Corporate sustainability performance and firm performance research

Purpose The aim of this paper is to present a taxonomy of available literature on the relation of sustainability performance and firm performance, and to provide a path for future research for this field of study. Design/methodology/approach Research papers were collected on sustainability performance assessment from various journals available at different online databases. The unit of evaluation was a full paper published in one of the relevant journals. Papers were classified in different categories and tabulated under various classes. A total of 101 research paper sources were studied and assessed in terms of nature of research, level of analysis, and application. Findings The review reveals that most of the research in the field of sustainability performance and firm performance association, analyzed this relationship in developed countries. The result differs in various cultural and economic contexts and there is no universally accepted direction of this relationship. Contribution of research has also revealed a pattern of growth in recent years. Financial performance is used in most of the research as a proxy to firm performance. As discussed, the different research gaps may be exploited for further research. It also argues that further empirical research in relation of corporate sustainability performance and firm performance is required in developing countries. Research limitations/implications The findings of this paper can be generalized only to the specific population of online databases selected for this research for a given period of time and not for the entire universe of the sustainability performance literature. There may be various unexploited areas for future research in terms of different variables. Originality/value This paper fulfils the need of a comprehensive review of corporate sustainability performance assessment literature. It provides a literature review and bibliography for the period between January 1992 and March 2011 for the use of both academicians and practitioners.