This paper aims to explore the connection between Stakeholder Theory (ST), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by reviewing 278 articles from Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) database published between 1960s to the present. From the 111 studies initially identified, 17 studies were included in the study of results, following the process of screening and exclusion. The study shows that the CSR practices differ from region to region based on cultural and structural contexts of organizations; the most frequent terms include ‘stakeholder,’ ‘corporate social responsibility,’ and ‘sustainability.’ The keyword analysis highlighted important keywords like economics, social impacts, supply chain management, and decision-making, which indicates that CSR implies ethical and business actions. The most productive countries were identified in WoS and Scopus databases as USA, China, Spain, UK, Germany, and the most productive journals and authors were also revealed. The analysis of co-occurrences and clustering also reveals that CSR involves stakeholder engagement, corporate reputation, and employee well-being. This research discovers that sustainable development goals can be realized by deploying complex and comprehensive CSR initiatives that engage all the stakeholders, create company-wide sustainability, and enhance the corporate image, which provides a coherent framework that can be adopted by firms to align with global development frameworks for sustainable organizational performance.
Keywords
Sustainable Development Goals, Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility, Stakeholder Theory, Stakeholder Engagement, Supply Chain Management, Sustainable Reporting, Firm Performance.
R. D. Ireland and J. W. Webb, “Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating competitive advantage through streams of innovation,” Business Horizons, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 49–59, Jan. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2006.06.002.
W. Yuan, Y. Bao, and A. Verbeke, “Integrating CSR Initiatives in Business: An Organizing Framework,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 75–92, Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1007/s10551-010-0710-z.
M. C. Branco and L. L. Rodrigues, “Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspectives,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 111–132, Oct. 2006, doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9071-z.
R. F. Baumeister, E. Bratslavsky, C. Finkenauer, and K. D. Vohs, “Bad is Stronger than Good,” Review of General Psychology, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 323–370, Dec. 2001, doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323.
J. I. Hancock, D. G. Allen, F. A. Bosco, K. R. McDaniel, and C. A. Pierce, “Meta-Analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance,” Journal of Management, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 573–603, Oct. 2011, doi: 10.1177/0149206311424943.
M. I. Sánchez-Hernández, J. L. Vázquez-Burguete, M. P. García-Miguélez, and A. Lanero-Carrizo, “Internal corporate social responsibility for sustainability,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 14, p. 7920, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13147920.
M. Adu-Gyamfi, Z. He, G. Nyame, S. Boahen, and M. F. Frempong, “Effects of internal CSR activities on social performance: The Employee perspective,” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 11, p. 6235, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13116235.
C. Zhu, J. Du, F. Shahzad, and M. U. Wattoo, “Environment Sustainability Is a Corporate Social Responsibility: Measuring the Nexus between Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Big Data Analytics Capabilities, and Organizational Performance,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 6, p. 3379, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14063379.
M. Sherman et al., “Drawing the line between adaptation and development: a systematic literature review of planned adaptation in developing countries,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 707–726, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1002/wcc.416.
D. Jamali and B. Neville, “Convergence versus divergence of CSR in Developing Countries: An embedded Multi-Layered Institutional Lens,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 102, no. 4, pp. 599–621, Mar. 2011, doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0830-0.
A. H. Van De Ven and G. P. Huber, “Longitudinal field research methods for studying processes of organizational change,” Organization Science, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 213–219, Aug. 1990, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1.3.213.
P. J. Singh, M. Feng, and A. Smith, “ISO 9000 series of standards: comparison of manufacturing and service organisations,” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 122–142, Feb. 2006, doi: 10.1108/02656710610640916.
J. Noland and R. Phillips, “Stakeholder engagement, discourse ethics and strategic management,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 39–49, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00279.x.
S. Poponi, A. Colantoni, S. Cividino, and E. Mosconi, “The Stakeholders’ Perspective within the B Corp Certification for a Circular Approach,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 6, p. 1584, Mar. 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11061584.
T. Hák, S. Janoušková, and B. Moldan, “Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 60, pp. 565–573, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003.
B. Moldan, S. Janoušková, and T. Hák, “How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets,” Ecological Indicators, vol. 17, pp. 4–13, Jun. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.033.
M. Roseland, “Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives,” Progress in Planning, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 73–132, Jan. 2000, doi: 10.1016/s0305-9006(00)00003-9.
A. B. Carroll and J. Näsi, “Understanding Stakeholder Thinking: Themes from a Finnish Conference,” Business Ethics a European Review, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 46–51, Jan. 1997, doi: 10.1111/1467-8608.00047.
I. Nonaka, “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation,” Organization Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 14–37, Feb. 1994, doi: 10.1287/orsc.5.1.14.
R. Mahajan, W. M. Lim, M. Sareen, S. Kumar, and R. Panwar, “Stakeholder theory,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 166, p. 114104, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114104.
T. M. Jones, A. C. Wicks, and R. E. Freeman, “Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art,” The Purpose of This Chapter Is to Examine an Approach to Both Business and Business Ethics, pp. 17–37, Aug. 2017, doi: 10.1002/9781405164771.ch1.
CRediT Author Statement
The author reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Reviewers for taking the time and effort necessary to review the manuscript. We sincerely appreciate all valuable comments and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Availability of data and materials
No data available for above study.
Author information
Contributions
All authors have equal contribution in the paper and all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Anandakumar Haldorai
Center for Research and Development, Sri Eshwar College of Engineering, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs is a more restrictive license. It allows you to redistribute the material commercially or non-commercially but the user cannot make any changes whatsoever to the original, i.e. no derivatives of the original work. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Cite this article
Anandakumar Haldorai, “Literature Review on Global Trends and Thematic Insights in the Stakeholder Theory, CSR and Sustainability”, Journal of Enterprise and Business Intelligence, vol.5, no.2, pp. 098-107, April 2025. doi: 10.53759/5181/JEBI202505010.
