Scientific mapping of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) research from the perspective of stakeholders: A content analysis study

Joanna Błach; Iwona Gorzeń-Mitka; Małgorzata Lipowicz

doi:10.7341/20252144

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (2025)

Volume 21 Issue 4: 76-102

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7341/20252144

JEL Codes: G30, M14, O16, Q01

Joanna Błach, Associate Professor, University of Economics in Katowice, Faculty of Finance, 1 Maja 50, 40-287 Katowice, Poland, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Iwona Gorzeń-Mitka, Assistant Professor, University of Economics in Katowice, Faculty of Finance, 1 Maja 50, 40-287 Katowice, Poland, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Małgorzata Lipowicz, Assistant Professor, University of Economics in Katowice, Faculty of Finance, 1 Maja 50, 40-287 Katowice, Poland, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to illustrate the thematic evolution and intellectual structure of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) research from the perspective of stakeholders through the scientific mapping of 262 articles published over the past five years. METHODOLOGY: The study employs various techniques, implemented through SciMat software, including bibliometric analysis, scientific mapping, and content analysis of research documents from Scopus. It aims to examine the intellectual structure of ESG research within the context of a stakeholder perspective and traces its evolution over time. FINDINGS: The study reveals specific themes related to stakeholders’ perspectives on ESG issues, such as green innovation, disclosure of sustainability goals, and reputational risk. This highlights areas where ESG performance largely depends on stakeholder engagement. Moreover, findings underscore the bidirectional relationship between ESG performance and stakeholders. On one hand, strong ESG performance can enhance value creation for stakeholders. On the other hand, corporate duties, legal regulations, as well as stakeholders’ expectations may motivate companies to integrate ESG factors into their business strategies. IMPLICATIONS: This study may contribute to the scholarly discourse on ESG research from the stakeholder perspective by mapping its progress, identifying critical gaps, and providing insights that can guide future research. For managers and policymakers, it highlights the multifaceted and interconnected dimensions of ESG, emphasizing its relevance in fostering sustainable development and responsible corporate decision-making. It also underlines the importance of the link between stakeholder engagement and corporate ESG performance, as well as the relevance of ESG reporting. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: This research is the first to map ESG literature (using SciMAT) specifically from a stakeholder perspective. It extends prior work by reorganizing ESG research thematically around stakeholder-relevant concerns and by capturing their evolution during a period of intensified global attention to sustainability. This stakeholder-centric approach offers new insights into the dynamics of ESG discourse and opens valuable directions for future research.

Keywords: environmental, social, and governance (ESG), stakeholder perspective, stakeholder engagement, sustainability reporting, ESG disclosure, corporate social responsibility (CSR), bibliometric analysis, scientific mapping, content analysis, intellectual structure, green innovation, reputational risk, value creation, sustainable development, corporate governance, business strategy, ESG performance, regulatory compliance, ESG evolution, co-word analysis, scientific mapping, sustainability disclosure

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues have garnered unprecedented attention across a broad spectrum of academic disciplines and industry sectors (Cai et al., 2024; Khurshid & Islam, 2025). This rising interest is driven by the increasing recognition that traditional financial metrics alone are insufficient to fully capture the complexities of corporate performance and its long-term implications. Stakeholders, including investors, regulators, consumers, employees, and communities, are demanding that organizations adopt more responsible and sustainable business practices (Hazaea et al., 2025). The call for corporate accountability has moved beyond compliance and a niche concern to a central tenet of business strategy, emphasizing the integration of ESG principles to create sustainable value (Helfaya et al., 2023).

The widespread interest in ESG performance reflects a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness between corporate behavior, economic outcomes, societal well-being, and environmental sustainability. As organizations navigate this dynamic landscape, they are increasingly expected to measure, disclose, and improve their ESG activities. This transition is not only a response to stakeholders’ pressures and regulatory development but also an acknowledgment of the role ESG plays in generating value, enhancing corporate resilience, innovation, and competitive advantage. Indeed, the growing prominence of the ESG concept in the corporate world has catalyzed a rapid expansion of academic work, exploring the complex relationships between corporate practices, stakeholders’ engagement, and the broader socio-ecological environment (Bassetti et al., 2020; Chouaibi et al., 2021; Doś & Pattarin, 2024; Tamasiga et al., 2024).

The complexity of the ESG concept as a research domain is reflected in its heterogeneous literature, encompassing diverse conceptualizations, frameworks, and empirical methodologies (Husted & Sousa-Filho, 2019). Scholars have approached ESG from multiple vantage points, ranging from corporate ethical duties and legal compliance to its impact on financial performance and investment strategies, as well as its role in shaping corporate reputation, risk management, innovation, and stakeholders’ trust. In particular, the discussion on the link between ESG and financial performance is still open, as various research provides different results, which is explained by the country-level factors, industry characteristics, governance structures, or by the heterogeneity in ESG performance measurement and reporting (Lassala et al., 2021; Rahi et al., 2023).

Among these perspectives, a growing body of research has emphasized the stakeholder dimension, investigating how both internal and external actors influence and are influenced by ESG-related decisions and outcomes (Chouaibi et al., 2021; Mori et al., 2013). This stakeholder-centric approach highlights the interconnectedness of corporate actions and the expectations of various constituencies, underscoring the need for companies to align their ESG strategies with the interests of their stakeholders.

As the field of ESG research continues to expand, the need for systematic and structured analyses becomes increasingly apparent. Such analyses can synthesize prevailing themes, identify emerging patterns, and provide guidance for future research directions (Bakar et al., 2019). While the body of literature on ESG issues has proliferated significantly over the past five years, relatively few studies have attempted to systematically map its intellectual structure within the context of stakeholder perspectives (Gao et al., 2021; Marzuki et al., 2023). Addressing this gap, the present study employs a combination of bibliometric techniques and content analysis to provide a scientific mapping of ESG research from a stakeholder perspective (Ellili, 2022; Marzuki et al., 2023).

This study aims to uncover key thematic clusters, influential scholarly contributions, and intellectual trajectories that have shaped the discourse on ESG. By doing so, it seeks to bridge the gap between the rapidly evolving literature and the practical needs of organizations striving to integrate ESG considerations into their decision-making processes. The rationale for adopting a stakeholder lens is grounded in the recognition that corporate sustainability is not solely driven by intrinsic corporate values, ethical duties, or regulatory compliance. Instead, it is profoundly shaped by the interactions and expectations of diverse stakeholders’ groups, whose interests often intersect and evolve over time (Joshi & Dash, 2023; Saini, 2023).

Focusing on the stakeholder perspective enables a deeper understanding of the relational dynamics that underpin corporate ESG practices. This lens illuminates how organizations navigate complex stakeholder relationships, balance competing demands, and prioritize ESG initiatives that align with stakeholders’ interests. It also sheds light on how these interactions influence corporate behavior, decision-making, and performance over time (Christianna, 2023; Joshi & Dash, 2023; Saini, 2023). By mapping the intellectual structure of ESG research, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the field, providing valuable insights for academics, practitioners, and policymakers alike. In this context, the paper falls into the stream of literature on ESG corporate actions and its integration with the stakeholder theories: the original stakeholder theory developed by Freeman (Freeman, 1984), the resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), the stakeholder salience theory (Mitchell et al., 1997), the paradox theory (Pinto, 2019) and the dynamic stakeholder ecosystems (Windsor, 2010).

The present study aims to advance the ESG discourse by systematically examining its development from a stakeholder perspective. This approach not only enhances our understanding of how organizations engage with their stakeholders (often with conflicting demands) but also highlights the broader implications of ESG practices for sustainable value creation, societal well-being, and environmental stewardship.

The primary objective of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the existing body of knowledge in the research field of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance, with a specific focus on understanding it from the perspective of various stakeholders. By examining the evolution and current state of the ESG research landscape, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the field’s theoretical and practical foundations, as well as to identify emerging trends and critical issues that are shaping its trajectory. In line with this objective, the study addresses the following key research questions (RQs):

RQ1: What is the current status of ESG research from the perspective of stakeholders?

RQ2: What are the key concepts (keywords) that define the field of ESG research from the perspective of stakeholders?

RQ3: What emerging trends and issues is the field of ESG research evolving toward from the perspective of stakeholders?

RQ4: What are the most relevant issues and turning points in the evolution of ESG research from the perspective of

stakeholders?

By addressing these questions, the paper aims to contribute to the scholarly discourse on ESG research from the stakeholder perspective, mapping its progress, identifying critical gaps, and providing insights that can guide future research and practice. Through its stakeholder-focused perspective, the study highlights the multifaceted and interconnected dimensions of ESG, emphasizing its relevance in fostering sustainable development and responsible corporate decision-making.

The rest of this paper is structured as follows. The next section presents the theoretical framework of the study. Section three describes the applied methodology and functionality of SciMAT software. Section four presents the results of a scientific mapping, section five includes a discussion, and the final section concludes the study.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

ESG performance and its significance for corporate success

Although ESG-related issues have been extensively discussed over recent decades in both business practice and academia, many topics still require further investigation. Firstly, as supported by an extensive body of research, ESG performance plays a critical role in corporate performance (Awaysheh et al., 2020; Henriques et al., 2022; Vishwanathan et al., 2019; Wang, 2024). However, the nature of the relationship between ESG performance and firm performance remains a subject of ongoing debate (Lassala et al., 2021; Rahi et al., 2023). In this study, we align with the predominant research stream that posits a positive link between ESG and firm performance, as explained by theories such as the Social Impact Hypothesis and the Reputation-building Hypothesis. These are supported by many empirical studies, including the meta-analysis by Friede et al. (2015). Firms that adopt corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies — a foundational element of ESG — consistently demonstrate superior financial outcomes compared to their counterparts. Studies reveal that firms focusing on ESG achieve better short-term financial results, as illustrated by profitability ratios: ROE and ROA, as well as long-term performance as measured by market ratios: Tobin’s Q or Market-to-Book value (M/BV) (Błach et al., 2025; Henriques et al., 2022; Yavuz et al., 2025). The mechanisms driving this positive relationship include operational efficiencies, risk mitigation, innovation, enhanced stakeholder relationships, and improved access to resources (Guan et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024). Studies showing a negative relationship between ESG and firm performance are relatively rare. When such negative impacts are identified, they are often attributed to the substitution hypothesis and the short-term costs incurred by ESG actions, which may only yield benefits in the long run (Lassala et al., 2021).

The positive association between strong ESG and financial performance stems from several factors. ESG initiatives enhance brand reputation, foster customer loyalty and employee engagement, differentiate products and services, leading to higher sales revenues. ESG practices also signal effective management and a commitment to social and environmental responsibility, which attract investors who incorporate ESG criteria into their investment decisions, thereby elevating firm valuation and stakeholder trust (Awaysheh et al., 2020; Vishwanathan et al., 2019). Furthermore, ESG strategies contribute to increased operating effectiveness, improved risk management, innovation and better access to capital, collectively enhancing corporate performance and sustainable growth (Wang et al., 2024).

Secondly, the ESG performance is multifaceted, encompassing diverse environmental, social, and governance activities. On the environmental (E) front, initiatives include energy efficiency, waste management, and the circular economy, as well as emissions reduction, biodiversity protection, and the adoption of renewable energy (Guan et al., 2023). The social dimension (S) encompasses employee welfare and health, diversity, equity, and inclusion, community engagement, product responsibility, customer well-being, labor practices, and human rights (Naheed et al., 2021; Nguyena et al., 2020; Uyar et al., 2020). Governance-related efforts (G) focus on board composition and independence, executive compensation, shareholder rights and stakeholder engagement, risk management, ethical business practices, compliance, decision-making transparency, and reporting (Gharbi & Jarboui, 2023; Rashid et al., 2020; Zhang, 2022).

The emphasis on specific ESG dimensions varies by industry and region. For instance, environmental and social priorities are prominent in tourism and hospitality, while governance aspects are pivotal in finance (Gangi et al., 2019; Nguyena et al., 2020). Additionally, a country’s regulatory environment and ownership structures influence ESG priorities (Akben-Selçuk, 2019; Gharbi & Jarboui, 2023; Zhang, 2022). Miralles-Quirós et al. (2019) found that ESG performance has a positive impact on firm market value; however, investors may value it differently depending on the ESG pillar and the type of industry. For example, environmental performance is positively linked to the market value of firms from the non-environmental sensitive industries, while social and governance practices are positively assessed in these sensitive industries. Moreover, the study by Giese et al. (2021) demonstrated that the duration of the financial impact of specific ESG pillars varies: E and S factors tend to have long-term financial effects, while G actions are more critical in the short-term perspective.

Finally, researchers assess ESG performance using various metrics. ESG scores from providers such as Thomson Reuters, Bloomberg, and MSCI are widely used to comprehensively evaluate companies across environmental, social, and governance domains (Partalidou et al., 2020). However, they use various methodologies for these indices, which limits the comparability of results. Disclosure of CSR initiatives and financial investments in ESG activities serve as alternative measures (Naheed et al., 2021; Rashid et al., 2020). Some studies employ specific indicators, such as energy consumption and employee diversity, to capture distinct ESG dimensions (Jiang et al., 2018; Nikolaou et al., 2019). Other researchers construct tailored, aggregated ESG indexes, focusing on selected aspects of ESG performance relevant to the analyzed firms (Błach et al., 2025; Dočekalová & Kocmanová, 2016; Matuszewska-Pierzynka et al., 2023; Partalidou et al., 2020). Traditional performance metrics are also modified to illustrate ESG performance. Adopted metrics include: the Sustainable Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) (Figge et al., 2002; Kaplan & McMillan, 2021), the modified DuPont model (Shan et al., 2024), or the Economic Value Added (EVA) model expanded to incorporate ESG factors enhancing the value creation process (Sanga & Situmorang, 2024). The main framework for sustainability reporting is provided by the GRI (Global Reporting Initiative), which helps companies present their ESG performance in a transparent and comparable manner. Other disclosure guidelines are provided by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) or ISO 26000. Depending on the country and firm characteristics, ESG reporting may be voluntary or mandatory, utilizing various reporting standards and guidelines (e.g., the CSRD Directive in the European Union). ESG disclosure increases a firm’s transparency and may build trust capital, but it also requires professional expertise and generates costs. Another concern stems from the risk of greenwashing (Ruiz-Blanco et al., 2022), where exaggerated, superficial, or selective ESG efforts reported by a company may damage the reputation and trust of the management team. These factors underscore the complexity and heterogeneity in ESG research and disclosure practices, which can yield mixed results across studies and sectors.

The literature highlights the strategic importance of ESG practices in enhancing corporate performance. ESG initiatives not only bolster competitiveness and financial success but also address broader social and environmental objectives, making them integral to contemporary business strategy.

Stakeholder theory and stakeholder relevance to corporations

The stakeholder theory developed by R.E. Freeman in 1984 has been a cornerstone of economic and management literature, underscoring the importance of incorporating the perspectives and needs of various stakeholders into corporate decision-making processes (Freeman, 1984). Unlike traditional shareholder-centric models, which prioritize maximizing shareholder value, the stakeholder theory advocates for a broader approach that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders impacted by organizational actions (Babiak & Kihl, 2018; Signori & Fassin, 2023; Sonjaya, 2024).

However, various explanations exist for the necessity of effective stakeholder management (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman et al., 2010; Lazzarini, 2025). The normative stakeholder theory focuses on the moral and ethical obligations of a company towards its stakeholders and is linked to philosophical concepts. The interests of all stakeholders are of intrinsic value and should be respected by a company, because it is its fundamental duty, regardless of its economic or financial consequences (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984). In contrast, the instrumental stakeholder theory (Jones, 1995) views stakeholder management as a means to achieve corporate objectives, including financial ones. Stakeholder engagement is a crucial tool, as it benefits a company by helping to achieve long-term goals, improving its reputation, and enhancing financial performance (Lazzarini, 2025; Porter & Kramer, 2006). Another approach is offered by the empirical (descriptive) stakeholder theory, which aims to understand how companies actually organize their relationships with multiple stakeholders, how they consider stakeholders’ needs and expectations in their decision-making process, and how they regard the power and importance of these stakeholders for the company (Mitchell et al., 1997). Finally, the integrative stakeholder theory attempts to combine the normative, descriptive, and instrumental perspectives by recognizing the ethical imperatives and simultaneously appreciating the strategic importance of stakeholders in achieving objectives and driving business success (Klara, 2024).

Stakeholders, as defined by Freeman, include „any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Sonjaya, 2024). Stakeholders are also defined as various groups whose support is crucial for an organization’s survival and development (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Stakeholders are diverse and can be categorized into two main groups: internal and external. Internal stakeholders include employees, managers, and board members who are directly involved in the organization’s operations. External stakeholders, on the other hand, comprise customers, suppliers, investors, governments, and the broader community, all of whom interact with the organization outside its formal structure (Cheshmberah, 2020; Derakhshan et al., 2019; Macassa et al., 2021). These stakeholders create a dynamic and complex ecosystem that shifts over time (due to various factors: learning, values, competition, sustainable development, creative disruption, value creation, etc.) (Windsor, 2011) and requires constant monitoring and adaptation to changing needs and expectations. The stakeholder ecosystem, as well as the company itself, respond also to institutional shifts, due to changes in legal regulations, social norms, values, and pressures. As explained by the resource dependence theory (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), stakeholders provide companies with the required resources (tangible or intangible), which are critical for survival and success, in exchange for benefits (both financial and non-financial). To secure access to these resources, a firm must effectively manage its relationships with stakeholders. A study by Wagner Mainardes et al. (2012) found that relevance, mutual influence and participation are key variables in explaining the organization and stakeholder relationship. Additionally, the stakeholder salience theory (Mitchell et al., 1997) explains the attributes of stakeholders, such as power, legitimacy, proximity, and urgency, which result in varying priorities for different groups of stakeholders. Consequently, a company must implement holistic and dynamic strategies that balance multiple objectives to manage stakeholder relationships effectively and create value.

Each group of stakeholders has distinct expectations that influence their interactions with the organization. Employees typically expect fair compensation, job security, opportunities for professional growth, and a safe working environment. Their satisfaction often translates into higher productivity and organizational loyalty (Macassa et al., 2021). Customers prioritize the delivery of high-quality goods and services at competitive prices. Customer satisfaction drives brand loyalty and market competitiveness (Alabdullah, 2023), resulting in increased sales growth. Suppliers value reliability in payments, transparency in dealings, and long-term contractual relationships that offer mutual benefits (Ghezal, 2024). Maintaining good relationships with suppliers is crucial to the company’s ability to sustain its operations, maintain financial liquidity, and deliver high-quality products and services. Investors are primarily focused on the rate of return and level of risk associated with the capital they provide to businesses; however, it is observed that their role is evolving in the context of sustainable development (Ruiz et al., 2021). Communities and governments expect organizations to act as responsible corporate citizens, contributing to societal well-being through sustainable practices, philanthropy, and adherence to regulatory standards (Babiak & Kihl, 2018).

This stakeholder polyphony, reflected in the varied and sometimes conflicting interests of stakeholders, creates challenges for organizations. Shareholders, for instance, may prioritize short-term financial returns and dividend payments, which can conflict with the long-term interests of employees, who may value job stability, or communities, which might emphasize sustainability and environmental responsibility (Harrison et al., 2019; Signori & Fassin, 2023; Sonjaya, 2024). Similarly, customers’ demands for cost efficiency could clash with employees’ expectations for higher wages or suppliers’ needs for fair pricing. Moreover, Carney et al. (2011) highlighted the importance of intra-stakeholder conflict, which is often neglected but may have a crucial impact on corporate performance.

These conflicts, if not effectively managed, can disrupt organizational harmony and performance. The paradox theory indicates that these tensions and contradictions, as inherent elements of the organizational system, should be managed dynamically to enhance resilience, innovation, and sustainable performance. It suggests treating such conflicts as a source of strategic advantage rather than a problem that should be eliminated (Pinto, 2019). Research has highlighted the importance of proactive conflict resolution strategies to mitigate the negative effects of these competing interests (Bahadorestani et al., 2020; Cheshmberah, 2020; Derakhshan et al., 2019). To address these challenges, organizations must adopt a strategic approach to stakeholder engagement. Continuous dialogue with stakeholders is crucial for understanding their concerns and aligning organizational objectives with stakeholder expectations. Key strategies for managing stakeholder relationships include: fostering trust and reducing misunderstandings by open and honest communication (Babiak & Kihl, 2018; Estaswara, 2020); adopting ethical practices to ensure fairness and integrity in the decision-making, balancing the competing needs of different stakeholder groups (Aguinis et al., 2019; Alabdullah, 2023); embedding CSR initiatives into business practices to address societal and environmental concerns while creating shared value for stakeholders (Ghezal, 2024).

When organizations effectively manage stakeholder relationships, they achieve multiple benefits. These include enhanced accountability, improved trust, strengthened relationships, and access to crucial resources, which collectively contribute to long-term organizational success. Moreover, research indicates that aligning stakeholder interests with organizational goals enhances performance and sustainability over time.

However, there are complexities in these interactions. Studies have shown that stakeholders may not always respond positively to ethical organizational behavior. For example, gaps may exist between stakeholders’ declared ethical intentions and their actual actions, creating challenges for organizations aiming to implement and communicate ethical practices effectively.

The stakeholder theories provide a vital framework for understanding the dynamics of stakeholder relationships and their relevance to corporate success. Managing these relationships requires a nuanced approach that considers the unique expectations and potential conflicts among various stakeholder groups. By fostering transparent communication, making ethical decisions, and integrating CSR into their core strategies, organizations can navigate these complexities to create value for all stakeholders. Ultimately, balancing the interests of stakeholders is not merely an ethical imperative but a strategic necessity for achieving sustainable growth and long-term success (Harrison et al., 2019; Signori & Fassin, 2023; Sonjaya, 2024).

ESG performance and stakeholder perception

A growing body of evidence suggests that companies with strong environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance are better positioned to engage with stakeholders and address their diverse and changing needs and concerns (Dasinapa, 2024; Kulova & Nikolova-Alexieva, 2023). This capability stems from the integration of ESG principles into corporate decision-making, which encourages transparency, inclusivity, sustainability, and accountability. By actively involving stakeholders — such as investors, customers, suppliers, employees, and community members — in decision-making processes and seeking their input, companies can access valuable insights that support the development of more responsible and sustainable business practices (Dasinapa, 2024; Kulova & Nikolova-Alexieva, 2023; Tan, 2024). By engaging stakeholders in the ESG integration process, a company can better identify material ESG issues, address conflicting interests and needs, and ultimately align corporate actions with stakeholders’ expectations. Stakeholders’ engagement requires active collaboration during the entire process of ESG integration, with the major elements: precise identification and mapping of key stakeholders, defining objectives and priorities, formulating ESG strategy, taking specific ESG actions, interactive bidirectional communication about ESG actions together with feedback analysis and strategy modification, unified and standardized ESG reporting and performance measurement. Stakeholders’ engagement in the ESG integration process results in a shift in business orientation, from short-term profit maximization to a long-term value creation objective. The successful integration of ESG processes may be enhanced by an integrative approach, where ethical values and responsibilities form the foundation for strategic stakeholder management, aiming at genuine business transformation.

This participatory approach not only strengthens trust and collaboration between companies and their stakeholders but also enhances the alignment of corporate objectives with societal expectations. Zumente Bistrova (2021) analyzed how ESG performance may improve the value-creation process. They found that both financial and non-financial factors related to ESG performance are important for long-term value, including reputation, stakeholder trust and employee satisfaction. However, as suggested by Calabrese et al. (2012), the final evaluation of corporate sustainable initiatives depends on stakeholder perception, which is a key factor in the ESG assessment process. This perception may be influenced by ESG communication and reporting, as well as by stakeholder relationship management.

The increasing prioritization of ESG considerations by stakeholders highlights their growing awareness of the long-term value generated by responsible corporate behavior. For instance, investors are more likely to support companies that demonstrate a commitment to sustainability, recognizing that such companies are better equipped to manage risks and capitalize on emerging opportunities in an evolving global market (Kim & Li, 2021; Shakil et al., 2019; Shen, 2024). This approach is illustrated by the increasing value of assets classified as SRI (sustainable and responsible investments). Similarly, customers increasingly favor brands that align with their values, particularly in terms of environmental stewardship and social responsibility.

Despite the evident advantages, the relationship between ESG performance and stakeholder perceptions is complex and multifaceted. Some studies suggest that the benefits of strong ESG performance, such as improved corporate reputation and stakeholder trust, may take considerable time to translate into measurable financial gains (Tang, 2020). Moreover, the impact of ESG initiatives is influenced by various contextual factors, including the legal and institutional environment, industry characteristics, corporate governance structures, and the specific ESG metrics being evaluated (Clementino & Perkins, 2021; Miralles‐Quirós et al., 2019). For example, in industries with high environmental risks, stakeholders may prioritize environmental performance more heavily than social or governance criteria, whereas in other sectors, social dimensions such as diversity and labor practices may carry greater weight. Similarly, variations in institutional frameworks across regions can affect how stakeholders perceive and value corporate ESG efforts. Various groups of stakeholders may value the outcomes of specific ESG actions differently. For example, local communities may pay more attention to environmental aspects, while employees may be more focused on social factors, and ultimately, investors may require higher-quality governance structures, transparency, and corporate reporting.

Furthermore, some researchers have noted that ESG performance alone cannot fully explain variations in stakeholder perceptions and corporate outcomes. Factors such as a company’s communication strategies, historical performance, and alignment with stakeholder values can significantly influence how ESG initiatives are received and evaluated (Tang et al., 2020). This underscores the need for companies not only to implement strong ESG practices but also to effectively communicate their efforts and maintain consistent engagement with their stakeholders.

While stakeholder-related aspects of ESG have been addressed in numerous conceptual and empirical studies — as demonstrated above — existing research remains fragmented and limited to specific contexts or stakeholder groups. Despite the growing relevance of stakeholder issues in ESG scholarship, a systematic mapping of the literature from this perspective has not been conducted. In response to this gap, the present study examines how stakeholder-related issues are represented and interconnected within ESG research. Using SciMAT as a bibliometric mapping tool, the study traces the thematic evolution and intellectual structure of this body of work over the past five years. By mapping ESG literature around stakeholder-relevant concerns, it offers a novel analytical perspective. This stakeholder-centric approach offers a more comprehensive view of ESG discourse and provides a structured foundation for advancing future research in the field.

METHODOLOGY

Research design

This study employs a multidimensional approach to examine ESG research from the perspective of stakeholders, utilizing a concept mapping framework – a recognized method for visualizing conceptual structures and relationships. Various tools and methods are utilized in the analysis. Initially, abstracts and citations were sourced from major databases of peer-reviewed scientific publications, with Scopus being the primary focus due to its extensive indexing of journals in management, economics, and finance, surpassing databases like Web of Science. Although this study is based exclusively on Scopus-indexed publications, this choice is methodologically justified and consistent with the exploratory nature of the research. Scopus is widely recognized as one of the most comprehensive abstract and citation databases, particularly suitable for interdisciplinary fields such as ESG research. According to Mongeon and Paul-Hus (2016), Scopus provides approximately 66% broader journal coverage compared to Web of Science (WoS), and includes nearly 99% of the journals indexed in WoS. Moreover, Archambault et al. (2009) demonstrated that bibliometric indicators such as publication volume and citation counts are highly correlated between WoS and Scopus. This suggests that structural and thematic bibliometric results are largely robust to the choice of database. Since the objective of this study is not to evaluate citation impact but to map thematic and intellectual structures within ESG literature, Scopus provides a sufficient and appropriate basis for the analysis.

Figure 1. ESG research from the perspective of stakeholders – research map

Figure 1 presents a conceptual map of bibliometric analysis of ESG research from a stakeholders’ perspective. To capture recent trends and ensure the relevance of the findings, this study limited its bibliometric analysis to articles published within the past five years (2020–2024). This time frame was deliberately chosen due to several converging developments that have significantly reshaped the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) research landscape. First, the period marks a turning point in global ESG regulation and disclosure practices – in particular, the introduction and enforcement of frameworks such as the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) in 2019, and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in 2021 (Busch & Friede, 2018; European Commission, 2025). Second, the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021) triggered a major re-evaluation of corporate responsibility. It brought ESG issues — particularly those related to social sustainability and stakeholder welfare — to the forefront of public and academic discourse, highlighting the need for firms to respond effectively to stakeholder expectations in times of crisis (Adigwe 2025; Amel-Zadeh & Serafeim, 2018). Third, bibliometric studies confirm a steep rise in ESG-related scholarly publications during this period. This reflects a maturing field, as evidenced by Khurshid and Islam (2025), and Wan et al. (2023). Lastly, selecting a recent five-year window ensures that the analysis captures the most current dynamics, making the insights more relevant and actionable for both researchers and practitioners in a rapidly evolving ESG landscape (George et al., 2021).

The search targeted relevant articles by screening keywords in the following steps. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Page et al., 2020) were applied in conducting the search, which centered on terms like „ESG” OR „environmental, social, and governance „AND „stakeholder*”. The data collected was then analyzed using SciMAT (v1.1.04), a specialized scientific mapping software. Although several tools are available for bibliometric mapping, the SciMAT software was selected due to its specific suitability for the analytical objectives of this study, namely, to explore not only the intellectual structure but also the thematic evolution of ESG research from a stakeholder perspective over time. SciMAT is less commonly used than other bibliometric mapping tools such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Bibliometrix (Gorzeń-Mitka & Wieczorek-Kosmala, 2023; Tomaszewski, 2023), but it proves particularly advantageous for tracking research development over time. SciMAT stands out for its open-access availability and offers unique database preprocessing capabilities, including deduplication, time slicing, stop words, and data editing (Moral-Muñoz et al., 2020). SciMAT is specifically designed for science mapping analysis with a longitudinal dimension, offering a unique combination of features that are critical to our research goals. As detailed by Moral-Muñoz et al. (2020), SciMAT offers a fully integrated workflow that spans from data preprocessing to mapping and visualization, ensuring consistency and transparency. More importantly, SciMAT enables the construction of strategic diagrams based on two key dimensions — centrality and density — which allows for the identification of motor themes, emerging topics, and underdeveloped areas (Cobo et al., 2011). These capabilities are especially relevant for a dynamic and multidimensional research field such as ESG, where stakeholder views evolve and interact over time. By contrast, while VOSviewer excels in generating co-authorship and co-citation networks, it lacks integrated tools for analyzing thematic evolution. Similarly, Bibliometrix — though flexible — requires additional coding and does not offer a strategic mapping function or temporal theme tracking in the same structured way. Moreover, SciMAT has been effectively applied in a number of studies (e.g., Cai et al., 2024; Cobo et al., 2012; Burbano et al., 2024), validating its robustness in handling research topics that require both structural and temporal bibliometric analysis.

Notably, this study emphasizes knowledge mapping as a distinct approach from traditional systematic literature reviews. The applied scientific mapping techniques include co-citation analysis, co-expression analysis, and the study of collaborative networks, enabling a detailed representation of the scientific landscape (Cobo et al., 2011; Gonzales-Aguilar, 2023). These visual mappings reveal complex relationships and trends in the field, helping identify key areas and future research paths (Cobo et al., 2012; Martins et al., 2022).

Data collection

Figure 2, featuring a PRISMA flow diagram, depicts the steps taken to construct a knowledge base on ESG research from the stakeholders’ perspective.

Figure 2. ESG research from the perspective of stakeholders – PRISMA flowchart

An initial search, conducted in October 2024, yielded 328 documents. Selection criteria, as outlined in Figure 2, guided the inclusion of documents for further review. Ultimately, after a detailed screening process, data from 262 scientific papers was analyzed to map knowledge on ESG and stakeholders. We searched the Scopus database using the following search query: (KEY (ESG ) OR KEY („environmental, social and governance”) AND KEY (stakeholder*)) AND PUBYEAR > 2019 AND PUBYEAR < 2025 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, „ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, „ch”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, „cp”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, „bk”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, „English”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (PUBSTAGE, „final”)).

Knowledge pre-mapping methodology

In the pre-mapping phase, the prepared dataset was subjected to a temporal and citation analysis with the application of tools available in the SCOPUS database. This helps to assess the research productivity and citability over time (number of publications and citations in a specific period) and to identify the most important authors and articles.

Knowledge mapping methodology

In the principal mapping phase, the acquired dataset was analyzed using the dedicated scientific mapping software SciMAT (v1.1.04), which is an open-source software tool developed to perform science mapping analysis within a longitudinal framework (Cobo et al. 2011, 2012, 2018; Moral-Muñoz et al. 2020). The use of specialized software to explore and map large datasets is becoming increasingly common among researchers in all fields of science. They are used to analyze the state of research in a field, identify and track directions for its evaluation, and search for knowledge gaps and potential directions for new research. The motivation for this choice was the data processing capabilities and functionality of SciMAT. In particular, it is worth emphasizing that SciMAT is the only software of its kind currently available for evolutionary research. Furthermore, it contains the widest range of functions in terms of pre-processing options (available methods for deduplication process, time cutting, stop words and data editing) (Moral-Muñoz et al., 2020). The software enables the analysis of a given research area, as well as the detection and visualization of its conceptual subdomains (specific themes or general thematic areas), and the representation of the thematic evolution of the analyzed research area (Cobo et al., 2018). A detailed description of the functionality of the different SciMAT modules and algorithms can be found in Cobo et al. (2012). Although SciMAT provides robust tools for bibliometric analysis and scientific mapping (Cobo et al., 2012), it is important to recognize the limitations of its methodology. The tool is highly sensitive to keyword variability. The quality of co-word analysis depends heavily on the consistency, specificity, and semantic clarity of the keywords used throughout the dataset. To address this, a manual normalization process was employed to unify synonyms, harmonize variant spellings and abbreviations, and remove redundant or overly generic terms. This aligns with the recommended data refinement practices for bibliometric research (Donthu et al., 2021). In this study, the co-word occurrence threshold was deliberately set to zero to ensure the inclusion of all potential conceptual linkages, including those based on single co-occurrences. This decision aimed to capture weak but potentially meaningful or emerging thematic connections, which are particularly relevant in a complex, evolving, and multidisciplinary research field such as ESG from the stakeholder perspective. While prior studies suggest applying minimum thresholds (e.g., ≥3 or ≥5) to reduce noise (Callon et al., 1991), setting the threshold to zero was justified by the exploratory nature of this study, its limited time span (five years), dataset size (262 articles), and the aim of identifying niche or peripheral themes that may not yet be well established. The increased risk of including spurious associations was mitigated by rigorous data cleaning and keyword normalization, in line with best practices for bibliometric analysis (Donthu et al., 2021). Despite SciMAT’s built-in deduplication features, there is still a risk of data duplication due to inconsistencies in author names, article titles, or journal metadata. A manual review and cleaning process was therefore conducted prior to analysis to address these issues and ensure the reliability of the dataset (Öztürk et al., 2024). The approach, following Cobo et al. (2018), consists of four steps (Figure 1) and employs various measures (Table 1).

Table 1. Mapping measures

Steps	Measures	Formula	Interpretation
1	Centrality measure	Where: c – centrality u – an item belonging to the cluster v – an item belonging to other clusters	c – assesses the external coherence of the network by measuring the degree to which the network interacts with other networks In its raw form, c has no fixed upper limit because it grows with the number and strength of connections (∑euv) after normalization, c is scaled between 0 and 1: 0 – the cluster is completely isolated from other clusters (no inter-cluster connections) 1 – maximum interaction, meaning all connections of the cluster lead to nodes in other clusters
2	Density measure	Where: d – density i, j – items belonging to the cluster n – the number of items in the theme	d – assesses the internal coherence of the network by measuring its internal strength It ranges from 0 to 100: higher values, greater coherence or stronger interconnectedness within the network 0 – there are no connections between items in the cluster, a lack of internal coherence 100 – a fully connected network, every item is directly linked to every other item (maximum internal strength)
3	Equivalence index	Where: Eij – the equivalence index i, j, …. – keywords Ci – the number of occurrences of the keyword i Cj – the number of occurrences of the keyword j Cij – the number of co-occurrences of the keywords i and j	E – identifies the similarity between keywords It ranges from 0 to 1: 0 – no co-occurrence (no similarity) between the two keywords 1 – perfect similarity, whenever one keyword occurs, the other always does as well
4	Stability index	Where: Sij – the stability index t1, t2, …. – periods nt1 – the number of keywords related to period t1 nt2 – the number of keywords related to period t2 nt1t2 – the number of keywords shared by periods t1 and t2	S – assesses the degree of stability between two consecutive periods It ranges from 0 to 1: the closer to 1, the more consistent and stable the thematic elements are over time 0 – complete instability, where there are no shared keywords between the two periods, a lack of continuity in thematic or conceptual focus 1 – complete stability, all keywords from t1 are retained in t2 and vice versa, full thematic consistency across the periods

Source: Own elaboration based on Callon et.al (1991); Cobo et al. (2011).

The strategy diagram visualizes the thematic clusters generated by SciMAT’s bibliometric analysis. Our interpretive framework is grounded in the works of Cobo et al. (2011, 2012). According to these sources, the strategic diagram used in SciMAT classifies themes based on two key dimensions: centrality (the degree of interaction with other themes) and density (the internal development of the theme). This results in the identification of four quadrants, each corresponding to a specific type of thematic role in the structure of the field: (1) motor themes (upper-right quadrant) exhibit high centrality and high density. These are both conceptually developed and structurally important themes, which drive the intellectual development of the field; (2) highly developed but isolated themes (upper-left quadrant) have strong internal cohesion (high density) but weak external ties (low centrality), indicating specialization or marginal relevance to the broader field; (3) emerging or declining themes (lower-left quadrant) are weak in both dimensions and are interpreted as either nascent research directions or areas losing relevance; (4) basic and transversal themes (lower-right quadrant), are characterized by high centrality but low density; these themes connect to multiple other themes but are not yet internally developed. Each sphere represents a theme, which is a keyword (main topic or concept) derived from the bibliographic data. Larger spheres indicate themes with higher citability (in our case) in the dataset. Larger (more important and significant) balls (themes) are generally more central; smaller (indicating niche or emerging topics) balls (themes) are more diffused and reflect their nascent status.

Results

Pre-mapping phase

The initial phase of the study involved conducting a bibliometric performance analysis. Metadata were pre-processed using the Scopus platform’s bibliometric tools, allowing for an assessment of annual publication and citation trends (as shown in Figure 3). Figure 3 displays the yearly count of published articles, with a dashed line indicating citation counts. Research on ESG topics from the perspective of stakeholders first appeared in 2009, after which the number of publications steadily increased. Over the last five years, there has been a significant rise in both publication and citation numbers on this subject.

Figure 3. ESG research from stakeholders’ perspective – distribution of publications and citations per year (2009-2024 (October)

Source: Own elaboration via Scopus.

It should be noted, that over the past five years, the number of publications in this field has grown by more than seven times (from 19 in 2019 to 285 in 2024). Simultaneously, the number of citations has grown by over eight times during this period. In the next step, the leading papers in the study area were identified based on their citability (Table 2). The article that is most frequently cited both overall (total citations, TC) and by number of citations per year (total citations per year, TCY) is the paper by Cheng et al. (2014). In their study, the authors demonstrated that CSR engagement improves a firm’s access to finance by building trust with external stakeholders. Companies with a strong CSR reputation tend to experience lower capital constraints as they are perceived as less risky and more transparent. This ultimately benefits shareholders, lenders, and broader stakeholders by enhancing financial stability and providing more reliable access to financing.

The second most frequently cited paper was that of Broadstock et al. (2021). In this paper, the authors indicated that firms with high ESG performance exhibited greater resilience during the COVID-19 financial crisis, thereby demonstrating that strong ESG practices can serve as a buffer during economic shocks. This finding supports the view that ESG investments foster trust and long-term stability, which is particularly beneficial for stakeholders during crises. These findings are corroborated by other papers included in Table 2, namely: Velte (2017) and Xie et al. (2019). In contrast, the findings presented by Tang and Zhang (2020) suggest that green bond issuance benefits not only shareholders through immediate positive financial returns, but also broader stakeholders by aligning corporate strategies with ESG values.

In a subsequent study, Garcia et al. (2017) demonstrate that stakeholder pressure is a critical driver of ESG performance, particularly in sensitive industries within emerging markets. By understanding and addressing stakeholders’ concerns, these companies are often more proactive in managing ESG risks, leading to better overall performance in these areas. The importance of geographical diversification in stakeholders’ approaches to ESG is also highlighted by Duque-Grisales and Aguilera-Caracuel (2021) or Lokuwaduge and Heenetigala (2017). The study by Yu et al. (2020) underscores the need for caution when interpreting ESG disclosures, as greenwashing can distort reality and impact investment and consumption decisions. Stakeholders, therefore, benefit from a critical approach, seeking multiple sources of information to verify corporate ESG performance. Additionally, they play a crucial role in advocating for improved regulatory standards that promote transparency and integrity in ESG reporting, ultimately leading to a more sustainable and trustworthy corporate environment.

Table 2. ESG research from stakeholders’ perspective – most impactful articles and authors

Rank	Title of the Paper	Author	Journal	Year	Tc	Tcy
1	Corporate social responsibility and access to finance	Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G.	SMJ	2014	1977	197.7
2	The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China	Broadstock, D. C., Chan, K., Cheng, L. T. W., & Wang, X.	FRL	2021	679	135.8
3	Do environmental, social, and governance activities improve corporate financial performance?	Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Yagi, M., Fujii, H., & Managi, S.	BSE	2019	499	83.2
4	Do shareholders benefit from green bonds?	Tang, D. Y., & Zhang, Y.	JCF	2020	457	91.4
5	Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: Evidence from emerging markets	Garcia, A. S., Mendes-Da-Silva, W., & Orsato, R. J.	JCP	2017	433	54.1
6	Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores and financial performance of multilatinas: Moderating effects of geographic international diversification and financial slack	Duque-Grisales, E., & Aguilera-Caracuel, J.	JBE	2021	422	105.5
7	Does ESG performance have an impact on financial performance? Evidence from Germany	Velte, P.	JGR	2017	376	47.0
8	Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: Economic analysis and literature review	Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C.	RAS	2021	372	93.0
9	Greenwashing in environmental, social and governance disclosures	Yu, E. P. Y., Luu, B. V., & Chen, C. H.	RIBF	2020	356	89.0
10	Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: An Australian study	Lokuwaduge, C. S. D. S., & Heenetigala, K.	BSE	2017	324	40.5

Note: TC = Total citations; TCY= Total citations per year; FRL=Finance Research Letters; JCF=Journal of Corporate Finance; SMJ=Strategic Management Journal; BSE=Business Strategy and the Environment; JCP=Journal of Cleaner Production; JBE=Journal of Business Ethics; RAS=Review of Accounting Studies; JGR= Journal of Global Responsibility; RIBF=Research in International Business and Finance.

Source: Own elaboration via Scopus.

Across these studies, a consistent finding is that strong ESG practices have a positive influence on corporate financial performance, particularly by enhancing trust with a diverse range of stakeholders. These observations are consistent with the Reputation-building and the Social-impact hypothesis. ESG practices mitigate risks, especially during crises, improve access to finance, and ensure accountability and transparency, aligning with the stakeholders’ perspective that emphasizes broad social responsibility and long-term stability over short-term profits. This analysis leads to the conclusion that stakeholders’ role can be viewed either as a driving force behind ESG initiatives or as beneficiaries of strong ESG performance, due to their active engagement in the ESG integration process, which underlines the instrumental role of stakeholders within ESG frameworks.

The next step of analysis involves the assessment of the productivity of the journals. As shown in Figure 4, the top ten journals accounted for almost 34% of all publications in the extracted database. “Sustainability” is the leading journal for ESG works from a stakeholders’ perspective (10.89% of publications in the identified database). The second most productive journal is “The Journal of Cleaner Production” (5.6% of publications in the identified database). This suggests a relatively high concentration of publications on ESG-stakeholders research.

The next step of research involved assessing productivity by subject area. As shown in Figure 5, the top three areas accounting for 44.8% of all publications in the extracted database are business, management and accounting, environmental sciences, and social sciences. Other identified areas suggest the diversity of applied theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches to the studies in this field.

Figure 4. ESG research from stakeholders’ perspective – most impactful journals

Source: Own elaboration via Scopus.

Figure 5. ESG research from stakeholders’ perspective – main subject areas

Source: Own elaboration via Scopus.

To summarize the results of the pre-mapping phase of knowledge on ESG research from the perspective of stakeholders, it can be noted that: 1) there has been a significant increase in both the number of publications and citations, especially over the last five years, with a sevenfold increase in publications and an eightfold increase in citations; 2) the most influential papers demonstrate that strong ESG practices enhance financial performance, particularly by fostering trust and transparency among stakeholders, reducing risks in crisis situations, and improving financial stability and access to capital. This is consistent with the Reputation-building and the Social-impact hypothesis; 3) an analysis of journal productivity indicates that research in this field has primarily been published in journals such as Sustainability and the Journal of Cleaner Production, indicating a high concentration of publications; 4) an analysis of subject areas reveals that research in this field aligns with the disciplines of business, management and accounting, environmental sciences, and social sciences, illustrating the multidisciplinary scope of ESG research.

ESG research from stakeholders’ perspective – knowledge mapping

The knowledge mapping analysis is focused on the period 2020-2024 as the most productive (as shown in the pre-mapping phase) in terms of publications addressing ESG issues from a stakeholders’ perspective. The results are visualized in the form of strategy diagrams, thematic networks, as well as overlay and evolutionary maps.

Figure 6. ESG research from stakeholders’ perspective – strategic chart (left) and thematic network (right) – 2020