gap	More interpretive, less quantitative	[35,59]
Economic Sustainability	Case studies, econometric analysis	Short-term financing mechanisms (crowdfunding, digital revenues)	Rarely integrated into long-term strategic models	[48,50,51]
Cultural Sustainability	Conceptual & case studies	Frequent trade-offs with environmental goals	Difficult to operationalize and measure	[11,53,54]
Adaptive Reuse	Multi-criteria analysis, case studies	Balance between heritage preservation and new uses	Highly context-specific	[55,56]
AI & Technology	Conceptual frameworks	Potential to optimise multiple sustainability dimensions	Still largely conceptual, limited empirical evidence	[60]

3.2.2. Research Question 2: Sustainability Communication in Cultural Organizations

Sustainability communication in cultural organizations remains in a transitional phase, dominated by monological and promotional strategies. Two major patterns emerge from the corpus.

The first pattern concerns communication mode. The majority of studies document one-way, informational or branding-oriented approaches [61,62,63,64]. In contrast, dialogical and participatory strategies, although far less frequent, consistently show significantly higher audience engagement and behavioral intention [65]. This gap between what is practiced and what is more effective is a convergent finding across the literature.

The second pattern concerns rhetorical framing. Discourse analyses reveal systematic “concept condensation” [59]: the term “sustainability” is frequently reduced to economic viability or institutional survival, while environmental and social dimensions are marginalized [35,61]. This rhetorical tendency appears across different cultural contexts (UK, Australia, Greece, Italy), suggesting it is structural rather than local.

Emerging technologies (XR, VR, AR, AI) offer new experiential pathways for embedding sustainability narratives [69,70,72]. However, critical studies caution that algorithmic tools trained on non-representative datasets risk reproducing cultural biases, potentially undermining cultural sustainability itself [68].

Overall, the literature converges on the finding that dialogical communication is more effective yet significantly underrepresented, while technology offers promise but also new risks. Adoption remains uneven and context-dependent.

Overall, sustainability communication is in a transitional stage: informational and promotional use dominates, while dialogical and participatory communication remains limited. Technology offers new possibilities, but adoption is uneven (Table 9).

Table 9. Main Thematic Findings—Research Question 2.

Thematic Category	Main Findings	Key References
Digital Communication Strategies Dialogical vs. Monological Communication Sustainability Rhetoric	MoMA & Met use multiple digital platforms strategically. Greek CCIs communicate primarily via Facebook with limited sustainability emphasis.	Avlonitou et al. [60], Papadaki et al. [63], Papadaki [64]
	Dialogical sustainability communication on social media significantly increases brand engagement and purchase intention.	Herrada-Lores et al. [65]
	In the Australian cultural sector, sustainability is equated primarily with economic survival—concept condensation undermines broader sustainability discourse.	Power [59]
Annual Reports & Accountability XR & Smart Technologies as Communication Channels	Australian state museums gradually evolve sustainability language. Detection of 10/15 GRI categories from 2001/02.	Wickham & Lehman [61]
	AR/VR, Metaverse, and AI chatbots transform museums into living spaces of intercultural dialogue and pedagogical communication.	Avlonitou & Papadaki [69], Avlonitou et al. [60], Pisani et al. [72]
Museums & Climate Crisis Eco-Friendly Materials & Wayfinding Thematic Category	Museums have the potential to influence public perceptions of climate change but under-exploit this role.	Sutton [74]
	Sensory, ecological materials in museums create a substantial environmental message through the architectural experience.	Cellucci & Villani [71]

3.2.3. Research Question 3: Public Perception of Sustainability

Among the three research questions guiding this review, audience perception of sustainability in cultural organizations represents the most under-researched yet critically evolving axis. The synthesis of the reviewed studies reveals that while theoretical frameworks such as the Theory of Planned Behavior, the Value–Belief–Attitude Theory, and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) are consistently applied, there is a profound demographic and contextual divergence in how sustainability is perceived. A central point of discussion concerns the relationship between perception and behavior; for instance, Chung et al. [76] document that the perception of eco-innovative CSR positively affects visitors’ quality impressions and loyalty, yet this connection is not linear, as it is significantly modulated by factors such as age, educational level, and previous experience with the organization.

This demographic divergence is most evident in the “generational tilt” of current literature, where Generation Z emerges as the most frequently examined group. Studies by Ásványi and Fehér [77] and Esposito and Fisichella [78] confirm that Gen Z perceives a cultural organization’s value through its active social role and environmental stance, viewing sustainability as synonymous with active engagement and co-creation. This is often mediated through immersive technologies such as XR, gamification, and the Metaverse [60,69], where younger audiences seek autonomy and unrestricted movement. However, a critical research gap remains regarding middle-aged and older visitors, whose perceptions operate through a more “traditional-institutional” lens, prioritizing economic viability and heritage preservation over radical digital transformation. As Chung et al. [76] provide rare comparative insight, they emphasize that factors like prior museum experience carry significantly more weight for older cohorts than for the digital-native Gen Z.

A second major distinction identified in this review concerns the contextual contrast between residents and tourists. While Gen Z audiences tend to respond positively to interactive, digital, and co-creative sustainability initiatives that combine environmental concern with social purpose [60,77,78], other demographic groups appear to engage through different mechanisms. Middle-aged and elderly visitors, as well as local residents and non-tourist communities, are significantly underrepresented. Available evidence suggests that these groups often prioritise psychological ownership, community participation, and tangible in situ experiences over purely digital or gamified approaches [79,80,85]. For instance, participatory and community-based initiatives seem to foster stronger and more durable engagement for local residents compared to top-down digital campaigns favoured by younger cohorts [79,81]. Physical presence at heritage sites also consistently produces higher well-being outcomes than digital alternatives, particularly for older audiences [85]. This generational and contextual divergence highlights a critical research gap: without systematic examination of how different audience segments perceive and respond to sustainability messages, cultural organizations risk designing communication strategies that are effective for only a narrow segment of the public.

For local and indigenous communities, the perception of sustainability is deeply ecosystemic and tied to social well-being. Studies by Wali et al. [79] and Brown [80] demonstrate that for residents, sustainability is not a digital aesthetic but a matter of “psychological ownership” achieved through structural involvement and community-based conservation rather than top-down communication. This is further supported by Biondi et al. [81], who reveal that participation dynamics in cultural initiatives are pivotal for shaping these long-term perceptions. In contrast, for tourists, the perception of sustainability is often more transactional and experiential. Research focusing on sustainable tourism [85,87,88,91] reveals that tourists value the adaptive reuse of heritage sites and cultural authenticity, viewing heritage not as a static object but as a living educational resource [91]. Panagopoulos and Nikas [90] reinforce this by suggesting that visitors perceive a museum’s value as part of a broader urban ecosystem, where its sustainability is judged by its contribution to the local social fabric.

Finally, the review identifies that the transition from passive observation to active engagement is mediated by specific mechanisms of interaction and identity. While digital tools, such as gamified e-guides [84] and social media engagement [87], expand access, they do not fully replace the psychological value of physical presence. Luck and Sayer [85] document that physical interaction produces significantly higher well-being levels than digital participation, highlighting a “sensory mechanism” that remains vital. Simultaneously, Emerson et al. [82] and Henderson et al. [83] apply multimodal learning analytics to predict engagement, identifying facial expressions as reliable indicators of deep interest. This engagement is further deepened by the “identity connection mechanism” described by Effendy and Xiao [86], who demonstrate that the cultural dimension of sustainability exerts a stronger influence on audience identity than environmental claims alone. This suggests that audiences perceive an organization as truly sustainable when it connects environmental goals with cultural authenticity. Ultimately, as confirmed by Chu and Chen [89], sustainability becomes effective when embedded in the cultural experience through storytelling and interactivity, acknowledging that audience perception is a fragmented landscape where proactive activism meets community-rooted ownership and experiential consumption (Table 10).

Table 10. Main Thematic Findings—Research Question 3.

Thematic Category	Main Findings	Key References
Generation Z & Sustainability	Gen Z particularly values combined sustainability (environmental, social, and economic). Digital access is a basic prerequisite for engagement.	Ásványi & Fehér [77], Esposito & Fisichella [78]
Community Participation & Co-Creation	Museums adopting participatory approaches create stronger environmental awareness. Community role is central.	Wali et al. [79], Biondi et al. [81], Brown [80]
Technological Engagement	Gamification, multimodal analytics, and AI-driven experiences achieve higher visit intention and deeper learning.	Emerson et al. [82], Henderson et al. [83], Bieszk-Stolorz et al. [84], Acosta et al. [117]
Travel & Sustainable Tourism	VR tourism reduces the environmental footprint of travel. Instagram is actively used for disseminating sustainable tourism values.	Jiang et al. [70], Miranda de Sá Teles et al. [87], Pai et al. [118]
Cultural Identity & Heritage Perception	Communities attribute identity values to industrial heritage that outweigh environmental risks (paradox of heritage).	Capaldo [53], Torabi Farsani et al. [54]
Wellbeing & Cultural Experience	In-person engagement with historic sites significantly increases visitor happiness compared to digital participation.	Luck & Sayer [85], Astike et al. [119]
CSR & Eco-Innovation Perception	Eco-innovative technologies in museums positively affect CSR perception and increase visitor loyalty.	Chung et al. [76]

4. Discussion

The systematic review of 88 studies published over the period 2015–2025 reveals that the relationship between cultural organizations and sustainability is multidimensional but characterized by significant asymmetries and a persistent gap between rhetoric and practice. Despite the increasing adoption of sustainability discourse, actual integration remains often fragmentary, with the environmental dimension dominating at the level of practices, while the economic and social dimensions are frequently underrepresented or addressed with limited strategic depth.

Environmental sustainability constitutes the most frequently examined pillar, but mainly through technical or operational interventions such as energy efficiency, life cycle analysis, and building infrastructure management. Studies by Kapranov [35], Glesner [41], Onofri et al. [42], Foster and Kreinin [46], Oyeyipo et al. [44], Aleksandrov [45], and Bianchi and De Medici [55] reveal that the environmental dimension is often treated as a technical matter—with emphasis on indicators, materials, and infrastructure—rather than as part of a broader organizational transformation. Meanwhile, the implementation of the SDGs remains uneven: while some studies [37,38,42] show explicit connection to specific goals, others [36] highlight a strong ‘implementation gap’, where commitment is not accompanied by systematic application.

The economic dimension of sustainability emerges as the weakest and most under-researched one. Extant studies suggest that economic sustainability is often treated as a necessary condition for organizational operation but is rarely integrated into comprehensive strategic models; in fact, it appears either as a legitimization tool (e.g., through crowdfunding) or as a factor affecting public perception [47,48,52,99].

The social and cultural dimension, although inherent in the cultural sector, often remains intangible. Studies by Naves [96], Ghose and Ali [101], Capaldo [53], Imperiale et al. [105], Lysgård [109], Lavanga and Drosner [116], Pop et al. [93], Hedges [114], Magliacani and Sorrentino [106], Loach et al. [11], and d’Orville [57] highlight the role of CCIs in social cohesion, cultural identity, and community empowerment. However, the absence of systematic social impact indicators limits organizational ability to evaluate and document their social contribution.

To answer the second research question, we understand that sustainability communication through digital media remains in a transitional stage. Although social networks constitute a key communication tool, their use remains primarily informational and promotional, with limited exploitation of the possibilities for dialogue, participation, and co-creation. Studies by Papadaki, Kourgiantakis, and Apostolakis [63], Herrada-Lores et al. [65], Power [59], Kapranov [35], and Liang et al. [73] show that sustainability communication often remains institutional, top-down, and branding-oriented. Meanwhile, digital innovation—including artificial intelligence, smart museums, and XR applications—emerges as a transformative factor [49,60,69,72], but its adoption remains uneven and often fragmented.

The third research question reveals the most significant gap in the literature: the underrepresentation of the audience’s voice. Although sustainability in culture is deeply relational, few studies systematically examine how audiences perceive or are affected by sustainability initiatives. Studies by Capaldo [53], Kalfas et al. [99], Liang et al. [73], Sutton [74], Cellucci and Villani [71], Pisani et al. [72], Victory et al. [95], and Naves [96] show that sustainability becomes more effective when embedded in the cultural experience itself—through storytelling, sensory engagement, interactivity, or digital enhancement. Iodice and Bifulco [47], Larkin et al. [100], Manioudis and Angelakis [52], and Gombos and Kézai [40] indicate that audience perception is strongly influenced by reciprocal value, whether economic or experiential.

It is important to distinguish three analytical levels that the corpus often conflates: institutional strategy (how organizations integrate sustainability into governance), communication practice (how organizations translate strategy into public-facing messages), and visitor/public response (how audiences interpret and act upon those messages). These are related but not identical, and the relationships among them remain largely hypothetical in the current evidence base. The findings of this review also carry several theoretical implications. From an institutional theory perspective, the persistent rhetoric–implementation gap observed across many cultural organizations can be understood as a form of decoupling, whereby organisations adopt sustainability discourse to gain legitimacy while facing isomorphic pressures that limit substantive change [36,41]. In terms of communication theory, the dominance of monological over dialogical approaches aligns with critiques of one-way transmission models and supports the superiority of dialogical and participatory frameworks for building trust and behavioural engagement [17,65]. Finally, the audience perception findings resonate with audience co-creation and psychological ownership theories, suggesting that sustainability initiatives are more effective when audiences are positioned as active participants rather than passive recipients [79,80]. These theoretical connections underscore the need for future research to move beyond descriptive accounts toward integrated models that explicitly test the interplay between institutional pressures, communication modes, and co-creative audience responses.

A critical interpretive constraint on this review is the overwhelming concentration of the corpus in museum and cultural heritage institutions (approximately 80% of included studies). This concentration reflects the current state of the literature but substantially limits the generalisability of conclusions. The CCI field is far broader than museums: performing arts organizations, music companies, audiovisual producers, architects, game developers, and fashion houses all operate within CCIs and engage with sustainability in ways the current evidence base does not adequately document. Findings from museum contexts may not transfer directly to market-oriented or digitally native CCI subsectors.

The findings across all three research questions reveal distinct yet interconnected patterns that, when viewed holistically, illustrate the multidimensional nature of sustainability in CCIs. The applicability of the proposed framework varies across subsectors. Museums and heritage institutions show stronger alignment with environmental and educational sustainability, while performing arts organizations and design-oriented CCIs emphasize social engagement, economic resilience, and creative experimentation. These subsector-specific boundary conditions shape how the three axes of the framework interact in practice. Table 11 offers a comparative synthesis of these patterns, mapping how each sustainability dimension—environmental, economic, social, cultural, and technological—manifests differently depending on whether it is examined through the lens of organizational practice, digital communication, or audience perception. This cross-dimensional reading makes visible both the areas of convergence across the three axes and the persistent gaps where research or practice remains underdeveloped.

Table 11. Comparative Analysis by Research Question.

Dimension	RQ1: Practices	RQ2: Communication	RQ3: Perception
Environmental	Carbon footprint, LCA, green infrastructure	Eco-friendly materials, green marketing	Gen Z’s emphasis on environmental values
Economic	Crowdfunding, digital revenues, and COVID-19 impact	Digital marketing for new markets	Perception of cultural experience value
Social	Governance, integration, access	Participatory content, dialogical communication	Community participation, well-being
Cultural	Heritage preservation, SDGs	Storytelling via XR & AI	Identity, perception of authenticity
Technological	AI for operational improvement	XR, chatbots, social media analytics	Engagement prediction, gamification

The cross-dimensional reading offered by Table 10 reveals both areas of convergence and persistent gaps. However, not all findings carry the same evidentiary weight: some reflect robust, convergent evidence from multiple independent studies, while others rest on isolated case studies or remain at the level of a conceptual proposition. To make this distinction transparent, Table 12 synthesizes the key findings of this review by evidentiary base, distinguishing between convergent findings (supported by three or more independent studies), emerging findings (supported by one or two studies), conceptual propositions (theoretical arguments not yet empirically tested), and documented gaps (areas where no study in the corpus provides evidence). This classification allows readers to calibrate the degree of confidence warranted by each claim and identifies the most pressing priorities for future empirical investigation.

Table 12. Synthesis of key findings based on evidence.

Key Finding	Evidence Base	Supporting Studies
Persistent rhetoric–implementation gap in environmental sustainability	Convergent (4+ studies)	[35,36,41,59]
Dominance of monologue over dialogical communication	Convergent (3+ studies)	[63,65,67]
Participatory engagement produces stronger sustainability ownership	Convergent (3+ studies)	[79,80,81]
Gen Z prioritizes digital co-creation and combined sustainability values	Convergent (3 studies)	[60,77,78]
In-person experience produces higher well-being than digital participation	Emerging (1 study)	[85]
Cultural authenticity more persuasive than environmental claims in fashion	Emerging (1 study)	[86]
AI integration addresses all sustainability dimensions in museums	Conceptual (1 study)	[60]
Long-term behavioral change from cultural sustainability experiences	Not documented—gap	No study in the corpus
Sustainability perception for non-Gen-Z and community audiences	Emerging	[76,79,80]

The synthesis suggests dynamic interrelationships among the three axes that can be conceptualized through a heuristic conceptual framework (Figure 3). In this model, deeper strategic integration of sustainability within the organization (RQ1) provides the foundation for more credible, consistent and authentic digital communication (RQ2). Effective communication, in turn, shapes audience perception, trust and engagement (RQ3), generating social legitimacy and economic support that feeds back into strengthened strategic commitment, forming a potential virtuous cycle.

Figure 3. Heuristic conceptual framework of the research questions regarding sustainability integration, digital communication, audience behavior, and resulting economic and social impact. Note: this model represents proposed relational hypotheses for future investigation, not a demonstrated causal sequence.

Three main mechanisms of interaction underpin the framework: (1) strategic alignment increases the credibility and coherence of sustainability messages; (2) dialogical and experiential communication fosters psychological ownership and behavioural intention; and (3) positive audience responses provide reinforcing social and economic feedback that strengthens organizational commitment to sustainability.

Boundary conditions significantly moderate these relationships. Museums and heritage institutions tend to emphasize environmental and educational dimensions and benefit more from interpretive and experiential tools. Performing arts organizations, by contrast, often prioritize social cohesion and economic resilience, where community participation and emotional storytelling play a stronger role. Organisational size and resource availability further influence the feasibility of implementing integrated strategies across all three axes.

The framework is explicitly presented as heuristic—a set of proposed relational hypotheses grounded in the thematic patterns observed across the corpus, but not yet empirically tested as a causal system. Future integrated empirical studies are needed to test and refine these relationships across different CCI subsectors.

The model proposes the following relational mechanisms: (1) organizations that holistically integrate sustainability at the strategic level (RQ1) generate substantive content that enables more credible and multi-dimensional digital communication (RQ2); (2) effective—particularly dialogical and participatory—sustainability communication enhances audience awareness, trust, and behavioral engagement (RQ3); (3) positive public response reinforces organizational sustainability through reputational, social, and economic feedback loops (back to RQ1), completing the cycle. The boundary conditions of these relationships vary across subsectors: in museum and heritage contexts, the environmental and educational sustainability dimensions are most strongly activated; in performing arts organizations, social and economic resilience mechanisms tend to dominate; in digitally native creative industries, the communication–perception pathway is mediated by platform logic and algorithmic amplification. Note: this model represents proposed relational hypotheses for future empirical investigation, not a demonstrated causal sequence.

Cultural Organizations have the potential to function as models of sustainable management, as nodes of social and environmental awareness, and as spaces of co-shaping perceptions and values. Leveraging this triple dynamic requires deep organizational change, investment in human capital, strengthening of accountability mechanisms, and the adoption of participatory communication models. Future research needs to bridge the identified gaps, particularly regarding audience perception, impact assessment, and the interconnection of digital and sustainable strategy.

5. Future Directions

The review reveals four critical gaps warranting future investigation. First, there is insufficient literature on sustainability perception from audiences of the Global South, resulting in a geographically skewed evidence base. Second, the relationship between digital engagement and actual behavioral change towards sustainability remains under-researched: no article in the corpus empirically documents long-term behavioral change because of a museum or cultural experience. Addressing this gap is crucial because siloed approaches fail to capture how communication mediates the perception–behavior link, which is essential for designing effective cultural sustainability strategies. Integrated models would enable CCIs to align messaging with measurable audience outcomes, filling a critical methodological void in sustainability communication research [11,67]. Third, the literature on the sustainability of the performing arts (theatre, music, dance) is substantially lacking compared to the attention devoted to museums and heritage sites. Fourth, and most significantly, studies that simultaneously examine all three research questions—that is, the integrated relationship between sustainability practices, communication strategies, and audience perception—are entirely absent from the extant corpus.

6. Limitations

This review presents certain limitations that must be considered when interpreting its findings. These are limitations of this specific review, distinct from the substantive research gaps identified in Section 5.

First, the search was limited to English-language publications. This language restriction—rather than reducing bias—may itself introduce bias by excluding relevant scholarship published in other languages, particularly Spanish, French, Italian, and Portuguese, given the geographic concentration of CCI research in those regions.

Second, the review drew on two databases (Scopus and Google Scholar). Google Scholar’s known reproducibility constraints—search personalization, absence of controlled vocabulary, variable result ordering—are acknowledged, and our mitigation strategies are described in Section 2.1. The exclusion of Web of Science and specialized archives may have led to the omission of some relevant publications.

Third, the absence of a formal quality appraisal instrument means that all included publications contribute to the evidence base without systematic weighting by methodological quality.

Fourth, grey literature—including organizational sustainability reports, policy documents, and doctoral dissertations—was excluded. Such material might have contained relevant findings, particularly regarding actual sustainability practices of cultural organizations, and its exclusion may contribute to an optimistic bias in the corpus.

Fifth, the predominance of European—and particularly Greek and Italian—studies in the corpus reflects both the geographic distribution of the authors’ networks and the actual concentration of peer-reviewed research in these regions, limiting generalisability to other national contexts. Despite these limitations, the review provides an extensive and systematically documented synthesis of existing knowledge, constitutes a substantial basis for future research in the field, and proposes a heuristic framework that paves the ground for the comprehensive understanding and incorporation of sustainability in cultural organization research and practice.