| Literature DB >> 32572746 |
Ming-Lang Tseng1,2,3, Chia-Hao Chang4, Chun-Wei Remen Lin1,5, Kuo-Jui Wu6, Qing Chen7, Li Xia8, Bing Xue9.
Abstract
This study conducts a comprehensive literature review of articles on the triple bottom line (TBL) published from January 1997 to September 2018 to provide significant insights and support to guide further discussion. There were three booms in TBL publications, occurring in 2003, 2011, and 2015, and many articles attempt to address the issue of sustainability by employing the TBL. This literature analysis includes 720, 132, and 58 articles from the Web of Science (WOS), Inspec, and Scopus databases, respectively, and reveals the gaps in existing research. To discover the barriers and points of overlap, these articles are categorized into six aspects of the TBL: economic, environmental, social, operations, technology, and engineering. Examining the top 3 journals in terms of published articles on each aspect reveals the research trends and gaps. The findings provide solid evidence confirming the argument that the TBL as currently defined is insufficient to cover the entire concept of sustainability. The social and engineering aspects still require more discussion to support the linkage of the TBL and to reinforce its theoretical basis. Additionally, to discover the gaps in the data sources, theories applied, methods adopted, and types of contributions, this article summarizes 82 highly cited articles covering each aspect. This article offers theoretical insights by identifying the top contributing countries, institutions, authors, keyword networks, and authorship networks to encourage scholars to push the current discussion further forward, and it provides practical insights to bridge the gap between theory and practice for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of improvements.Entities:
Keywords: Literature review, Bibliometric analysis; Sustainability; Sustainable development; Triple bottom line
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32572746 PMCID: PMC7423869 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-09284-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Fig. 5The trend in published TBL articles on the technology aspect
Fig. 1The trend in published TBL articles on the economic aspect
Fig. 2The trend in published TBL articles on the environmental aspect
Fig. 3The trend in published TBL articles on the social aspect
Fig. 4The trend in published TBL articles on the operations aspect
Fig. 6The trend in published TBL articles on the engineering aspect
Fig. 7Analytical procedures of literature review
Fig. 8The articles published on different aspects over the past two decades
Fig. 12Frequencies of the theories applied from summarizing 82 articles (the frequencies overlap)
Fig. 9Top 12 countries/areas publishing TBL articles on different aspects over the past two decades
Fig. 10The network diagram of keywords and abstracts for all TBL articles (with a co-occurrence rate of at least 70 times)
Summarizing 82 highly cited articles from the previous discussions
| Author(s) | Citations | Data sources | Theories applied | Methods adopted | Contributions | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empirical study | MCDM | LCA | Algorithm | Review | Theoretical | Managerial | Methodological | Policy | ||||
| Spiller ( | 62 | Questionnaire | Business ethics | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Bordass et al. ( | 84 | Questionnaire | SD | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Azapagic ( | 97 | Questionnaire | SD, CSR | √ | √ | |||||||
| Font and Harris ( | 78 | Interview, questionnaire | CSR | √ | √ | |||||||
| Norman and MacDonald ( | 250 | No data | ST | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Pope et al. ( | 359 | No data | Environmental assessment | √ | √ | |||||||
| Foran et al. ( | 87 | Secondary data | SCM | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Kleindorfer et al. ( | 579 | No data | SCM | √ | √ | |||||||
| Hatt et al. ( | 85 | Secondary data | Stormwater recycling | √ | √ | |||||||
| Northcote and Macbeth ( | 48 | Questionnaire | STD | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Dixon and Clifford ( | 86 | Interview | Entrepreneurship theory | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Pava ( | 27 | No data | SD | √ | √ | |||||||
| Presley et al. ( | 77 | Secondary data | CSR | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Sayce et al. ( | 58 | Questionnaire | Sustainable property | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Schianetz et al. ( | 62 | No data | Organizational learning theory | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Allwood et al. ( | 41 | Secondary data | SD | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Carter and Rogers ( | 846 | Secondary data | Resource dependence theory, RBV | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Solomon et al. ( | 68 | No data | Resource policy, community relations | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Goerner et al. ( | 65 | Experimental data | SD | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Hubbard ( | 178 | Secondary data | ST | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Kleine and Hauff ( | 51 | No data | CSR, CS | √ | √ | |||||||
| Pagell and Gobeli ( | 88 | Interview, secondary data | RBV | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Timur and Getz ( | 36 | Interview, questionnaire | SD, ST | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Wiedmann et al. ( | 86 | Secondary data | CS | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Chen et al. ( | 101 | Questionnaire | ST | √ | √ | |||||||
| Darcy et al. ( | 41 | Interview | STD, SD | √ | √ | |||||||
| Menz ( | 44 | Questionnaire | CSR | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Schaltegger and Burritt ( | 111 | Questionnaire | ST | √ | √ | |||||||
| Skouloudis et al. ( | 40 | Questionnaire | CSR, SD | √ | √ | |||||||
| Tate et al. ( | 192 | Secondary data | ST | √ | √ | |||||||
| Carter and Easton ( | 368 | Secondary data | ST, RBV | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Chabowski et al. ( | 107 | Secondary data | Social network theory | √ | √ | |||||||
| Cornelissen et al. ( | 27 | No data | SD | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Cronin et al. ( | 151 | Secondary data | ST | √ | √ | |||||||
| Dao et al. ( | 125 | No data | RBV | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Freeman and Hasnaoui ( | 57 | Secondary data | CSR | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Meehan and Bryde ( | 63 | Questionnaire | SD, green procurement | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Reza et al. ( | 56 | Interview | Sustainable construction | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Romijn and Caniels ( | 40 | Secondary data | Evolutionary theory, SD | √ | √ | |||||||
| Wu and Pagell ( | 210 | Interview | ST | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Assaf et al. ( | 33 | Questionnaire | SD | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Dai and Blackhurst ( | 60 | Questionnaire | SCM, SD | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Gibson et al. ( | 50 | Secondary data | STD | √ | √ | |||||||
| Gimenez et al. ( | 174 | Secondary data | RBV | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Gond et al. ( | 89 | No data | Strategic management theory | √ | √ | |||||||
| Gopalakrishnan et al. ( | 65 | No data | CSR, SD | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Hollos et al. ( | 87 | Questionnaire | RBV | √ | √ | |||||||
| Klassen and Vereecke ( | 127 | Interview, secondary data | ST, CSR | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Lee et al. ( | 65 | No data | Product service system, SD | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Mori and Christodoulou ( | 147 | No data | Ecological perspective | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Prajogo et al. ( | 49 | Questionnaire | SD | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Roca and Searcy ( | 122 | Secondary data | CSR, SD, legitimacy theory | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Sarkis et al. ( | 40 | Questionnaire, secondary data | SD, SCM | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Shahriar et al. ( | 61 | Questionnaire | Risk assessment, SD | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Akadiri et al. ( | 69 | Questionnaire | Fuzzy set theory | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Gleim et al. ( | 111 | Secondary data | Social dilemma theory | √ | √ | |||||||
| Govindan et al. ( | 223 | Questionnaire | ST | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Hahn and Kuehnen ( | 152 | Secondary data | ST, IT, legitimacy theory | √ | √ | |||||||
| Lai et al. ( | 33 | Questionnaire | SD, SCM | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Milne and Gray ( | 164 | No data | ST | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Nikolaou et al. ( | 75 | Secondary data | SCM, CSR | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Winter and Knemeyer ( | 99 | Secondary data | SCM | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Wu ( | 268 | No data | Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, SD | √ | √ | |||||||
| Zhu et al. ( | 158 | Interview | IT | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Beske and Seuring ( | 81 | No data | Risk management, SCM | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Bocken et al. ( | 343 | Questionnaire | ST | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| De Giovanni and Zaccour ( | 44 | Experimental data | SCM | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Devika et al. ( | 98 | Experimental data | SCM, CSR | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Govindan et al. ( | 119 | Experimental data | SCM | √ | √ | |||||||
| Ji et al. ( | 28 | No data | SD | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Klewitz and Hansen ( | 156 | Secondary data | RBV | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Stylidis et al. ( | 66 | Questionnaire | SD, STD | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Brandenburg and Rebs ( | 37 | Secondary data | SCM, CSR | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Govindan et al. ( | 39 | Experimental data | SD, SCM | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Hahn et al. ( | 92 | No data | CS | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Mori and Yamashita ( | 27 | No data | SD | √ | √ | |||||||
| Sarkis and Dhavale ( | 52 | Secondary data | SD | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Taticchi et al. ( | 37 | Secondary data | SD, SCM | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Wu et al. ( | 44 | Interview, questionnaire | Fuzzy set theory, SCM | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| Jarvis et al. ( | 27 | Questionnaire, secondary data | SD | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Wilhelm et al. ( | 38 | Questionnaire | SCM, agency theory | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Dubey et al. ( | 42 | Questionnaire | SCM | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| Note: Corporate sustainability (CS), corporate social responsibility (CSR), institutional theory (IT), resource-based view (RBV), supply chain management (SCM), sustainable development (SD), stakeholder theory (ST), sustainable tourism development (STD) | ||||||||||||
Fig. 11Total data sources from summarizing 82 articles
Fig. 13Frequencies of the methods adopted from summarizing 82 articles (the frequencies overlap)
Fig. 14Total frequencies of contributions from summarizing 82 articles (the frequencies overlap)
Fig. 15Total frequencies of industrial classification from summarizing 82 articles
Arranging aspects from summarizing 82 articles
| Aspects articles | Social | Economic | Environmental | Technology | Engineering | Operations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spiller ( | √ | |||||
| Bordass et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Azapagic ( | √ | |||||
| Font and Harris ( | √ | |||||
| Norman and MacDonald ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Pope et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Foran et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Kleindorfer et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Hatt et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Northcote and Macbeth ( | √ | |||||
| Dixon and Clifford ( | √ | |||||
| Pava ( | √ | |||||
| Presley et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Sayce et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Schianetz et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Allwood et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Carter and Rogers ( | √ | |||||
| Solomon et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Goerner et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Hubbard ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Kleine and Hauff ( | √ | |||||
| Pagell and Gobeli ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Timur and Getz ( | √ | |||||
| Wiedmann et al. ( | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Chen et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Darcy et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Menz ( | √ | |||||
| Schaltegger and Burritt ( | √ | |||||
| Skouloudis et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Tate et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Carter and Easton ( | √ | |||||
| Chabowski et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Cornelissen et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Cronin et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Dao et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Freeman and Hasnaoui ( | √ | |||||
| Meehan and Bryde ( | √ | |||||
| Reza et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Romijn and Caniels ( | √ | |||||
| Wu and Pagell ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Assaf et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Dai and Blackhurst ( | √ | |||||
| Gibson et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Gimenez et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Gond et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Gopalakrishnan et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Hollos et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Klassen and Vereecke ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Lee et al. ( | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Mori and Christodoulou ( | √ | |||||
| Prajogo et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Roca and Searcy ( | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Sarkis et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Shahriar et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Akadiri et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Gleim et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Govindan et al. ( | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Hahn and Kuehnen ( | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Lai et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Milne and Gray ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Nikolaou et al. ( | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Winter and Knemeyer ( | √ | |||||
| Wu ( | √ | |||||
| Zhu et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Beske and Seuring ( | √ | |||||
| Bocken et al. ( | √ | √ | √ | |||
| De Giovanni and Zaccour ( | √ | |||||
| Devika et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Govindan et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Ji et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Klewitz and Hansen ( | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Stylidis et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Brandenburg and Rebs ( | √ | |||||
| Govindan et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Hahn et al. ( | √ | √ | ||||
| Mori and Yamashita ( | √ | |||||
| Sarkis and Dhavale ( | √ | |||||
| Taticchi et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Wu et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Jarvis et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Wilhelm et al. ( | √ | |||||
| Dubey et al. ( | √ |
Cross table between industrial classifications and arranged aspects
| Aspects | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industrial classifications | Social | Economic | Environmental | Technology | Engineering | Operations |
| Aerospace industry | √ | √ | ||||
| Automobile industry | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Energy industry | v | √ | ||||
| Building industry | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Cotton growing industry | √ | √ | ||||
| Glass industry | √ | √ | ||||
| Hotel industry | √ | |||||
| Landscapes industry | √ | |||||
| Manufacturing industry | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
| Marketing industry | √ | √ | ||||
| Mining industry | √ | |||||
| Multiple industries | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Oil and gas transportation industry | √ | |||||
| Pharmaceutical and social housing industry | √ | |||||
| Recreational service industry | √ | √ | √ | |||
| Retail industry | √ | √ | ||||
| Sport mega-event industry | √ | |||||
| Stormwater recycling industry | √ | |||||
| Sustainable flooring industry | √ | |||||
| Tourism industry | √ | √ | ||||