Toward an Asian corporate sustainability model: An integrative review

Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Toward an Asian corporate sustainability model: An integrative review Nuttasorn Ketprapakorn School of Business, University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, 126/1 Vibhavadi Rangsit Rd, Din Daeng, Bangkok, 10400, Thailand

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 8 January 2019 Received in revised form 17 July 2019 Accepted 9 August 2019 Available online 13 August 2019

The present study develops the Integrated Systematic Literature Review framework and critically reviews the literature on corporate sustainability associated with Asia. The study reviews 468 journal articles obtained from Scopus and the Web of Science during a period of 23 years. As a result, descriptive statistics of the field, three schools of thought, their leading scholars, methodological issues, uniqueness of the Asian context in shaping the field, and future research directions are derived from the literature. Moreover, two frameworks on Asian sustainable organization management and Asian sustainable supply chain are formulated as a significant contribution. Practical implications for researchers and corporate leaders are also discussed. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Handling editor: Mattias Lindahl Keywords: Corporate sustainability Sustainable business Sustainable supply chain Sustainable management Bibliometrics analysis Systematic literature review Asia

1. Introduction With growing interest among scholars in the corporate sustainability field, researchers globally have been searching for an alternative way to lead an organization, including improving the firms’ natural resources utilization (Carvalho et al., 2018), integrating the sustainability aspect with the vision-based leadership paradigm (Kantabutra, 2006) or introducing new leadership ideas, ~ o, 2006), responsible such as ethical leadership (Brown and Trevin leadership (Cameron, 2011), and Rhineland leadership (Avery, 2005). However, few reported studies have endeavored to map the research of corporate sustainability associated with Asia. This research gap is critical because Asia is an integral part of the world and the Asian context is very different from that in the West, from where most of the sustainability concepts come. As the surrounding context is critical to ensuring corporate sustainability, there is a need to investigate what has been done and how the unique Asian context has shaped corporate sustainability research in this region. More importantly, for future research, such a review study will help to provide an informed direction to ensure its impact. This paper starts by highlighting the knowledge gap and research questions, followed by defining the corporate

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117995 0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

sustainability concept. We then introduce our integrated literature review methodology, which has been developed to address the limitations of the existing review methods. We then report and discuss findings, followed by introducing two new frameworks derived from corporate sustainability research conducted in Asia. Since context plays a vital role in ensuring corporate sustainability, we conclude our review with a discussion on how the Asian context has shaped the corporate sustainability research in this region. Last, we present our study's limitations, discuss future research directions, and introduce some practical implications of the findings for both researchers and corporate leaders.

2. Knowledge gap and research questions Changes in business environment, uncontrollable crisis and corporate mismanagement have been cited as major causes of corporate failure. The world has witnessed many bankruptcy cases such as Kodak, Enron, General Motors, and Lehman Brothers (Ahamed, 2015). Some corporations once perceived as global giants have fallen. These cases are examples of unsustainable businesses being taught at business schools around the world. If neither the giant corporate size nor the brightest people help to sustain a corporate long-term success, what would be an approach to sustain it?

2

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

For the last decade, the Asian economy has expanded rapidly. Given the rapid regional growth and unpredictable business environment, Asian corporate leaders have been searching for an effective approach to corporate sustainability for their businesses (Kantabutra and Thepa-Apiraks, 2016). However, corporate sustainability is a complex research field that is still in its nascent stage. In response to the need from the corporate world, scholars have been searching for an approach to achieve corporate sustainability. Still, only a few studies report cutting-edge knowledge of corporate sustainability associated with Asia, a motivation of the present study. Currently, many aspects of corporate sustainability, even its definition, are debatable, and different approaches to corporate sustainability have appeared in various global areas. Many existing review studies that looked at related areas such as leadership (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018) and sustainable development (Olawumi and Chan, 2018) have been focusing only globally rather than regionally. This limitation of the existing review studies makes it difficult for Asian corporate leaders and scholars to grasp collective knowledge, as it not directly relevant to Asia. Understandably, given the local context, regional knowledge can be easily applicable. Therefore, this study aims at bridging the gap by examining the existing knowledge on Asian corporate sustainability approaches, and the study's results will serve as a starting point to promote research collaboration in the region. It should be noted that this novel review approach, our methodological contribution, is developed to enhance the existing stateof-the-art review approaches such as the traditional systematic literature review (Lages Junior and Godinho Filho, 2012), the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis approach (PRISMA) (Moher et al., 2009), bibliometric analysis (Cobo et al., 2011) and classifications analysis (Amui et al., 2017). Each of these methods alone is not sufficient to do the complete literature review that we desire. The traditional literature review method and PRISMA only survey the literature, however, they neither map out our desired linkage between the clusters of researchers in a field nor analyze the research corpus to the depth that includes aspects such as co-citation clusters, keywords or research clusters. While the bibliometric analysis does all this, it still does not enable an in-depth analysis of the content of the literature. Therefore, complementing PRISMA and the bibliometric analysis methods, for our approach, we integrate the classification analysis and grounded theory methods to develop a review framework. This research review seeks to document and explore the scope of scholars who during the past 23 years have published studies and conducted research work on corporate sustainability associated with Asia. In the context of our study, papers associated with Asia are those that were written by Asian scholars, are affiliated with Asian institutions, contain the words ‘Asia’ or ‘Asian’ as keywords, or contain data that was collected from Asian countries. The review addresses the following research questions: Research question #1: What are the volume, growth trajectory, geographic distribution, and the collaboration characteristics of the research on corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia? Research question #2: What are the highest-impact journals, authors, and articles on corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia? Research question #3: What is the intellectual structure of the corporate sustainability knowledge base associated with Asia? Research question #4: What are the topical foci of greatest interest to scholars regarding the Asia-associated corporate sustainability knowledge base?

Research question #5: What are the methodological issues in the existing corporate sustainability knowledge base associated with Asia? Research question #6: What are the cutting-edge bodies of corporate sustainability knowledge in Asia? Research question #7: How has the Asian context shaped the corporate sustainability research in Asia? To answer the research questions, our systematic review starts from defining corporate sustainability and introducing a research methodology. We then discuss the results, limitations of the present study, future research directions, and implications of the present study. 3. Defining corporate sustainability Despite the importance of corporate sustainability, there is still no commonly agreed upon definition by scholars, which is critical because empirical research on corporate sustainability is likely to be affected by the ways in which corporate sustainability has been defined. Table 1 shows a sample of how corporate sustainability has been described in the literature. Although there are a large variety of corporate sustainability definitions, for the present study, we adopt the corporate sustainability concept as defined by Wilson (2003) because it is well grounded in other related concepts of sustainable development, corporate social responsibility, stakeholder theory and corporate accountability theory. The concept of sustainable development identifies the environmental, social, and economic output areas on which companies should focus. However, according to Wilson (2003), the sustainable development concept does not explain why companies should be concerned with these three domains of outputs. The corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory concepts fill in this gap by providing ethical and business arguments, respectively, as to why companies should work toward the three domains of performance outputs. Indeed, companies should do so because it will help them to meet their moral and business objectives. Last, the concept of corporate accountability theory provides arguments as to why companies should report all three-domain outputs, not just the financial one. Essentially, companies must be held accountable by a wide range of stakeholders. Therefore, Wilson (2003) defined corporate sustainability as a corporate management paradigm that still acknowledges the need for growth and profitability but places a much greater emphasis on the triple bottom line results and the public reporting on them. Since the present study aims at examining the current body of knowledge on the corporate sustainability approaches associated with Asia, we adopt Wilson’s (2003) definition of corporate sustainability to guide our literature review. 4. Methodology As shown in Fig. 1, we develop a holistic systematic literature review approach by adapting the systematic literature review procedure from Lages Junior and Godinho Filho (2012). We integrate the bibliometric analysis, classifications analysis and the grounded theory approaches with the systematic literature review procedure. The resulting Integrated Systematic Literature Review (ISLR) procedure is explained below. 1) Conduct a preliminary search for keywords; 2) Conduct a survey to identify qualified literature related to the field/subject; 3) Conduct a bibliometric analysis of the literature;

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

3

Table 1 Examples of corporate sustainability definitions. Author

Corporate Sustainability Definitions

Ashrafi et al. (2018)

Corporate sustainability (CS) is a corporate approach to delivering value in social, environmental, and economic spheres in a long-term perspective, advocating greater responsibility. Global Association of Corporate Sustainability “Corporate Sustainability is the discipline by which companies align decision-making about the allocation of capital, Officers, 2011, p. 2 product development, brand and sourcing with the principles of sustainable development, in a resource-constrained world” Perrini and Tencati (2006), p.296 “Corporate sustainability, that is the capacity of a firm to continue operating over a long period of time, depends on the sustainability of its stakeholder relationships” van Marrewijk (2003) Corporate sustainability definition can be divided into five interpretations: Compliance-driven, profit-driven, caring, synergistic and holistic. Wilson (2003) “Corporate sustainability is a new and evolving corporate management paradigm. Although the concept acknowledges the need for profitability, it differs from the traditional growth and profit-maximization model in that it places a much greater emphasis on environmental, social, and economic performance, and the public reporting on this performance” Dyllick and Hockerts (2002), p. 131 “Corporate sustainability can accordingly be defined as meeting the needs of a firm's direct and indirect stakeholders (such as shareholders, employees, clients, pressure groups, communities etc.), without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future stakeholders as well”

4) Conduct an analysis of the growth and regional distribution of the knowledge, as well as the nature of the research collaboration and develop a structured coding system to classify the knowledge in the subsequent coding; 5) Identify the main results from the prior analyses and discuss the results; 6) Derive a theoretical framework from the key literature identified by the bibliometric analysis; and 7) Identify research gaps, opportunities and challenges for future studies. Our review methods include the following: the preferred reporting Items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) is used to screen for relevant literature on the subject; the bibliometric analysis via VOSviewer is used to visualize the literature; and the classification analysis and the grounded theory approach are used to identify key collective bodies of knowledge and inform the framework development. 4.1. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalysis (PRISMA)

Fig. 1. The Integrated Systematic Literature Review (ISLR) framework.

Since the objective of this study is to conduct a robust systematic literature review on approaches to corporate sustainability associated with Asia, we use published documents from the Scopus and Web of Science (WOS) databases because these databases, due to their coverage and quality, are widely used for review purposes (Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016). We follow the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for conducting a systematic review of the research (Moher et al., 2009). As described in the Integrated Systematic Literature Review (ISLR) Stage 0 (Fig. 1), to prepare the data, we use a keyword search to identify documents related to corporate sustainability from the Scopus and WOS databases. We then search both databases for published documents relevant to corporate sustainability associated with Asia and conduct a preliminary survey of the literature for frequently found keywords (Table 2). The preliminary keywords that are used as search titles and keywords are ‘sustainable leadership’, ‘sustainable business(es)’, ‘sustainable organization(s)’, ‘sustainable enterprise(s)’, ‘corporate sustainability’, ‘business(es) sustainability’ and ‘sustainable SME(s)’. As part of ISLR Stage 1, the Scopus search results in 4,312 documents, while the WOS search results in 2,281 documents. Then, we identify identical documents found in both databases (1.1 Identification) and take duplicated ones out from the remaining database. As a consequence, 1,092 duplicated documents are

4

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995 Table 2 Preliminary keywords for literature search on corporate sustainability. Terminology

References

Sustainable leadership Sustainable business(es) Sustainable organization(s) Sustainable enterprise(s) Business sustainability Sustainable SME(s) Corporate sustainability

Kantabutra and Avery (2011); Suriyankietkaew, 2016; Kim (2018) Amran et al. (2014); Reynoso et al. (2015); Eze and Ndubisi (2013) Ahmadi et al. (2017); Kim and Park (2017); Anthony et al., 2017 Kantabutra and Suriyankietkaew (2013); Hsu et al. (2017); Lo et al. (2018); Bansal and DesJardine (2014); Luthra et al. (2015); Sasmita and Mohd Suki, 2015 Umrani and Johl (2016); Ong et al. (2015); Kantabutra (2017a) Lo and Sheu (2007); Haugh and Talwar (2010); Goyal et al. (2013)

eliminated, resulting in 5,501 documents for the next screening process. The next screening process (1.2 Screening) allows the researchers to ensure the certified quality of the research. We follow the inclusion/exclusion criteria in (Table 3) and include only English peer-reviewed journal articles. Therefore, those journal articles, book chapters, editorial pieces, conference proceedings and nonEnglish literature that are not peer reviewed are excluded from the remaining database. This screening process eliminates 4,297 documents, resulting in 1,204 documents. The eligibility stage (1.3 Eligibility) allows us to verify the document eligibility via a basic content analysis conducted by two researchers. The two researchers read abstracts to ensure that these articles are relevant to the objective, which is to review approaches to corporate sustainability associated with Asia and include these qualified documents for further analyses. Any differing judgments are resolved after a further discussion between the two. This process further eliminates 736 documents, resulting in 468 documents for further analyses. Two frequent reasons for excluding documents are as follows: Although a search keyword is mentioned in the documents, it is not related to management practices. Second, although ‘sustainable’ is mentioned in the documents, it is not contained in the documents' main study. These two-exclusion criteria account for approximately 95 percent of the documents that are eliminated from the initial database. At the end (1.4 Included), there are 468 articles qualified as peer reviewed and that contain the relevant content. These qualified documents then are used for the present study's analyses. 4.2. The bibliometric analysis Next, as described in ISLR Stage 2, we adopt the bibliometric analysis to identify the descriptive statistics of the literature, and we construct a science map. To construct a science map, we employ the VOSviewer as the main software for our analyses. Unlike other alternative tools (CiteSpace and the Science of Science (SCI2)), VOSviewer offers distance-based visualizations of bibliometric networks (van Eck and Waltman, 2014). It also offers a clear science mapping illustration that provides us options to explore different visualizations of the science mapping. For example, we can choose either to display the distance between the edges, between nodes, or between two nodes to show the relatedness of the nodes. Therefore, VOSviewer is particularly appropriate for visualizing a larger

set of network by offering the distance-based visualizations as opposed to the graph-based visualizations, making it appropriate for the present study. A bibliometric network or science map consists of nodes, where the nodes represent journals, researchers or keywords. Since bibliometric networks are usually weighted networks, edges indicate a relation between the nodes (van Eck and Waltman, 2014). Cobo et al. (2011) propose that the methodology of bibliometric analysis is to analyze the scientific domains of a knowledge base. This analysis enables us to see an overview of research trends in the form of a science map or bibliometric map by analyzing citations, co-citations, geographical distribution, and the frequency with which a word occurs. We adopt the citation analysis as a measure of impact in our study as opposed to a relatively novel measure of the number of unique downloads of an article (Plume and Kamalski, 2014). Although the citation impact of an article can only be measured after several years, and using the number of unique downloads of an article can help to complement the use of citation impact as it can instantly be measured (Plume and Kamalski, 2014; Watson, 2009), we do not opt for it because not all journals provide the number of unique downloads. In terms of identifying research fronts, we choose the co-citation approach over the bibliographic coupling and direct citation for several reasons. First, the direct citation approach was tested to be the least accurate approach among the three (Boyack and Klavans, 2010). Second, while the co-citation and bibliographic coupling approaches were tested to render very similar results (Boyack and Klavans, 2010), the bibliographic coupling approach is frequently used to extrapolate the similarity of the matter regarding two subjects (Surwase et al., 2011), which is not an objective of the present study. Lastly, a previous study (Braam et al., 1991) empirically established that the co-citation approach produces research fronts that are topically coherent and comparatively distinct from each other, an objective of the present study. As for database, we adopt citations from Scopus alone since it provides citations from peer-reviewed documents. The Web of Science is also considered as a peer-reviewed database, but is not chosen as its coverage is limited (Li et al., 2010). While Google Scholar provides possibly the largest number of citations, they are not purely from peer-reviewed documents (Li et al., 2010), potentially leading to a quality issue. The present study uses the co-citation method as the basis for

Table 3 Inclusion and exclusion screening criteria for literature eligibility. Selection criteria

Inclusion

Exclusion

Access type Year Subject area Document type Language Territory

All access type 1996e2018 Sustainable business aspects Journal article English Asian scholars/affiliations of Asian institutions/data collected from Asia

Non-accessible 2019 Others Conference paper/book chapter/article in press/editorial Non-English Others

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

5

our bibliometric mapping or science mapping construction. To measure the field of corporate sustainability research associated with Asia, we select three co-citation analysis units: document, author and journal. The co-citation analysis is able to measure the relational fea tures and the structure of a knowledge base (Zupic and Cater, 2015). Furthermore, we adopt the citation analysis to calculate the frequency with which a document residing in the combined Scopus and WOS database has been cited by another document in the same database. Where appropriate, to verify the researchers’ opinions and arguments, the researchers enhance the reliability of the results with statistics from other databases, such as Google Scholar and Research Gate.

sustainability, the central phenomenon naturally emerging from the axial coding process. All other core codes are related in some way to the focal core code of corporate sustainability. These remaining core codes are essentially influencing concepts. We are required to identify the relationships between the focal core code and other core codes. The focal core code, core codes and their relationships comprise the cutting-edge bodies of knowledge from which the relevant frameworks are derived. Finally, as described in ISLR Stage 6, limitations, research gaps, opportunities and challenges for future research have been identified and discussed. Then, we complete our robust systematic literature review by drawing implications for researchers and corporate leaders.

4.3. The classification analysis

5. Discussion of the results

Additionally, as described in ISLR Stage 3, a growth and regional distribution analysis of the literature is conducted. We develop a structured coding system to classify the knowledge in the corporate sustainability database associated with Asia. In this process, we examine all of the articles and classify them according to our coding system, which comprises a framework with numbers and letter codes to classify the literature according to the six dimensions shown in Table 4. A description of each code is explained in the Discussion of the Results section below. It should also be noted that frequently adopted/adapted theories and frameworks are identified and discussed in the following Classifications Analysis section. Table 5 illustrates two examples of the coded articles. As described in ISLR Stage 4, the main results are identified and discussed.

In our attempt to answer the research questions, our analyses reveal the following results. We first present and discuss the growth trajectory, the distribution of the corporate sustainability literature in the region, and the nature of the research collaboration. Then, we reveal insights into the knowledge base of corporate sustainability associated with Asia by presenting and discussing the results of the following: our journal co-citation analysis (JCA) and journal citation analysis; our author co-citation analysis (ACA) and author citation analysis; and our document co-citation analysis (DCA) and document citation analysis. We follow the citation analyses by presenting and discussing the results from our cooccurrence analysis. We finish this section by presenting and discussing the results of our classifications analysis. 5.1. Growth trajectory, literature distribution analysis and research collaboration

4.4. The grounded theory approach The next step, as described in ISLR Stage 5, is to derive a theoretical framework by using the grounded theory approach, which is a research method used to generate a theory ‘grounded’ in the data collected and analyzed systematically (Glaser et al., 1967). Based on the bodies of knowledge identified as key by the prior bibliometric analysis, we identify journal articles from each school of thought. We use these articles as the basis for our analysis in this final stage. To derive the cutting-edge knowledge on corporate sustainability in Asia, the main contribution of this review, we adopt the grounded theory approach as used by Ketprapakorn and Kantabutra (2019a) and that involves the interactive comparing, contrasting, cataloguing and classifying process. After reading the identified articles, the open coding technique is used to identify data themes emerging from all of the articles. We aggregate these codes into concepts, later named or labeled as open codes. The coding process normally brings about multiple open codes. Next, using the axial coding process, we recombine the closely linked and overlapping open codes into aggregated key concepts or core codes. Then, the focal core code among the core codes is selected by using the selective coding process. In the present study, the focal core code is related to corporate

Table 4 Dimension, classification type, and letter codes for the classification analysis. No.

Dimension

Classification type

Codes

1 2 3 4 5 6

Focal topic Dataset Sample characteristic Sample sector Method Theory/framework

Main content Data collection scope Sample size Sample sector Research methods Research originality

M1-M8 DS1-DS3 CS1-CS5 SS1-SS6 M1-M4 TF1-TF3

To obtain an answer for research question no. 1, we consider an exceptional body of knowledge: the total of 468 journal articles on corporate sustainability associated with Asia and accumulated since 1996. The initial literature on corporate sustainability comprises one publication initially from the 1990s, and no subsequent literature was published until early in the 2000s. Of the total of 468 publications, representing the modest literature of relatively recent vintage, a total of 396 publications are found between 2014 and 2018. The growth trajectory reflects the heightened interest in corporate sustainability over the past decades. The current literature citations in the database are 2,099, and the number is growing. It is clear that the literature on corporate sustainability associated with Asia has grown rapidly (Fig. 2). The literature grew gradually from 2008 to 2013 and has sharply grown since 2014, reaching 118 publications in 2018. It could be assumed that this sharp trend was a result of increasing global sustainable development interest instigated by the United Nations (United Nations, 2014). Subsequently, scholars associated with Asia have been searching for various approaches to examine corporate sustainability (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018). This sharp growth trend in the Asia-related literature on corporate sustainability is consistent with a recent growth in the number of global analyses on an approach to corporate sustainability (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018). We conclude that the corporate sustainability field has attracted great interest among scholars associated with Asia. In terms of geographic distribution, corporate sustainability knowledge production in Asia has been concentrated in the following countries: India (99 publications), Malaysia (92 publications), China (68 publications), Thailand (51 publications) and South Korea (40 publications) (Fig. 3). These top five countries have contributed approximately 71.57 percent of the total number of

6

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

Table 5 Examples of coding process from the classification analysis. No. Article title

Journal

1

Journal of Business Kantabutra 2011 MT1 Strategy and Avery Corporate Governance: An Lo and Sheu 2007 MT5 International Review

2

Sustainable leadership at Siam Cement Group Is corporate sustainability a valueincreasing strategy for business?

Authors

Year Main focus topic

Type of Characteristics of dataset collected sample

Sector of the Methods Theory/ collected sample framework

DS1

CS2

SS1

M2

TF2

DS1

CS2

SS7

M1

TF2

No. of publications by year 140 117

NO. OF PUBLICATIONS

120

107

100 78

80 57

60 40

32

20 0

1

1

1

1

1

7

3

5

9

16

16

16

1996 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 YEAR

Fig. 2. The growth trajectory of the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia, 1996e2018.

Table 6 By rank order based on citations, the top 10 nations in corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia, 1996e2018.

Fig. 3. Distribution of the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia, 1996e2018.

publications associated with Asia during the period. Based on Scopus citations (1996e2018), the top 10 most influential Asian nations in corporate sustainability literature are displayed in Table 6. The most influential nations in terms of the number of citations are India (738), China (733), Taiwan (658), Malaysia (537) and Thailand (273). This result is consistent with our later analysis (see Table 11) from which, based on the number of author citations on corporate sustainability literature associated

Rank

Label

Documents

Citations

Citations per document

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

India China Taiwan Malaysia Thailand South Korea Philippines Hong Kong Bangladesh Singapore

99 68 40 92 51 42 8 20 14 9

738 733 658 537 273 250 153 140 131 88

7.45 10.78 16.45 5.84 5.35 5.95 19.13 7.00 9.36 9.78

with Asia, a list of top 20 authors was developed. This list reveals that India is the most influential nation by the number of authors. In terms of citations, seven of the top 20 authors are from India, followed by China (4). In terms of authorship and research collaboration, according to our SciVal analysis of 468 journal publications, there are 716 contributing authors. Of these collaborations, 43.1% are institutional collaboration, 30.3% are international collaboration, 12.4% are national collaboration, and 14.1% are single authorship. Moreover, our analysis reveals that international collaboration brings about the most citations (1,100), while the national collaboration results in 366 citations. These figures suggest that most scholars (85.9%) interested in corporate sustainability in Asia collaborate, while only 14.1% do not. Of those who collaborate, they do so with scholars from the same institutions (43.1%), from other institutions but within the same country (12.4%), and from other institutions in other countries

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

(30.3%). The collaborative research efforts reveal that corporate sustainability research associated with Asia is most likely crossdisciplinary, as collaborative research often results from researchers who work together from different disciplines. Moreover, it is clear that internationally collaborative research creates more citation impact. Since India, China, Malaysia, and Thailand consistently share the first five positions of both productivity and impact rankings, they are also the most influential nations in the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. We conduct a deeper analysis of key institutions and scholars in these four countries, and the results are shown below (Tables 7 and 8). These results help to provide useful contact information for researchers who in the future might want to conduct cross-country corporate sustainability research in Asia. 5.2. Citation and co-citation analyses To answer research question no. 2, the results of our journal citation and co-citation analyses (JCA), author citation and cocitation analyses (ACA), and document citation and co-citation analyses (DCA) are presented and discussed below. 5.2.1. Journal citation and co-citation analyses Journal co-citation analysis (JCA) is employed to reveal frequently co-cited journals on corporate sustainability. In the analysis, the frequency of document co-citation in the journals illustrates the essential journals that scholars investigating corporate sustainability knowledge associated with Asia should review. Our analysis of these journals was primarily conducted in the domain of business and management: the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) reveals a broad assessment of the quality of journals publishing corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. More specifically, we find that as measured by co-citations, a total of 18 of the top 20 co-cited journals are ranked in Q1 and the rest are ranked in Q2 (Table 9). Denoting research quality, these rankings indicate that the articles contain references from very highquality journals. We also find that the Journal of Cleaner Production and the Journal of Business Ethics are essential for our review, as they are outstandingly co-cited 826 and 631 times, respectively, by scholars in the corporate sustainability field (Table 9). Readers who want to read Asia-associated corporate sustainability articles that are built upon prior corporate sustainability studies elsewhere should read the Journal of Business Ethics and the Journal of Cleaner Production, as they are ranked among the top two journals by the number of journal co-citations (Table 9). Endorsing this view, a recent global study has also identified that based on the number of Scopus citations, among the top journals publishing scholarship on an approach to corporate sustainability are the Journal of Business Ethics and the Journal of Cleaner Production (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018). Citation analysis is employed to extract journals in which scholars investigating corporate sustainability published their research. Interestingly, in our study, comparing the SJR citations per document and the citations per document (Table 10), we can draw a

7

conclusion that compared to journal articles from other areas, journal articles on corporate sustainability associated with Asia have received considerable attention from scholars, as all the citations per document in our study are much higher. Our analysis employs Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) to assess the quality of the journals and reveals that 10 of the first 20 top-cited journals are ranked in Q1, 4 in Q2, and 6 in Q3. Similar to the journal co-citation analysis, these journals are primarily in the domain of business and management. Of these, the Journal of Cleaner Production and Sustainability (Switzerland) contain the most publications, 26 and 50 documents with 385 and 241 citations respectively (Table 10). It must be noted that although Sustainability (Switzerland) is an open-access journal, its 2018 impact factor is 2.075, reasonably good for the social sciences. Consistently, a recent journal ranking (Olawumi and Chan, 2018) has identified the Journal of Cleaner Production and Sustainability as the top two source journals in the research areas of sustainability and sustainable development. From the journal citation analysis, we can draw a conclusion that scholars who seek quality journals to publish their research in the corporate sustainability field associated with Asia should consider the Journal of Cleaner Production (26 documents) and Sustainability (Switzerland) (50 documents) as their publication outlets because these journals are ranked among the top two journals by documents, and impactful given their citations per document. It must be pointed out that the Journal of Cleaner Production is ranked first in both journal citation and co-citation rankings in the present study, making it the most influential journal in the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. Globally, it is ranked 8th among the top journals publishing scholarship on the approach to corporate sustainability by Scopus citation impact (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018). 5.2.2. Author citation and co-citation analyses The bibliometric analysis can be used to reveal key knowledgeproduction scholars and documents (McCain, 1990). We employ the bibliometric analysis (Table 11) to identify scholars, nations of origin, schools of thought, and different degrees of influence and to rank these scholars by the number of citations and h-indexes. Leading scholars on corporate sustainability associated with Asia in terms of literature production include Kantabutra (15), Amran (7) and Goni (7). However, when indicated by Scopus citations, Tseng (187), Amaran (156), Chiu (141), Goyal (122) and Kantabutra (105) respectively demonstrate high impact (>100 citations) in the field. However, one should interpret these data with caution as the level of Scopus citations is still relatively low as compared globally. These findings point out that the corporate sustainability knowledge base associated with Asia is still nascent. As indicated in Table 11, as measured by total Scopus citations, the top ten most cited scholars in the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia are Tseng, Amaran, Chiu, Goyal, Kantabutra, Luthra, Haleem, Chang, Lin and Choi. Based on the Scopus and Google Scholar h-indexes, in the author citation list,

Table 7 Based on total citations, key institutions publishing studies on corporate sustainability associated with Asia. Country

Institution

No. publications

Total citations

Taiwan Malaysia India Thailand China

LungHwa University of Science and Technology Universiti Sains Malaysia Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee Mahidol University Dalian University of Technology

5 17 5 22 8

260 251 143 133 128

8

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

Table 8 Based on total citations, key scholars publishing studies on corporate sustainability associated with Asia. Country Taiwan Malaysia India Thailand China

Leading scholar Tseng, M.L. Amran, A. Goyal, P. Kantabutra, S. Wu, K.J.

Area of expertise

No. publications

Total citations

SJR h-index

Supply chain Sustainability Corporate social responsibility Sustainable leadership Supply chain

6 7 6 15 5

189 156 122 105 37

32 16 5 12 11

Table 9 By rank order based on co-citations, the top 20 journals with articles on corporate sustainability associated with Asia. Rank

Label

Domain

SJR quartile

SJR citations per document

Co-citations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Journal of Cleaner Production Journal of Business Ethics Strategic Management Journal Academy of Management Review Business Strategy and the Environment Academy of Management Journal International Journal of Production Economics Harvard Business Review Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Sustainability (Switzerland) Journal of Business Research Journal of Management Journal of Operations Management Journal of Marketing California Management Review Technovation European Journal of Operational Research International Journal of Production Research Journal of Management Studies Sustainable Development

Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Sustainability and the enviroment Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Decision sciences Business and management Business and management Interdisciplinary development

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q2 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1

5.79 3.19 6.41 8.59 5.52 7.31 5.48 7.17 5.58 2.39 3.33 8.44 6.59 8.43 4.23 4.66 4.09 2.95 5.55 2.91

826 631 334 317 273 241 219 185 165 111 101 95 89 89 82 76 73 69 64 60

Table 10 By rank order based on citations, the top 20 journals publishing scholarship on corporate sustainability associated with Asia. Rank Label

Domain

SJR quartile

SJR citations per document

Documents Citations Citations per document

1 2

Journal of Cleaner Production Sustainability (Switzerland)

Q1 Q2

5.79 2.39

26 50

385 241

14.81 5.24

3 4 5

Business Strategy and the Environment Management Decision Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Industrial Management and Data Systems Resources, Conservation and Recycling Sustainable Development Social Responsibility Journal Corporate Governance Asia-Pacific Journal of Business and Administration Global Business Review TQM Journal Journal of Applied Business Research Journal of Business Strategy Global Business and Organization International Journal of Business and Globalisation Benchmarking International Journal of Economic and financial Issue International Journal of Business and Society

Business and management Sustainability and the enviroment Business and management Business and management Business and management

Q1 Q1 Q1

5.52 1.76 5.58

11 7 8

163 151 119

14.82 21.57 14.88

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q3 Q2 Q2 Q3 Q2 Q3 Q3 Q1 Q3 Q3

3.39 5.5 2.91 0.87 3.32 0.65 0.89 1.67 0.37 0.66 0.58 0.7 1.97 0.44 0.52

3 3 5 3 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 3 3

113 86 82 71 27 27 21 20 20 20 16 13 11 10 7

37.67 28.67 16.4 23.67 5.4 5.4 5.25 6.67 6.67 6.67 5.33 3.25 2.2 3.33 2.33

6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 12 12 13 14 15 16 17

Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Business and management Decision sciences Business and management Economics Interdisciplinary development

several scholars, such as Sarkis (Scopus h-index ¼ 75, Google Scholar h-index ¼ 92) and Tseng (Scopus h-index ¼ 30, Google Scholar h-index ¼ 39), are already global players in the corporate sustainability field. This result implies that researchers interested in corporate sustainability research associated with Asia have examined the body of knowledge generated from the West. To analyze key authors in the corporate sustainability field,

author co-citation analysis (ACA) is employed by visualizing the intellectual structure featured by the authors. This analysis counts as one when two authors are cited together in another document. This co-citation frequency indicates both directly and indirectly a degree of influence in the knowledge domain (Bayer et al., 1990). According to the author co-citation analysis in Table 12, the top five most influential authors in the corporate sustainability literature

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

9

Table 11 By rank order based on co-citations, the top 20 authors in corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. Rank Label

Country

Area of expertise

Citations Documents Citations per document

Scopus hindex

Google Scholar hindex

1

Tseng, M.L.

Taiwan

187

6

31.17

30

39

2

Amaran, A.

Malaysia

156

7

22.29

16

26

3

Chiu, A.S.

Philippines

141

3

47

22

28

4

Goyal, P.

China

122

6

20.33

5

7

5

Kantabutra, S.

Thailand

105

15

7

12

16

6

Luthra, S.

India

99

4

24.75

21

24

7

Haleem, A.

India

91

3

30.33

17

22

8

Chang, D.S.

Taiwan

80

3

26.67

14

20*

9

Lin, H.

China

58

3

19.33

10

11

10

Choi, Y.

South Korea

53

4

13.25

16

9

11

Mani, V.

India (Portugal)

51

3

17

7

10

12

Sarkis, J.

41

3

13.67

75

92

13

Bai, C.

India (United States) China

41

3

13.67

15

18

14

Goni, F.A.

Malaysia

39

7

5.57

8

10

15

Wu, K.J.

China

36

5

7.2

11

13

16

Kim, S.

Hong Kong

36

4

9

13

19

17

Thailand

34

6

5.67

3

6

18

Suriyankietkaew S. Goyal, S.

India

26

4

6.5

9

4

19

Chofreh, A

India

25

6

4.17

8

10

20

Mangla, S.K.

India

Sustainable supply chain management Sustainable organization management Sustainable supply chain management Sustainable organization management Sustainable organization management Sustainable supply chain management Sustainable supply chain management Sustainable organization management Sustainable organization management Sustainable organization management Sustainable organization management Sustainable supply chain management Sustainable supply chain management Sustainable resource planning system Sustainable organization management Sustainable organization management Sustainable organization management Sustainable organization management Sustainable resource planning system Sustainable supply chain management

11

3

3.67

16

22

Table 12 By rank order based on co-citations, the top 20 authors of corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia, 1996e2018. Rank

Label

Country

Area of expertise

Co-citations

Scopus h-index

Google Scholar h-index

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Sarkis, J. Kantabutra, S. Avery, G.C. Zhu, Q. Porter, M.E. Wagner, M. Schaltegger, S. Tseng, M.L. Goni, F.A. Govindan, K. Freeman, R.E. Chofreh, A.G. Luthra, S. Gunasekaran, A. Elkington, J. Haleem, A. Hart, S.L. Bergsteiner, H. Seuring, S. Searcy, C.

India (United States) Thailand Australia China United States United States Germany Taiwan India Malaysia United States India India United States (Indian) United Kingdom India United States Australia United States (Indian) Canada

Sustainable supply chain Sustainable leadership Sustainable leadership Operation management Strategic management Enviromental science Sustainable management Sustainable supply chain Strategic information systems Supply chain management Stakeholder theory Resource planning system Sustainable supply chain Supply chain management Corporate responsibility Sustainable supply chain Sustainable enterprise Sustainable leadership Sustainable supply chain Sustainable supply chain

202 116 115 98 91 89 78 72 66 65 64 63 61 60 59 56 56 54 53 52

75 12 12 42 41 26 35 30 8 58 30 8 21 60 9 17 17 6 9 24

92 16 26 51 169 119 68 39 10 66 71 10 24 85 N/A 22 40 N/A 50 34

associated with Asia are Sarkis, Kantabutra, Avery, Zhu, and Porter. Of these, only Porter is not associated with Asia. Note that several authors are featured on both the citation and

co-citation lists (Kantabutra and Tseng), allowing us to conclude that the appearance of authors on both the citation and co-citation lists indicate that these authors have the greatest influence within

10

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. However, looking more closely at our author citation analysis (Table 11), it is potentially unfair to identify influential scholars by the ranking of citations alone since many of them are co-authors and therefore double counted. As a result, all of them might not be influential scholars in the literature. For example, the article ‘Sustainable consumption and production for Asia: Sustainability through green design and practice’ was co-authored by Tseng, Chiu, Tan and Siriban-Manalang. Two of the authors, Tseng and Chiu, based on the ranking of citations, are among the top five scholars simply because they have such a co-authorship. While Kantabutra, mostly a sole author, is fourth on the ranking by citations Therefore, author co-citation analysis should be taken into consideration in regard to identifying key scholars in the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. Our ranking of author co-citations (Table 12) reveals that, among the top ten scholars, there are only five associated with Asia. The first one at the 1st place is Sarkis whose research contribution to Asia is in China. Kantabutra at the 2nd place is from Thailand, while Avery, publishing research in Thai organizations with Kantabutra, at the 3rd place. Zhu from China is at the 4th place, while Tseng is at the 8th place. Lastly, Goni from Malaysia is at the 10th place. The rest among the top ten by author co-citation analysis are not associated with Asia. Therefore, based on the type of authorship, and both author citations and author co-citation analysis rankings, Kantabutra, taking the 5th place on the citation analysis ranking and the 2nd place on the co-citation analysis, is identified among the most influential scholars in the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. Endorsing this view, Kantabutra is identified by a recent study as the 4th most highly cited author on the approach to corporate sustainability in the world, only behind three other non-Asian authors (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018). In terms of our analysis regarding schools of thought in the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia (Fig. 4), the author co-citation map shows three main clusters or ‘schools of thought’ that cohere to represent the intellectual structure of the corporate sustainability knowledge base associated with Asia, i.e., the answer to research question no. 3. Three distinct schools of thought on corporate sustainability are emerged as follow: sustainable organization management (the red cluster), sustainable supply chain management (the green cluster), and sustainable resource planning systems (the blue cluster). Each school of thought provides different perspectives of management to achieve corporate sustainability. Led by Kantabutra and Avery, the first school of thought in the red tight cluster comprises the management and leadership aspects of corporate sustainability, therefore this school is named ‘sustainable organization management’. Kantabutra and Avery, as the first and second most co-cited scholars in this group, have been examining and exploring corporate sustainability as a selfreinforcing system based on shared virtuous values, the people who share them, and internal organization management. In other words, this is a holistic approach to corporate sustainability. It can be noted from the co-citation analysis that this school of thought has been built upon knowledge from scholars, such as Porter, Wagner and Freeman, in the Western world. Shown in the green dispersed cluster and led by Sarkis, Zhu and Tseng, the second school of thought is named ‘sustainable supply chain management’. Sustainable or green supply chain management and its consequences on corporate performance is a growing research area and has been studied by Sarkis, the most co-cited scholar in this group since at least 2008 (Seuring and Müller, 2008). Scholars in this group have inclusively been examining

corporate sustainability through supply chain management, as outsourcing and globalization are assuming significant roles in business fields (Zhu and Sarkis, 2007). As discussed earlier in the author citation section, both Sarkis and Tseng are already noted scholars in the global sustainable supply chain literature. Shown in the top left dark blue cluster and led by Goni, the third and smallest school of thought on corporate sustainability literature related to Asia is named ‘sustainable enterprise resource planning systems’. This group of scholars has been examining and exploring enterprise resource planning systems as a holistic solution to support sustainability programs and initiatives. They assume that the systems take a critical role in the journey towards sustainable development. Sustainability information systems potentially lead to an improvement in productivity, reduction in costs, and an increase in profitability (Chofreh et al., 2014). It appears that this school of thought is one for which more development from scholars is still seriously needed. In terms of distance, the sustainable organization management school and the sustainable supply chain management school are located closely which indicates the interrelated of knowledge between the two schools. While the literature in the sustainable organization management school emphasizes the critical role of a wide range of stakeholders, including suppliers, in sustaining a corporation, the literature in the sustainable supply chain management school emphasizes the management throughout the supply chain to ensure corporate sustainability. It is not surprising that in the author co-citation map, there is a large distance between the sustainable enterprise resources planning systems school (the blue cluster) and the sustainable organization management school (the red cluster). Clearly, this is because scholars in the sustainable enterprise resources planning systems school have exclusively conducted research on the aspects of enterprise resources planning systems of an organization. However, a large distance between the sustainable enterprise resources planning systems school and the sustainable supply chain management school is a surprise for two reasons: (a) enterprise resources planning systems and supply chain management have been growing in popularity across the globe (Tarn et al., 2002); and (b) as practitioners implement sustainable enterprise resources planning systems to aid them in solving a segregation problem over an extended value chain, enterprise resources planning systems are considered a holistic solution to support sustainability programs and initiatives (Chofreh et al., 2016). Therefore, there is much room for future research in this area. 5.2.3. Document citation and co-citation analyses To answer research question no. 2, the list of the top 20 highly cited corporate sustainability articles (Table 13) associated with Asia offers insights into the organizational locus of these articles. Understandably, the list is dominated by sustainability in business settings (Tseng et al., 2013; Haugh and Talwar, 2010; Lo and Sheu, 2007). In reference to schools of thought, the document citations analysis confirms the existence and sizes of all three schools. Of the first twenty cited documents, six are from the sustainable supply chain management school, five from the sustainable organization management, and only one from the sustainable enterprise resources planning systems school. In regard to a country analysis, Taiwan dominates the list of the countries with the most highly cited corporate sustainability articles associated with Asia: six out of the twenty articles are from Taiwan, followed by India (4), China (3), South Korea (2), Malaysia (2), Bangladesh (2) and Indonesia (1). This result is consistent with the result of our earlier country analysis of total document citations: in that analysis, India, China and Taiwan are ranked among

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

11

Fig. 4. Author co-citation analysis of corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia, 1996e2018.

the top three, suggesting an acceptable level of reliability for the results. Next, we employ the document co-citation analysis (DCA) to examine documents that have been frequently co-cited (Table 14). The resulting documents include documents in our combined Scopus and WOS database, as well as important and influential relevant documents beyond the documents in the present database. As indicated in Table 14, the DCA results reinforce several trends identified in previous analyses. First, the level of co-citations shown in Table 14 is also relatively low, reaffirming our assessment that the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia has not yet fully developed. Seven of the first 20 documents by document co-citations focus on corporate sustainability as informed by the Rhineland capitalism (Albert, 1992; Avery, 2005; Bergsteiner and Avery, 2006; Kantabutra, 2011, 2012a; Kantabutra and Avery, 2011; Kantabutra and Suriyankietkaew, 2013), supporting our conclusion earlier that the knowledge base in Asia has been informed by the Western body of knowledge. In regard to the ranking of document co-citations, our country analysis reveals a different picture from the earlier country analyses based on the number of publications and citations where India, China and Taiwan take a leading role. Of the first 12 documents ranked by document co-citations, six are from Thailand (Piboolsravut, 2004; Kantabutra and Avery, 2011; Kantabutra, 2011, 2012a; Kantabutra and Siebenhüner, 2011; Kantabutra and Suriyankietkaew, 2013), and another six are from the USA (Russo and Fouts, 1997; Barney, 1991; Schueth, 2003; Gelb and Strawer, 2001; Wagner, 2005; Shrivastava, 1995). The rest are all from non-Asian countries, such as Germany, France, Austria and Australia.

Confirming our earlier arguments, this analysis result suggests that excluding Thailand, the corporate sustainability knowledge associated with Asia has been informed by the knowledge from the Western world. Therefore, based on the ranking of document cocitations, Thailand becomes the most influential Asian nation, as the result implies that Thailand's collective body of knowledge is the most co-cited and, therefore, informs the corporate sustainability knowledge associated with Asia, although India is the top country by the number of publications and citations. As an author, Kantabutra from Thailand dominates the document co-citation ranking by having five documents from the first 20. Notably, based on the Scopus and Google Scholar citations, several of these documents (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002; Russo and Fouts, 1997; Barney, 1991; Seuring and Müller, 2008) are already part of the global literature on corporate sustainability. Interestingly, in terms of co-cited documents in the field of corporate sustainability associated with Asia (Table 14), between the list of the first 20 most co-cited documents in our present study and that of a recent global study on Sustainable Leadership (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018), there are many overlapped documents (Table 15). Indeed, there are 12 documents that appear on both lists, albeit in different rank orders. This result indicates that the two knowledge domains of corporate sustainability and sustainable leadership are highly semantically related. 5.3. Co-occurrence analysis To answer research question no. 4, the co-occurrence analysis technique is used to complement the previous citation analyses by adding topical specializations to the sub-fields comprising corpo rate sustainability scholarship (Zupic and Cater, 2015). The cooccurrence search is set to ‘All keywords’, with a threshold of at

12

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

Table 13 By rank order based on citations, the top 20 documents on corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. Rank Label

Country

Scopus citations

Google Scholar citations

1

Taiwan

137

191

Taiwan

117

308

Taiwan

116

277

China

91

197

India

88

111

Malaysia

75

151

Taiwan

73

90

India

55

106

Malaysia

51

74

Taiwan

50

114

India

49

61

China

45

55

Bangladesh

44

93

Taiwan

43

87

South Korea

39

69

Portugal (Indian)

38

52

China

38

49

Bangladesh

38

109

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20

Tseng, M., Chui, A., Tan, R., Siriban-Manalang, A., 2013. Sustainable consumption and production for Asia: sustainability through green design and practice. Journal Cleaner Production. 40, 1e5. Lo, S., Sheu, H., 2007. Is corporate sustainability a value-increasing strategy for business. Corporate Governance: An International Review. 15(2), 345e358. Haugh, H., Talwar, A., 2010. How do corporations embed sustainability across the organization Academy of Management Learning & Education. 9(3), 384e396. Goyal, P., Rahman, Z., Kazmi, A., 2013. Corporate sustainability performance and firm performance research: Literature review and future research agenda. Management Decision. 51(2), 361e379. Luthra, S., Garg, D., Haleem, A., 2015. An analysis of interactions among critical success factors to implement green supply chain management towards sustainability: An Indian perspective. Resources Policy. 46, 37e50. Amran, A., Lee, S.P., Devi, S.S., 2014. The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the Environment. 23(4), 217e235. Tseng, M., Lim, M., Wong, W.P., 2015. Sustainable supply chain management: a closed-loop network hierarchical approach. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 115(3), 436e461. Shrimali, G., Slaski, X., Thurber, M.C., Zerriffi, H., 2011. Improved stoves in India: A study of sustainable business models. Energy Policy. 39(12), 7543e7556. Rehman, M.H., Chang, V., Batool, A., Wah, T.Y., 2016. Big data reduction framework for value creation in sustainable enterprises. International Journal of Information Management. 36(6), 917e928. Chang, D.S., Kuo, L.C., 2008. The effects of sustainable development on firms' financial performanceean empirical approach. Sustainable Development. 16(6), 365e380. Ahmadi, H. B., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Rezaei, J., 2017. Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using best worst method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 126, 99e106. Li, T., Zhang, H., Yuan, C., Liu, Z., Fan, C., 2012. A PCA-based method for construction of composite sustainability indicators. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 17(5), 593e603. Sobhani, F.A., Amran, A., Zainuddin, Y., 2012. Sustainability disclosure in annual reports and websites: a study of the banking industry in Bangladesh. Journal of Cleaner Production. 23(1), 75e85. Lo, S.F., 2010. Performance evaluation for sustainable business: a profitability and marketability framework. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management. 17(6), 311e319. Choi, Y., Yu, Y., 2014. The influence of perceived corporate sustainability practices on employees and organizational performance. Sustainability. 6(1), 348e364. Mani, V., Agarwal, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Childe, S. J., 2016. Social sustainability in the supply chain: Construct development and measurement validation. Ecological indicators. 71, 270e279. Bai, C., Sarkis, J., Dou, Y., 2015. Corporate sustainability development in China: review and analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems. 115(1), 5e40. Khan, H.U., Azizul Islam, M., Kayeser Fatima, J., Ahmed, K., 2011. Corporate sustainability reporting of major commercial banks in line with GRI: Bangladesh evidence. Social Responsibility Journal. 7(3), 347e362. Wibowo, S., Deng, H., 2015. Multi-criteria group decision making for evaluating the performance of e-waste recycling programs under uncertainty. Waste Management. 40, 127e135. Jo, H., Kim, H., Park, K., 2015. Corporate environmental responsibility and firm performance in the financial services sector. Journal of Business Ethics. 131(2), 257e284.

least a minimum number of five occurrences of a keyword. Of the 2,363 keywords, there are 75 that meet the condition. The co-word map in Fig. 5 shows the comparative emphasis on different topics related to corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. A link strength is represented by a connecting line, and its thickness between keyword nodes indicates a relationship existence between keyword nodes. As a result, the document co-occurrence science map (Fig. 5) portrays three clusters of topical foci as judged by major node sizes. The red cluster indicates ‘corporate sustainability’ as a topical focus, while the green cluster indicates ‘sustainability’ as a topical focus and the yellow cluster indicates ‘sustainable development’ as a topical focus. Due to the dynamic research front of the literature, scholars usually respond to changes in the environmental research knowledge base quickly, especially after an introduction of newly discovered knowledge. The science mapping can be used to reveal the ‘research front’ in the knowledge base literature (Boyack and  Klavans, 2010; Zupic and Cater, 2015). In this paper, we draw science mapping illustration to identify the research fronts and the trendiest topics (Fig. 6). This overlay virtualization map (Fig. 6) indicates that most keywords are relatively recent, as an average publication year of these keywords is between early 2015 to late

Australia (Indonesian 35 & Chinese) South Korea 33

48 84

2017. The word co-occurrence map reveals some groups of important keywords that are related to each other in sub-groups. For example, the corporate sustainability and sustainable development nodes are centered in a cluster, showing that these keywords are highly related. Further, the sufficiency economy philosophy, sustainable leadership, and social vision nodes are centered in another cluster, showing that these keywords are highly related. As indicated in Table 16, the top five most commonly cooccurring keywords in the review database are ‘Corporate Sustainability’ (146 cases), ‘Sustainable Development’ (128 cases), ‘Sustainability’ (120 cases), ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ (43 cases), and ‘Supply Chain Management’ (32 cases), illustrating that these keywords are relevant topics and of the interest of corporate sustainability scholars associated with Asia. Our co-occurrence analysis (Table 16) illustrates the research fronts of trendy keywords and topics that are frequently adopted or cited by scholars (van Eck and Waltman, 2014) possibly because throughout the years, companies in this region have been affected by a number of crises: Thailand's economic crisis in 1997 (Chang et al., 2009), the subprime crisis in 2008 (Gerardi et al., 2008), the India currency crisis in 2013 (Reinhart and Rogoff, 2013), and the China stock bubble in 2015 (Sornette et al., 2015).

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

13

Table 14 By rank order based on co-citations, the top 20 documents in the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. Rank Label

Country

Scopus citations

Google Scholar Cocitations citations

1

Germany

1,171

3,182

18

Thailand United States United States Thailand

38 2,001

98 4,494

16 11

20,261

63,922

11

19

35

10

France Thailand

24 19

45 42

10 10

Australia Thailand

10 16

9 29

8 8

Australia

10

11

8

United States Thailand

164

441

7

12

15

7

Australia

65

149

7

United States Thailand

137

327

6

9

12

6

Germany

2,007

3,747

6

United States

172

325

6

Austria

204

503

6

United Kingdom United States

971

2,708

6

825

1,855

6

2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7

7 7 7

Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and The Environment. 11(2), 130e141. Piboolsravut, P., 2004. Sufficiency Economy. Asean Economic Bulletin. 21(1), 127e134. Russo, M.V., Fouts, P.A., 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal. 40(3), 534e559. Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 17(1), 99e120. Kantabutra, S., Avery, G.C., 2011. Sustainable leadership at Siam Cement Group. Journal of Business Strategy. 32(4), 32e41. Albert, M., 1992. The Rhine model of capitalism: An investigation. European Business Journal. 4(3), 8e22. Kantabutra, S., 2011. Sustainable leadership in a Thai Healthcare services provider. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. 24(1), 67e80. Dunphy, D., 2004. Sustainability: seize the strategic opportunity. Executive Excellence. 21(1), 19. Kantabutra, S., Siebenhuner, T., 2011. Predicting corporate sustainability: a Thai approach. Journal of Applied Business Research. 27(6), 123e134. Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G.C., 2006. How to kill a sustainable enterprise: a not so fictional case. International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability. 2(3), 95e106. Schueth, S., 2003. Socially responsible investing in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics. 43(3), 189-194 Kantabutra, S., 2012. Putting Rhineland principles into practice in Thailand: Sustainable Leadership at bathroom design company. Global Business and Organizational Excellence. 31(5), 6-19 Avery, G.C., 2005. Leadership for sustainable futures: achieving success in a competitive world, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Gelb, D.S., Strawer, J.A., 2011. Corporate social responsibility and financial disclosures: an alternative explanation for increased disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics. 33(1), 1e13. Kantabutra, S., Suriyankietkaew, S., 2013. Sustainable leadership: Rhineland practices at a Thai small enterprise. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. 19(1), 77e94. Seuring, S. Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production. 16(15), 1699e1710. Wagner, M., 2005. How to reconcile environmental and economic performance to improve corporate sustainability: corporate environmental strategies in the European paper industry. Journal of Environmental Management. 76(2), 105e118. Baumgartner, R.J., Ebner, D., 2010. Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development. 18(2), 76e89. Elkington, J., 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review. 36(2), 90e100. Shrivastava, P., 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of management review. 20(4), 936e960.

In terms of a holistic approach to corporate sustainability, the sufficiency economy philosophy is ranked 8th by co-occurrences, and the second most co-cited document (Table 14) is also about the sufficiency economy philosophy (Piboolsravut, 2004). Lending support to the increasing popularity of the philosophy, a recent global study (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018) has identified this second most co-cited document on the philosophy (Piboolsravut, 2004) in our present study as the most highly cocited sustainable leadership document in the world. These findings indicate an increasing acceptance of the sufficiency economy philosophy beyond its country of origin, Thailand. Interestingly, sustainable leadership, another holistic approach to corporate sustainability, is ranked 9th by the co-occurrences ranking, indicating that this keyword phrase is becoming more recognized in the Asia region, although globally, the sustainable leadership field is still nascent (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018). At the same time, sustainable leadership is ranked first by a global study (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018), indicating that a leadership approach to corporate sustainability has been a topic of greater interest among scholars outside the Asia region. In addition, of the six first-order topics of interest (Table 14), two are in line with the co-occurring keywords identified by a recent global study on Sustainable Leadership, an approach to corporate sustainability (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018), where Corporate Sustainability and Decision Making are ranked respectively as the third and fifth topics by recency and strength of interest. Ranked 5th by co-occurrence, Sustainable Supply Chain

Management is earlier identified as a school of thought, confirming much of interest among scholars in the corporate sustainability field associated with Asia. Other topics by co-occurrences such as ‘entrepreneurship’, ‘business’, ‘sufficiency economy philosophy’, ‘sustainable leadership’, ‘corporate strategy’, ‘innovation’, and ‘competitiveness’ are all about how to ensure the long-term sustainable success of a business organization, consistent with the emerged schools of sustainable organization management and sustainable supply chain management discussed earlier. It can be concluded that the research fronts in the corporate sustainability research associated with Asia lies in how to enhance corporate sustainability prospects by improving various aspects of leading a business organization. 5.4. Classifications analysis To answer research questions no. 5 and 6, the articles in the existing corporate sustainability knowledge base associated with Asia are classified according to our coding framework below. Table 17 presents the results from the coding process. 5.4.1. Topics, dataset types, sample characteristics and industry types Based on our classification analysis, the main focal topics comprise 8 categories, as shown in Table 18. Corporate sustainability practices denote the main focus of the literature on corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. As they also

14

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

Table 15 Overlapped co-cited documents included in both the global ranking of co-cited sustainable leadership documents and in the present study's ranking of co-cited corporate sustainability documents, 1996e2018. Asian rank of co-cited corporate sustainability documents

Label

Global rank of co-cited corporate sustainability documents (Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew, 2018)

1

Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and The Environment. 11(2), 130e141. Piboolsravut, P., 2004. Sufficiency economy. Asean Economic Bulletin. 21(1), 127e134. Russo, M.V., Fouts, P.A., 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal. 40(3), 534e559. Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management. 17(1), 99e120. Kantabutra, S. and Avery, G.C., 2011. Sustainable Leadership at Siam Cement Group. Journal of Business Strategy. 32(4), 32e41. Albert, M., 1992. The Rhine model of capitalism: An investigation. European Business Journal. 4 (3), 8e22. Kantabutra, S., 2011. Sustainable leadership in a Thai healthcare services provider. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. 24(1), 67e80. Dunphy, D., 2004. Sustainability: Seize the strategic opportunity. Executive Excellence. 21(1), 19. Kantabutra, S., Siebenhuner, T., 2011. Predicting corporate sustainability: a Thai approach. Journal of Applied Business Research. 27(6), 123e134. Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G.C., 2006. How to kill a sustainable enterprise: A not so fictional case. International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability. 2(3), 95e106. Schueth, S., 2003. Socially responsible investing in the United States. Journal of Business Ethics. 43(3), 189e194. Kantabutra, S., 2012. Putting Rhineland principles into practice in Thailand: Sustainable leadership at bathroom design company. Global Business and Organizational Excellence. 31(5), 6-19 Avery, G.C., 2005. Leadership for sustainable futures: Achieving success in a competitive world, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Gelb, D.S., Strawer, J.A., 2001. Corporate social responsibility and financial disclosures: An alternative explanation for increased disclosure. Journal of Business Ethics. 33(1), 1 e13. Kantabutra, S., Suriyankietkaew, S., 2013. Sustainable leadership: Rhineland practices at a Thai small enterprise. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business. 19(1), 77e94. Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production. 16(15), 1699 e1710. Wagner, M., 2005. How to reconcile environmental and economic performance to improve corporate sustainability: Corporate environmental strategies in the European paper industry. Journal of Environmental Management. 76(2), 105e118. Baumgartner, R.J., Ebner, D., 2010. Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development. 18(2), 76e89. Elkington, J., 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review. 36(2), 90e100. Shrivastava, P., 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review. 20(4), 936e960.

20

2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5

6 6

6 7

7

7

7

7

7 7

comprise corporate practices, the fourth and fifth topics, namely, operation systems and strategy and financial reporting, are consistent with the first topic, corporate sustainability practices. In terms of the dataset, most of the studies in corporate sustainability associated with Asia have focused on a single country setting. Only 68 studies out of 436 were conducted in a crossnational setting. As our earlier analysis reveals that an international research collaboration brings about the most citations (1,100) and that the national research collaboration results in only 366 citations, to create a greater citation impact, future research should consider both cross-national data collection and research collaboration. Additionally, studies in large corporations comprise the majority of the corporate sustainability studies associated with Asia (Table 17), followed by studies in small and medium enterprises. Small and medium enterprises play a critical role in sustaining an economy, as they typically employ the majority of the workforce in a country; therefore, more research into this sector is encouraged. Regarding the industry type, corporate sustainability studies

1 _ _ 6 2 7 9 11 10

14 19

12 17

_

_

_

_

_ _

associated with Asia were conducted in the manufacturing or mixed industries: this is not a surprise, as our earlier analyses suggest that a majority of corporate sustainability scholars associated with Asia belong to the school of sustainable supply chain management and supply chain management is an important function in any manufacturing business. 5.4.2. Concepts, frameworks and theories Derived from the literature review, Table 19 shows frequently adopted/adapted concepts, frameworks and theories which constitute the collective body of corporate sustainability knowledge associated with Asia. Except for the sufficiency economy philosophy, most of these concepts, frameworks and theories are from the Western world. This result is consistent with our earlier document co-citation analysis results in which many of the documents were also from the West. As the sufficiency economy philosophy is the only concept originated in Asia, from a regional contribution to worldwide scholarship perspective, an examination of the concept's latest

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

15

Fig. 5. Word co-occurrence map of corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia, 1996e2018.

Fig. 6. By recency, word co-occurrence overlay virtualization map of corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia, 1996e2018.

developments is warranted. According to Hallinger and Suriyankietkaew (2018), the philosophy was developed by His late Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand as an indigenous philosophy of sustainable development that is applicable to many domains including business. Adopted from Kantabutra (2017b, p.174), the sufficiency economy philosophy framework in business organizations is demonstrated graphically in Fig. 7 below. Philosophically and empirically derived, the sufficiency economy philosophy framework suggests that corporate leaders adopt the sustainable business practices of perseverance, resilience, moderation, geo-social development and sharing because they directly and/or indirectly enhance corporate sustainability outcomes of corporate capacities to deliver strong performance,

ensure crises and deliver public benefits. According to the framework (Kantabutra, 2017b), perseverance is defined as continued goal-striving despite adversity, while resilience means a capacity to bounce back from crises. Moderation means a middle path between desire and extravagance, between impossible dreams and backwardness. Core to the philosophy, moderation indicates both self-reliance and frugality. Geo-social development emphasizes the ethical responsibility toward a wide range of stakeholders including the society and environment to ensure sustainable development while sharing primarily means sharing knowledge internally among members and externally with stakeholders.

16

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

Table 16 By rank order based on co-concurrence, the top 14 keywords in corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia, 1996e2018. Rank

Label

Total link strength

Co-occurrence

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 14 15

Corporate sustainability Sustainable development Sustainability Corporate social responsibility Supply chain management Decision making Entrepreneurship Business Sufficiency economy philosophy Corporate strategy Sustainable leadership Enviromental management Innovation Manufacture Competitiveness Performance assessment Stakeholder Business development Investment Corporate governance Developing Countries

413 478 444 131 139 152 58 102 51 105 58 85 72 100 91 58 75 63 58 25 58

146 128 120 48 32 31 26 22 22 20 20 19 19 18 18 16 14 14 12 12 10

5.4.3. Research methods and methodology issues In reference to research methods, the corporate sustainability studies associated with Asia have been primarily quantitative (215/ 468), while a significant number have been qualitative (130/468) (Table 17). Other studies either adopted mixed methods or were

conceptual and review studies. Future research may consider adopting the mixed methods, as mixing both quantitative and qualitative methods allows researchers to gain a breadth and depth of understanding while offsetting the downside risk inherent in adopting each method alone. The use of mixed methods to examine the same phenomenon allows researchers to identify aspects of a phenomenon more precisely. The majority of the corporate sustainability studies associated with Asia have been original: rather than replicating an existing framework, the authors in these studies developed and tested their own theoretical frameworks. This finding is consistent with our earlier journal analyses, where the results revealed that corporate sustainability scholars associated with Asia have primarily been publishing their research in quality journals. Based on our research validation of the content of the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia, the following methodological shortcomings of the existing research are identified and discussed. 5.4.3.1. A lack of common definition for corporate sustainability. As discussed earlier, corporate sustainability is not defined in a generally agreed upon manner: this presents a methodological issue, as any empirically based research on corporate sustainability is likely to be affected by the various ways in which corporate sustainability has been defined. Therefore, we suggest that future research should provide a get-out clause by deriving a common definition that will encompass all of these highly linked corporate sustainability definitions. More importantly, a common definition will benefit not only researchers interested in corporate

Table 17 Brief descriptive statistics results from the coding process. Code Main focus topic

Number of articles

Code Type of dataset

Number of articles

Code Sample characteristics

Number of articles

MT1 Corporate sustainability practices MT2 Enviromental managament

120

DS1 National data collection

368

CS1

80

46

68

MT3 MT4 MT5 MT6 MT7 MT8

49 88 70 17 45 33

DS2 Cross-national data collection DS3 N/A

Innovation and development Operation systems and strategy Financial reporting Enterprise information system Brand and marketing Others

CS2

Small and mediums enterprises Large corporates

153

32

CS3 CS4 CS5 CS6

Mixed Individual Others N/A

38 75 90 32

Code Sector of sample

Number of articles

Code Methods

Number of articles

Code Theory/framework

Number of articles

SS1 SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5 SS6 SS7 SS8

137 89 10 21 19 19 141 32

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5

215 130 61 30 32

TF1 TF2 TF3

247 195 26

Manufacturing Services Construction Energy Agricultural Others Mixed N/A

Quantitative Qualitative Mixed Conceptual Review

Original Extended Others

Table 18 Brief description of the categories and codes. Category

Code

Description

Corporate sustainability practices Environmental management Innovation development Operation and strategy Financial reporting Enterprise information system Brand and marketing Others

MT1 MT2 MT3 MT4 MT5 MT6 MT7 MT8

Leadership, people management, corporate social responsibility, sustainability indicators and corporate governance Green supply chain, environmental management, waste management, resource utilization, resources allocation Innovation management, research and development, production systems, and eco-innovation General management protocol, strategic planning, and partnership management Corporate sustainability disclosure, sustainability reporting, and triple bottom line Enterprise information technology, enterprise resource planning systems, and technological advancement Branding, advertisement, and stakeholder perception Conceptual and review articles

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

17

Table 19 Frequently adopted/adapted concepts, frameworks, and theories in the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia. Concept/framework/theory

References

Description

Sufficiency economy philosophy (SEP) Stakeholder theory

Piboolsravut (2004); Elinoff (2014); Kasem and Thapa (2012); Salem et al. (2016); Lee and Hu (2018); Xiao et al. (2018)

A sustainable development approach introduced by the King Rama IX.

Sustainable leadership

Kantabutra (2011); Bharwani and Talib (2017); Sharma and Sengupta (2018) Corporate governance Gupta (2012); Goyal et al., 2013; Bae et al. (2018) Corporate social responsibility Hui (2008); Amran et al. (2014); Choi and (CSR) Yu (2014) Corporate shared value (CSV) Suriyankietkaew (2013); Bergman et al. (2016); Ray and Chaudhuri, 2018 Sustainability reporting Khan et al. (2011); D'Amato et al. (2015); Kaspereit and Lopatta (2016) Tripple bottom line (TBL) Green supply chain management (GSCM) Sustainable enterprise resource planning system (S-ERP)

A theory of organizational management that stresses the interconnected relationship between a business and anyone associated with or impacted directly or indirectly by the business, as opposed to only shareholders. Sustainable Leadership is a holistic approach to lead a business toward sustainability. A system of rules and practices by which an organization adopts to ensure a transparent balance among the interests of internal and external stakeholders. A business approach that ensures corporate accountability for the society.

A business approach that ensures long-term, sustainable competitive advantage through shared corporate values. It emphasizes such values as social responsibility and ethics. A reporting system that a business is required to report to the public its economic, environment, and social performance to ensure corporate transparency and social responsibility. Ou (2016); Anbarasan, 2018; Wang et al. An accounting framework aiming to report economic, social and enviromental outputs as a (2018) result of a business operation to ensure corporate sustainability. Tseng et al. (2013); Luthra et al. (2015); Lo An integration of environmental responsibility into the conventional supply chain et al. (2018) management to minimize a total impact on the environment. An integration between corporate sustainability and the traditional enterprise resources Chofreh et al. (2016); Chofreh et al. information systems to support corporate sustainability programs. (2017); Chofreh et al., 2018a

Fig. 7. The sufficiency economy philosophy framework (Kantabutra, 2017b, p.174, p.174).

sustainability associated with Asia but also those with a global interest. 5.4.3.2. A lack of theoretical background to inform research. The existing research in the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia often lacks a solid theoretical background, which is an important methodological issue, as a theory is essential to the validity and development of a field of practice (Garrison,

2000). The theoretical foundations of a field explain, inform and provide the primary means to guide future developments. A theory also reveals new knowledge and suggests options, influencing practices and research. As our literature review reveals that the corporate sustainability field associated with Asia is still at a nascent stage, future research needs the solid theoretical foundation to inform the future development of the field. In terms of theory development, in the next section, we provide two

18

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

frameworks on corporate sustainability as a step toward theorizing. 5.4.3.3. An assumption indicating an unawareness that the business environment is static. The existing research in the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia often assumes that the business environment is static, which has never been the case. The business environment is constantly changing at an increasing pace. Considering corporate sustainability as a research focus, the determination of whether a company can be sustained in the long run depends significantly on how the company can respond effectively to the changing business environment. A very few studies (e.g. Chen et al., 2017) in the literature actually explored how the business environment impacts corporate sustainability. Therefore, most of the existing studies reveal findings that are true only at a given time and do not take into account the alwayschanging context. Future corporate sustainability research should take into account the surrounding context so that the resulting findings reflect a continuous process. 6. Toward an Asian conceptual framework To further answer research question no. 6, we adopt the grounded theory approach to develop two collective bodies of knowledge on corporate sustainability in Asia. As noted earlier, as indicated by the three disperse groups of scholars in Fig. 4, the bibliographic mapping enables us to see three distinct schools of thought, namely, sustainable organization management, sustainable supply chain management, and sustainable enterprise resource planning systems. They are indeed the forefront bodies of knowledge on corporate sustainability associated with Asia. To derive cutting-edge knowledge on corporate sustainability associated with Asia, for the three schools of thought, we have identified influential co-cited scholars who have actually produced knowledge on corporate sustainability in Asia, not simply those whose names are highly co-cited. These scholars are the following: Kantabutra and Avery from the sustainable organization management school; Sarkis and Tseng from the sustainable supply chain management school; and Goni from the sustainable enterprise resource planning systems school. However, as we conduct a review of Goni's work (Chofreh et al., 2016, 2017, 2018a; 2018b, 2018c): in addition to being in a very small school of thought, Goni's work has focused on how to adopt enterprise resource planning systems in an organization and how to integrate all sustainability activities within the enterprise resource planning systems so that sustainability performance can be monitored. Although this body of knowledge has been produced by Asian scholars, it is mainly conceptual and not specific to Asia. Therefore, we exclude Goni's work from our discussion in this section. Finally, we adopt the grounded theory approach to map the collective knowledge from the key scholars of each school. More specifically, we derive two conceptual frameworks on sustainable organization management and sustainable supply chain management from the articles of key scholars in the two areas. In the process, we read the journal articles, go through the coding process that was discussed in detail earlier in the methodology section, and derive a conceptual framework for each school as discussed below. 6.1. Sustainable organization management It is clear that the contents of the sustainable organization management school are highly similar, as indicated by a tight cluster (Fig. 4). Although Kantabutra is one of the scholars of the sustainable organization management school, his node is quite distinct from the other nodes, as evidenced by the distance

between his node and those of the rest in the bibliographic mapping. This issue warrants a deeper investigation. Looking more closely into Kantabutra's research during the period (Kantabutra, 2011, 2012a; 2012b, 2014a; 2014b, 2017a; 2017b; Kantabutra and Avery, 2011, 2013; Kantabutra and Saratun, 2013; Kantabutra and Siebenhüner, 2011; Kantabutra and Suriyankeitkaew, 2012, 2013; Kantabutra and Thepa-Apiraks, 2016; Winit and Kantabutra, 2017), it is clear that his research focus has been in the area of a holistic approach to corporate sustainability. Over the period, his reports comprise conceptual papers (Kantabutra, 2017a; Kantabutra and Suriyankeitkaew, 2012), as well as qualitative (Kantabutra, 2011; Kantabutra and ThepaApiraks, 2016) and quantitative research papers (Kantabutra, 2014a; Kantabutra and Siebenhüner, 2011; Winit and Kantabutra, 2017). At the beginning, his research started with examining the applicability of the Western-derived Rhineland sustainable leadership concept, introduced by Avery (2005), who is another key scholar in the school of sustainable organization management and has involved in research in Thai business organizations (Kantabutra, 2011; Kantabutra and Avery, 2011, Kantabutra and Suriyankeitkaew, 2012): This explains why Avery is the second most co-cited scholar in this school; however, much of her own research has been performed outside Asia. Then, after the Rhineland sustainable leadership concept was refined and renamed the honeybee sustainable leadership concept (Avery and Bergsteiner, 2010), Kantabutra explored the applicability of honeybee sustainable leadership practices in a number of Thai organizations (Kantabutra, 2012b; Kantabutra and Avery, 2013; Kantabutra and Saratun, 2013). However, more recent research by Kantabutra (Kantabutra, 2014a, 2017b; Winit and Kantabutra, 2017) has shifted the focus to a Thai holistic corporate sustainability approach, namely, the sufficiency economy philosophy. Two of his research publications focus on identifying corporate sustainability indicators as informed by the Thai sufficiency economy philosophy (Kantabutra, 2014a; Kantabutra and Siebenhüner, 2011). It can be concluded that Kantabutra's work was built upon Avery's prior work. Kantabutra's collective knowledge over the years includes corporate sustainability leadership practices and corporate sustainability indicators. Kantabutra's corporate sustainability leadership practices include long-term orientation, internal leadership development, cohesive corporate culture, innovation, social and environmental responsibility, and ethical behavior (Kantabutra, 2011), while his five sets of corporate sustainability indicators are: perseverance, resilience, moderation, geo-social development, and sharing (Kantabutra, 2014a,b). Finally, Kantabutra empirically discovered a set of corporate sustainability outcomes: the organization's capacities to deliver competitive performance, to endure social and economic crisis, to maintain market leadership, and to deliver social benefits (Kantabutra, 2014a,b). Given the deeper investigation into Kantabutra's research agenda above, the distance between his node and those of the rest in the sustainable organization management school can be explained by the fact that Kantabutra has continued to develop a collective body of knowledge on the holistic approach to corporate sustainability by building upon his own research over time, making his node almost independent from those of the rest in the sustainable organization management school. Derived from Kantabutra's collective research between 2011 and 2017, the following corporate sustainability framework, namely, the Asian sustainable organization management, is introduced below. In the Asian sustainable organization management framework (Fig. 8), to enhance their prospect of achieving corporate sustainability, companies adopt the leadership practices of long-term

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

19

Fig. 8. Asian sustainable organization management framework.

orientation, internal leadership development, cohesive corporate culture, innovation, social and environmental responsibility and ethical behavior. Moreover, companies with enhanced corporate sustainability prospect are characterized by the five sets of corporate sustainability indicators: perseverance, resilience or prudence, moderation, geo-social development and sharing. According to Kantabutra's collective work, the adoption of these practices and indicators brings about social, environmental, and economic outputs that lead to corporate immunity and resilience. In turn, corporate immunity and resilience ensure corporate sustainability. 6.2. Sustainable supply chain management The second largest school of thought, sustainable supply chain management, is displayed in the green dispersed cluster and is led by Sarkis, Zhu, Govindan and Tseng. Sarkis is the most co-cited scholar in this group; however, only Sarkis and Tseng, global scholars as indicated by our earlier analyses (Table 12), have actually produced knowledge in Asia. Therefore, we focus only on the collective work of these two scholars. Sarkis's main contribution to Asia is actually on corporate sustainability development in China. According to Sarkis and his colleagues (Bai at el., 2015), corporate sustainability development in China was centered on the triple bottom line principle. Certainly, supply chain management played a role in corporate sustainability development in China, particularly in the manufacturing sector. However, the adoption of corporate sustainability development in China depended heavily on the international supply chain and markets. The domestic supply chains still needed more time to become more oriented with the concept of corporate sustainability. For domestic business professionals in China, the only real pressure in the adoption of the corporate sustainability concept in their supply chains was primarily from governmental policies and regulations. More importantly, developing industrial management systems to support industries in terms of a sustainable supply chain was still needed in China. Tseng is another scholar who has actually produced knowledge in China. Tseng and his colleagues (Shi at el., 2017) developed a corporate sustainability model for a Chinese firm's supply chain networks: the model's results suggested that the firm should focus

on environmental operation design aspects. The firm ranked five sustainability criteria: (1) decreasing the generation of toxic and hazardous matter; (2) utilizing environmental certificates; (3) improving the service cycle processing time; (4) reducing the service costs, i.e., the service costs as a percentage of the revenue; and (5) improving the service output per hour/facility utilization. The study suggested that green design in operations and products should be included as a criterion for corporate sustainable development. Tseng also suggested that sustainability can be enhanced through green supply chain management, design and practice. Tseng at el. (2013) outlined the use of green design and practice in Asia through resource control and identified the drivers and barriers of supply chain performance and practices. According to Tseng at el. (2013), the industrial policies that were developed and the resulting responses in Asia's major economies, such as the economies in China, Korea and Taiwan, began to address global sustainable development issues, such as climate change, in addition to regional concerns on regional pollution and the management of increasingly limited natural resources. These trends reflected the increased awareness in Asia of the interdependence of the longterm economic wellbeing of the region and the wise and sustainable use of environmental and human capital. Moreover, enterprises in Asia were increasingly interested in incorporating green supply chain strategies into all of their operations, from product design, sourcing and manufacturing, storage, transportation, usability and end of product life management. However, due to confusion related to the ‘green’ definition, few working models and the costs associated with implementation, the implementation progress for green supply chain strategies was slow. Environmental responsibility became a priority issue in some Asian corporations, as they were required to comply with strict environmental regulations imposed by developed nations in the West while at the same time maintaining their competitiveness Finally, there was a growing consensus on the development and adoption of sustainable production indicators to monitor the progress of corporate sustainability development, especially for original equipment manufacturing enterprises. Such responses required firms to explore and utilize sustainable production indicators.

20

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

Additionally, in his study in Taiwan, Tseng involved social media as part of the decision-making process to evaluate a Taiwaneseprinted circuit board manufacturing focal firm (Tseng, 2017). His findings suggest that enterprises must increase their exchange across corporate functions (e.g. organizational learning) to acquire benefits from sustainable design, the code of conduct and ecoproducts. In addition, by suggesting that firms use eco-friendly technologies and a talent selection approach to support eco-innovation and foster changes in organizations, Tseng has contributed to the field of eco-innovation (Lee at el, 2018). He and his colleagues note that clear policies and procedures, mutual trust and respect, and sales representative characteristics are required to improve corporate sustainability prospect. In terms of innovation, Tseng and colleagues (Wu at el., 2015) suggest that innovation is critical to sustainable business management because it helps to improve corporate capabilities and competencies. More importantly, they assert that to succeed in building a sustainable business in the hotel industry in Taiwan, companies pay serious attention to upgrading and integrating their business technologies, collaborating with internal and external stakeholders and to creating trust; they also emphasized the importance of a shared mental model encompassing common agreement, the development of competencies in creative thinking to nurture continuous innovation, and the fostering of necessary changes in the entire organization. Derived from Sarkis and Tseng's empirical and conceptual work, the Asian sustainable supply chain management framework is introduced and shown below. The framework (Fig. 9) suggests that external forces, such as governmental policies, industrial policies and environmental regulations from developed nations, play a significant role in Asia in ensuring corporate sustainability. In an industry, an industrial supply chain management system is considered critical to facilitate the corporate supply chain processes of each individual firm toward achieving corporate sustainability. Internally, for firms, a shared sustainable supply chain vision among their stakeholders and supporting sustainable supply chain strategies are important for ensuring the sustainability of their operations, starting from product design, sourcing, manufacturing, storage, transportation, and extending to usability and end of product life management. To support the operations, eco-

innovation practices comprising eco-friendly technologies and talent selection to support innovation and sustainable production indicators to monitor progress toward corporate sustainability are considered integral. 7. Role of an Asian context in shaping corporate sustainability research Regarding research question no. 7, countries in Asia have faced issues of unsustainable development (e.g. income distribution, environmental degradation), issues for which scholars (Kantabutra and Avery, 2011) associated with this region have made various attempts to find an effective solution. As the Asian context is so culturally, socially, politically, economically and geographically diverse (Sharma, 2013), as indicated by our earlier analyses, in hoping to find an appropriate solution to tackle the issues in the region, scholars searching for the solution have been examining various concepts (e.g. green supply chain, sustainable leadership, triple bottom line, corporate social responsibility) from the Western world. For example, in the 2000s, the corporate social responsibility concept was highly popular in China, but many firms there tended to interpret corporate social responsibility mainly as a social contribution (Lenssen et al., 2017). As an alternative concept, the Beautiful China model was introduced to help Chinese companies to thoughtfully implement the corporate social responsibility concept. Scholars associated with Asia attempted to test Germany's Rhineland approach to sustainable enterprises, in Thailand (Kantabutra, 2011) and Vietnam (Tuan, 2012) only to find that the approach is not 100 percent applicable to these countries' socialeconomic conditions (Kantabutra, 2017b). Given the unsustainable development issues in Asia and its unique context, King Rama IX of Thailand formulated a philosophy, namely, the sufficiency economy, which was deemed as geosocially appropriate to tackle the unsustainable development issues in the country. As the King was highly respected by Thai scholars, the philosophy has been used to guide their research efforts and has helped to shape the sustainable development research not only in Thailand but also internationally, as indicated by our document co-citations and word co-occurrence analyses. More importantly, as most Asian countries are developing countries, government policies especially on the environment and

Fig. 9. Asian sustainable supply chain management framework.

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

society are significantly influenced by the Western developed nations to adopt sustainable business practices such as the adoption of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the construction industry, Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in the fishing industry, human rights policy in the manufacturing industry and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in most industries. Therefore, the pressure from the West has played a crucial role in shaping the corporate sustainability research in this region, as indicated by a large school of thought on sustainable supply chain management, a process that affects a wide range of stakeholders. While small and medium enterprises (SMEs) play a significant role in sustaining an economy in Asia and other parts of the world, Asian SMEs tend to be underdeveloped and less competitive. This context has shaped the corporate sustainability research associated with Asia, as indicated by the fact that the second largest number (80/468) of the existing studies in the area are from the SME sector. 8. Limitations Like other review studies, ours is not without limitations. Although we have covered a wide range of keywords identified during the preliminary survey for the literature, this set of keywords may not be totally inclusive of the field. There may be other emerging keywords that are increasingly being adopted, and future research should consider using. The next limitation concerns the databases used. Many review studies adopt only a single database, the use of which may result in missing some key literature in a field. We address this limitation by including the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Although we include two databases widely recognized as main sources for literature review, there may be other databases that ensure better coverage of the literature. Moreover, as new knowledge is also being generated in the non-English-speaking world, future research should also cover the non-English literature. The nature of co-occurrence analysis is quantitative, as it lists frequently found keywords in the literature and links the strengths among them. Like other quantitative studies, the bibliometric results do not explain the relationships among the keywords. Therefore, in this study, the relationships among the keywords discussed are assumed and informed by reading key relevant articles and by the researchers’ familiarity with the field: pending future research, this is another limitation. 9. Future research Similar to other review studies, our study has revealed some future research directions. Since less than 20 percent of the reviewed literature comprise cross-national studies, it is difficult to generalize the findings to other settings; therefore, in addition to future research directions discussed earlier, future research should consider cross-national studies to improve the generalizability of the findings. Our author co-citation analysis reveals that corporate sustainability scholars associated with Asia tend to look at specific bodies of knowledge in three areas, namely, sustainable organization management, sustainable enterprise resources planning systems and sustainable supply chain management, without exploring the relationships among them. These results indicate a large research gap for future studies in the field. More specifically, as indicated earlier, given the large distance between the sustainable enterprise resources planning systems school and the sustainable supply chain management school and the critical relationships between them, future research may investigate and explore these relationships. Within the school of sustainable supply chain management,

21

future research may consider including the green logistic management aspect as part of their sustainable supply chain management research because only a few studies have investigated this area. In addition, Seuring and Müller (2008) have concluded in their literature review that sustainable supply chain management has to take into account a wider range of issues and, therefore, look at a longer part of the supply chain. Consistently, van Marrewijk (2003) explains that the holistic or turquoise level of corporate sustainability is when corporate sustainability is fully integrated and embedded in every aspect of the corporation, aimed at contributing to the quality and continuation of life of every being and entity, at present and in the future. In terms of environmental sustainability, in recent years, to preserve the wildlife, the use of tree-based methods to predict species distribution is recognized as an important tool in wildlife management (Carvalho et al., 2018). In the sustainable supply chain school of thought, scholars may consider examining possible effects of adopting the Tree-based methods to predict species distribution along the corporate supply chain where corporations operate so that they can avoid possible impact on wildlife living in the area. As for non-renewable resources such as phosphate rock, scholars in the sustainable supply chain school of thought may consider examining possible effects of adopting the production models. These production models are used to determine how long, without proper management, each of the non-renewable resources will be depleted and plan on substantial recovery to have a significant impact on the depletion time to defer depletion as far as possible in the future (Li et al., 2018). Although corporate sustainability scholars recognize the need to create a balance among the often-conflicting demands from a wide range of stakeholders, it has not been easy to do so. Specific to the sustainable supply chain school of thought, environmental conflicts often take place along a supply chain when stakeholders compete over limited natural resources (He et al., 2018). In such a case, the graph model for conflict resolution (Fang et al., 1993) can be used to support corporate decision-making process particularly for the modeling and analysis of strategic conflicts (Kilgour and Hipel, 2005), and to provide meaningful analytical results (Kilgour and Hipel, 2005; Hipel et al., 2008; Hipel and Walker, 2011) which can help corporate leaders to deal with multiple scenarios and conflicting demands more effectively (Li et al., 2004). Therefore, future research may consider investigating the role of the graph model for conflict resolution in supporting corporations to balance the stakeholders’ demands. As for the school of sustainable organization management, future research should continue to build the body of knowledge on the sufficiency economy philosophy concept to create an indigenous Asian theory of corporate sustainability, as our analysis reveals that there are a lack of coherent theory in the field and a reasonable empirical ground to build on. Future research may consider refining a proposed theory of Sufficiency Economy in business (Ketprapakorn and Kantabutra, 2019b). Grounded by seven established theories of Self-determination (Ryan and Deci, 2000), Stakeholder (Freeman, 1994), Sustainable Leadership (Avery, 2005; Kantabutra, 2017a), Complexity (Shirey, 2013), the Knowledge-based (Nonaka, 1994), Dynamic Capabilities (Barney, 1991), and Knowledge Management (Tzortzaki and Mihiotis, 2014), this proposed theory asserts that corporations adopting the Sufficiency Economy practices of perseverance, resilience, moderation, geo-social development and sharing are sustainable. The theoretical processes of how the six practices lead to corporate sustainability are explained. Future research may qualitatively explore these theoretical processes further or quantitatively test the substance of the theory in various settings: the collective findings of this research will inform the future development of an

22

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

Asian corporate sustainability theory. The researchers can refer to example reports by Ketprapakorn and Kantabutra (2019a, 2019b) to start their theory-building journey. Our study has proposed two Asian frameworks derived from the existing studies in the region. The first framework, called the Asian sustainable organization management framework (Fig. 8), can be adopted by future research to examine or explore the relationships in the framework in various countries: the collective findings of this research will contribute to our better understanding of the sustainable organization management in this region as the cultural context plays an important role in shaping the field. While corporate leaders might believe that corporate members have an integral role in enhancing sustainability performance, frequently measured by the Triple Bottom Line results, the literature indicates that very few studies have examined how corporate members can foster corporate sustainability (e.g. Ketprapakorn and Kantabutra, 2019b). In addition, scholars contributing to the sustainable organization management school of thought should include organizational culture as part of their future research since it is often considered as the single most important factor that determines long-term corporate success and the process of nurturing a sustainability organizational culture in Asian cooperations is still little known (Ketprapakorn and Kantabutra, 2019a). The Asian sustainable supply chain management (Fig. 9) is another framework derived from the existing studies in Asia. As supply chain management is critical to corporate sustainability and has attracted great interests among corporate sustainability scholars associated with Asia, future research may want to examine or explore the relationships in the framework: the collective findings of this research will contribute to our better understanding of the supply chain management in this region, particularly when the context in Asia is different from that in the West. In summary, for both schools of thought in the corporate sustainability field associated with Asia, future research must consider, among other necessary factors, the following. First, organizational culture should be included as an intervening variable in the corporate sustainability process. Second, future research should take into consideration the fact that the business environment has never been static, on the contrary of what previous studies often assumed. Lastly, future research should take into account the role of Western developed countries in influencing how corporate sustainability practices in Asia have been shaped. 10. Implications of the findings Our study offers some important implications for researchers and corporate leaders. First, researchers who want to create an impact from their research should consider conducting crossnational research as opposed to national research because our analysis reveals that cross-national research brings about a higher impact. They should publish in the journals identified by our present study (Table 10), as articles in these journals are more often cited. The keywords used in future papers should refer to the keywords identified by our study, (Table 16) as they are frequently used as search keywords. Corporate leaders can also benefit from our results, particularly the two derived frameworks on the Asian sustainable organization management and the Asian sustainable supply chain management. Indeed, these two conceptual frameworks represent the cuttingedge knowledge on corporate sustainability in Asia. In terms of the Asian sustainable organization management framework, corporate leaders can conveniently adapt to their own settings the six corporate sustainability practices: long-term orientation, internal leadership development, cohesive corporate culture, social and environmental responsibility, and ethical

behavior. Moreover, to monitor their corporate progress toward sustainability, they can adapt the corporate sustainability indicators of perseverance, prudence, moderation, geo-social development and sharing. Additionally, they can monitor corporate outputs in the three domains of social, environmental and economic impacts. Adapting the framework, they can expect to enhance their corporate sustainability as measured by organizational immunity and resilience. As for the Asian sustainable supply chain management framework, corporate leaders should be aware of the external forces, such as government policies, industrial policies since they can be pressured and influenced significantly from developed nations, a notable uniqueness of Asian context. As for the Asian sustainable supply chain management framework, corporate leaders should be aware of the external forces, such as government policies, industrial policies since they can be influenced by developed nations, a noteworthy characteristic of the Asian corporate environment. As an industry, they should create an industry supply chain management system to enable sustainable supply chain management among firms in the industry. They should constantly adjust their supply chain management systems accordingly in response to these external forces. Moreover, they should create a shared sustainable supply chain vision among their stakeholders, formulate their own sustainable ‘green’ supply chain strategies, and ensure that their operations are green by adopting the eco-innovation practices and sustainable production indicators. As a consequence, they can expect to enhance their corporate sustainability prospect. 11. Conclusions The present study has reviewed the corporate sustainability literature associated with Asia and has introduced the Integrated Systematic Literature Review (ISLR) framework. The review results reveal the volume, growth trajectory, geographic distribution and collaborative nature of corporate sustainability research associated with Asia; identify the highest impact journals, authors and articles in the literature; and describe the intellectual structure of the knowledge base and its topical foci. The role of the Asian context in shaping corporate sustainability research is identified and discussed. The methodological issues of the existing studies and the cutting-edge bodies of knowledge are identified and discussed. Finally, limitations, future research directions, and implications of the findings are discussed. References Ahamed, N., 2015. Corporate governance: panting to keep up with scams. Prabandhan Indian J. Manag. 8 (11), 42e53. Ahmadi, H.B., Kusi-Sarpong, S., Rezaei, J., 2017. Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 126, 99e106. Albert, M., 1992. The Rhine model of capitalism: an investigation. Eur. Bus. J. 4 (3), 8e22. Amran, A., Lee, S.P., Devi, S.S., 2014. The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 23 (4), 217e235. Amui, L.B., Jabbour, C.J., Sousa, A.B., Kannan, D., 2017. Sustainability as a dynamic organizational capability: a systematic review and a future agenda toward a sustainable transition. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 308e322. Anbarasan, P., 2018. Stakeholder engagement in sustainable enterprise: evolving a conceptual framework, and a case study of ITC. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 27 (3), 282e299. Anthony, B., Majid, M.A., Romli, A., 2017. A green information technology governance framework for eco-environmental risk mitigation. Prog. Ind. Ecol. 11 (1), 30e48. Ashrafi, M., Adams, M., Walker, T.R., Magnan, G., 2018. How corporate social responsibility can be integrated into corporate sustainability: a theoretical review of their relationships. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 25 (8), 672e682. Avery, G.C., 2005. Leadership for Sustainable Futures: Achieving Success in a Competitive World. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA.

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995 Avery, G.C., Bergsteiner, H., 2010. Honeybees and Locusts: the Business Case for Sustainable Leadership. Allen and Unwin, Sydney, Australia. Bae, S., Masud, M., Kim, J., 2018. A cross-country investigation of corporate governance and corporate sustainability disclosure: a signaling theory perspective. Sustainability 10 (8), 2611. Bai, C., Sarkis, J., Dou, Y., 2015. Corporate sustainability development in China: review and analysis. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115 (1), 5e40. Bansal, P., DesJardine, M.R., 2014. Business sustainability: it is about time. Strateg. Organ. 12 (1), 70e78. Barney, J.B., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17 (1), 99e120. Baumgartner, R.J., Ebner, D., 2010. Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustain. Dev. 18 (2), 76e89. Bayer, A.E., Smart, J.C., McLaughlin, G.W., 1990. Mapping intellectual structure of a scientific subfield through author co-citations. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 41 (6), 444e452. Bergman, J.P., Knutas, A., Luukka, P., Jantunen, A., Tarkiainen, A., Karlik, A., Platonov, V., 2016. Strategic interpretation on sustainability issueseeliciting cognitive maps of boards of directors. Corp. Govern.: Int. J. Bus. Soc. 16 (1), 162e186. Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G.C., 2006. How to kill a sustainable enterprise: a not so fictional case. Int. J. Environ. Cult. Econ. Soc. Sustain. 2 (3), 95e106. Bharwani, S., Talib, P., 2017. Competencies of hotel general managers: a conceptual framework. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 29 (1), 393e418. Boyack, K.W., Klavans, R., 2010. Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61 (12), 2389e2404. Braam, R.R., Moed, H.F., van Raan, A.F.J., 1991. Mapping of science by combined cocitation and word analysis I. Structural aspects. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 42 (4), 233e251. Brown, M.E., Trevino, L.K., 2006. Ethical leadership: a review and future directions. Leadersh. Q. 17 (6), 595e616. Cameron, K.S., 2011. Responsible leadership as virtuous leadership. J. Bus. Ethics 98, 25e35. Carvalho, M., Grilo, M., Abrahao, R., 2018. Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions relative to two frying processes for homemade potato chips. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 37 (1), 481e487. Chang, D.S., Kuo, L.C., 2008. The effects of sustainable development on firms' financial performanceean empirical approach. Sustain. Dev. 16 (6), 365e380. Chang, S.S., Gunnell, D., Sterne, J.A., Lu, T.H., Cheng, A.T., 2009. Was the economic crisis 1997e1998 responsible for rising suicide rates in East/Southeast Asia? A timeetrend analysis for Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Thailand. Soc. Sci. Med. 68 (7), 1322e1331. Chen, H., Zeng, S., Lin, H., Ma, H., 2017. Munificence, dynamism, and complexity: how industry context drives corporate sustainability. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 26 (2), 125e141. Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Klemes, J.J., 2016. A master plan for the implementation of sustainable enterprise resource planning systems: evaluation of a roadmap. Chem. Eng. Trans. 52, 1105e1110. Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Klemes, J.J., 2017. Development of a framework for the implementation of sustainable enterprise resource planning. Chem. Eng. Trans. 61, 1543e1548. Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Klemes, J.J., 2018a. Evaluation of a framework for sustainable Enterprise Resource Planning systems implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 190, 778e786. Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Klemes, J.J., 2018b. Steps towards the implementation of sustainable enterprise resource planning systems. Chem. Eng. Trans. 70, 283e288. Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Klemes, J.J., 2018c. Sustainable enterprise resource planning systems implementation: a framework development. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 1345e1354. Chofreh, A.G., Goni, F.A., Shaharoun, A.M., Ismail, S., Klemes, J.J., 2014. Sustainable enterprise resource planning: imperatives and research directions. J. Clean. Prod. 71, 139e147. Choi, Y., Yu, Y., 2014. The influence of perceived corporate sustainability practices on employees and organizational performance. Sustainability 6 (1), 348e364.  pez-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., 2011. Science Cobo, M.J., Lo mapping software tools: review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62 (7), 1382e1402. D'Amato, D., Li, N., Rekola, M., Toppinen, A., Lu, F.F., 2015. Linking forest ecosystem services to corporate sustainability disclosure: a conceptual analysis. Ecosyst. Serv. 14, 170e178. Dyllick, T., Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 11 (2), 130e141. Dunphy, D., 2004. Sustainability: seize the strategic opportunity. Exec. Excell. 21 (1), 19. Elinoff, E., 2014. Sufficient citizens: moderation and the politics of sustainable development in Thailand. PoLAR: Pol. Leg. Anthropol. Rev. 37 (1), 89e108. Elkington, J., 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 36 (2), 90e100. Eze, U.C., Ndubisi, N.O., 2013. Green buyer behavior: evidence from Asia consumers. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 48 (4), 413e426. Fang, L., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., 1993. Interactive Decision Making: the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution, vol 11. John Wiley & Sons, New York, US. Freeman, R.E., 1994. The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions. Bus.

23

Ethics Q. 409e421. Garrison, R., 2000. Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: a shift from structural to transactional issues. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 1 (1). Gelb, D.S., Strawser, J.A., 2001. Corporate social responsibility and financial disclosures: an alternative explanation for increased disclosure. J. Bus. Ethics 33 (1), 1e13. Gerardi, K., Lehnert, A., Sherlund, S.M., Willen, P., 2008. Making sense of the subprime crisis. Brook. Pap. Econ. Act. 2008 (2), 69e145. Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., Strutzel, E., 1967. The Discovery of GroundedTheory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. AldinePublishing Company, Chicago. Global Association of Corporate Sustainability Officers, 2011. Defining and Developing the Corporate Sustainability Professional: the Practitioners View. GACSO, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom. Goyal, P., Rahman, Z., Kazmi, A.A., 2013. Corporate sustainability performance and firm performance research: literature review and future research agenda. Manag. Decis. 51 (2), 361e379. Gupta, A.D., 2012. Corporate social responsibility and strategy: a bird's eye view. Glob. Bus. Rev. 13 (1), 153e165. Hallinger, P., Suriyankietkaew, S., 2018. Science mapping of the knowledge base on sustainable leadership. Sustainability 10, 4846, 1990-2018. Haugh, H., Talwar, A., 2010. How do corporations embed sustainability across the organization? Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 9 (3), 384e396. He, S., Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W., 2018. A basic hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with weighted preference. J. Environ. Inf. 31 (1), 15e29. Hipel, K.W., Obeidi, A., Fang, L., Kilgour, D.M., 2008. Adaptive systems thinking in integrated water resources management with insights into conflicts over water exports. INFOR Inf. Syst. Oper. Res. 46 (1), 51e69. Hipel, K.W., Walker, S.B., 2011. Conflict analysis in environmental management. Environmetrics 22 (3), 279e293. Hsu, C.H., Chang, A.Y., Luo, W., 2017. Identifying key performance factors for sustainability development of SMEseintegrating QFD and fuzzy MADM methods. J. Clean. Prod. 161, 629e645. Hui, L., 2008. Combining faith and CSR: a paradigm of corporate sustainability. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 35 (6), 449e465. Jo, H., Kim, H., Park, K., 2015. Corporate environmental responsibility and firm performance in the financial services sector. J. Bus. Ethics 131 (2), 257e284. Kantabutra, S., 2006. Relating vision-based leadership to sustainable business performance: a Thai perspective. Kravis Leadersh. Inst. Leadersh. Rev. 6 (Spring), 37e53. Kantabutra, S., 2011. Sustainable leadership in a Thai healthcare services provider. Int. J. Health Care Qual. Assur. 24 (1), 67e80. Kantabutra, S., 2012a. Putting Rhineland principles into practice in Thailand: sustainable leadership at Bathroom Design company. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 31 (5), 6e19. Kantabutra, S., 2012b. Sweet success beyond the triple bottom line: honeybee practices lead to sustainable leadership at Thailand's True Corp. Glob. Bus. Organ. Excell. 32 (1), 22e39. Kantabutra, S., 2014a. Measuring corporate sustainability: a Thai approach. Meas. Bus. Excell. 18 (2), 73e88. Kantabutra, S., 2014b. Sustainable leadership at Thai president foods. Int. J. Bus. 19 (2), 152e172. Kantabutra, S., 2017a. A Thai Rhineland leadership model: in search for corporate sustainability model for Asia. Int. J. Bus. Excell. 13 (1), 16e40. Kantabutra, S., 2017b. Exploring the corporate sustainability process: a Thai perspective. Int. J. Product. Qual. Manag. 22 (2), 170e189. Kantabutra, S., Avery, G.C., 2011. Sustainable leadership at Siam cement group. J. Bus. Strat. 32 (4), 32e41. Kantabutra, S., Avery, G.C., 2013. Sustainable leadership: honeybee practices at a leading Asian industrial conglomerate. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 5 (1), 36e56. Kantabutra, S., Saratun, M., 2013. Sustainable leadership: honeybee practices at Thailand's oldest university. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 27 (4), 356e376. Kantabutra, S., Siebenhüner, T., 2011. Predicting corporate sustainability: a Thai approach. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 27 (6), 123e134. Kantabutra, S., Suriyankietkaew, S., 2012. Examining relationships between organic leadership and corporate sustainability: a proposed model. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 28 (1), 1e14. Kantabutra, S., Suriyankietkaew, S., 2013. Sustainable leadership: Rhineland practices at a Thai small enterprise. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus. 19 (1), 77e94. Kantabutra, S., Thepa-Apiraks, T., 2016. Sustainable leadership and consequences at Thailand's Kasikornbank. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 11 (2), 253e273. Kasem, S., Thapa, G.B., 2012. Sustainable development policies and achievements in the context of the agriculture sector in Thailand. Sustain. Dev. 20 (2), 98e114. Kaspereit, T., Lopatta, K., 2016. The value relevance of SAM's corporate sustainability ranking and GRI sustainability reporting in the European stock markets. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 25 (1), 1e24. Ketprapakorn, N., Kantabutra, S., 2019a. Culture development for sustainable SMEs: toward a behavioral theory. Sustainability 11 (9), 2629. Ketprapakorn, N., Kantabutra, S., 2019b. Sustainable social enterprise model: relationship and Consequences. Sustainability 11 (14), 3772. Khan, H., Islam, M., Fatima, J., Ahmed, K., 2011. Corporate sustainability reporting of major commercial banks in line with GRI: Bangladesh evidence. Soc. Responsib. J. 7 (3), 347e362. Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W., 2005. The graph model for conflict resolution: past, present, and future. Group Decis. Negot. 14 (6), 441e460.

24

N. Ketprapakorn / Journal of Cleaner Production 239 (2019) 117995

Kim, B.H., 2018. Is narcissism sustainable in CEO leadership of state-owned enterprises? Sustainability 10 (7), 2425. Kim, W., Park, J., 2017. Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for sustainable organizations. Sustainability 9 (2), 205. Lages Junior, M., Godinho Filho, M., 2012. Production planning and control for remanufacturing: literature review and analysis. Prod. Plan. Control 23 (6), 419e435. Lee, C.H., Wu, K.J., Tseng, M.L., 2018. Resource management practice through ecoinnovation toward sustainable development using qualitative information and quantitative data. J. Clean. Prod. 202, 120e129. Lee, Y.M., Hu, J.L., 2018. Integrated approaches for business sustainability: the perspective of corporate social responsibility. Sustainability 10 (7), 2318. Lenssen, G., Rhee, J.H., Martinez, F., 2017. The Role of Corporate Sustainability in Asian Development. Springer Publishing, New York, US. Li, B., Boiarkina, I., Young, B., Yu, W., Singhal, N., 2018. Prediction of future phosphate rock: a demand-based Model. J. Environ. Inf. 31 (1), 41e53. Li, J., Burnham, J.F., Lemley, T., Britton, R.M., 2010. Citation analysis: comparison of web of science, scopus, SciFinder, and google scholar. J. Electron. Resour. Med. Libr. 7 (3), 196e217. Li, K.W., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., Fang, L., 2004. Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. A Syst. Hum. 34 (4), 507e520. Li, T., Zhang, H., Yuan, C., Liu, Z., Fan, C., 2012. A PCA-based method for construction of composite sustainability indicators. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 17 (5), 593e603. Lo, H.W., Liou, J.J.H., Wang, H.S., Tsai, Y.S., 2018. An integrated model for solving problems in green supplier selection and order allocation. J. Clean. Prod. 190, 339e352. Lo, S.F., 2010. Performance evaluation for sustainable business: a profitability and marketability framework. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 17 (6), 311e319. Lo, S.F., Sheu, H.J., 2007. Is corporate sustainability a value-increasing strategy for business? Corp. Govern. Int. Rev. 15, 345e358. Luthra, S., Garg, D., Haleem, A., 2015. An analysis of interactions among critical success factors to implement green supply chain management towards sustainability: an Indian perspective. Resour. Policy 46, 37e50. Mani, V., Agarwal, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Childe, S.J., 2016. Social sustainability in the supply chain: construct development and measurement validation. Ecol. Indicat. 71, 270e279. McCain, K.W., 1990. Mapping authors in intellectual space: a technical overview. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 41 (6), 433e443. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151 (4), 264e269. Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., 2016. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106 (1), 213e228. Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 5, 14e37. Olawumi, T.O., Chan, D.W., 2018. A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 183, 231e250. Ong, C.H., Salleh, S.M., Yusoff, R.Z., 2015. Brand experience, trust components, and customer loyalty: sustainable Malaysian SME brands study. Asian Soc. Sci. 11 (26), 252e266. Ou, Y.C., 2016. Using a hybrid decision-making model to evaluate the sustainable development performance of high-tech listed companies. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 17 (3), 331e346. Perrini, F., Tencati, A., 2006. Sustainability and Stakeholder Management: the need for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 15, 296e308. Piboolsravut, P., 2004. Sufficiency economy. ASEAN Econ. Bull. 21 (1), 127e134. Plume, A., Kamalski, J., 2014. Article downloads: an alternative indicator of national research impact and cross-sector knowledge exchange. Res. Trends 36, 13e16. Ray, S., Chaudhuri, B.R., 2018. Business group Affiliation and corporate sustainability strategies of firms: an investigation of firms in India. J. Bus. Ethics 153 (4), 955e976. Rehman, M.H., Chang, V., Batool, A., Wah, T.Y., 2016. Big data reduction framework for value creation in sustainable enterprises. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36 (6), 917e928. Reinhart, C.M., Rogoff, K.S., 2013. Banking crises: an equal opportunity menace. J. Bank. Financ. 37 (11), 4557e4573. Reynoso, J., Kandampully, J., Fan, X., Paulose, H., 2015. Learning from socially driven service innovation in emerging economies. J. Serv. Manag. 26 (1), 156e176. Russo, M.V., Fouts, P.A., 1997. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Acad. Manag. J. 40 (3), 534e559. Ryan, R., Deci, E., 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25 (1), 54e67. Salem, M.A., Shawtari, F.A., Shamsudin, M.F., Hussain, H.I., 2016. The relation between stakeholders' integration and environmental competitiveness. Soc. Responsib. J. 12 (4), 755e769. Sasmita, J., Mohd Suki, N., 2015. Young consumers' insights on brand equity: effects of brand association, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand image. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 43 (3), 276e292.

Schueth, S., 2003. Socially responsible investing in the United States. J. Bus. Ethics 43 (3), 189e194. Seuring, S., Müller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699e1710. Sharma, R.C., 2013. Stability and eigenvalue analysis of an Indian railway general sleeper coach using Lagrangian dynamics. Int. J. Veh. Struct. Syst. 5 (1), 9. Sharma, A., Sengupta, T., 2018. Perspective on succession planning in multiple MNCs: interview with Aparna Sharma. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 21 (4), 382e390. Shi, L., Wu, K.J., Tseng, M.L., 2017. Improving corporate sustainable development by using an interdependent closed-loop hierarchical structure. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 119, 24e35. Shirey, M., 2013. Lewin's theory of planned change as a strategic resource. J. Nurse Adm. 43, 69e72. Shrimali, G., Slaski, X., Thurber, M.C., Zerriffi, H., 2011. Improved stoves in India: a study of sustainable business models. Energy Policy 39 (12), 7543e7556. Shrivastava, P., 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4), 936e960. Sobhani, F.A., Amran, A., Zainuddin, Y., 2012. Sustainability disclosure in annual reports and websites: a study of the banking industry in Bangladesh. J. Clean. Prod. 23 (1), 75e85. Sornette, D., Demos, G., Zhang, Q., Cauwels, P., Filimonov, V., Zhang, Q., 2015. Realtime Prediction and Post-mortem Analysis of the Shanghai 2015 Stock Market Bubble and Crash. Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper, pp. 15e31. Suriyankietkaew, S., 2013. Emergent leadership paradigms for corporate sustainability: a proposed model. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 29 (1), 173. Suriyankietkaew, S., 2016. Effects of sustainable leadership on customer satisfaction: evidence from Thailand. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 8 (3), 245e259. Surwase, G., Sagar, A., Kademani, B.S., Bhanumurthy, K., 2011. Co-citation analysis: an overview. In: Beyond Librarianship: Creativity, Innovation and Discovery, Mumbai (India), 16-17 September, 2011. Tarn, J.M., Yen, D.C., Beaumont, M., 2002. Exploring the rationales for ERP and SCM integration. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 102 (1), 26e34. Tseng, M.L., 2017. Using social media and qualitative and quantitative information scales to benchmark corporate sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 142, 727e738. Tseng, M.L., Chiu, A.S.F., Tan, R., Siriban-Manalang, A.B., 2013. Sustainable consumption and production for Asia: sustainability through green design and practice. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 1e5. Tseng, M., Lim, M., Wong, W.P., 2015. Sustainable supply chain management: a closed-loop network hierarchical approach. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 115 (3), 436e461. Tuan, L.T., 2012. Corporate social responsibility, leadership, and brand equity in healthcare service. Soc. Responsib. J. 8 (3), 347e362. Tzortzaki, A., Mihiotis, A., 2014. A review of knowledge management theory and future directions. Knowl. Process Manag. 21, 29e41. Umrani, A.I., Johl, S.K., 2016. Corporate governance, ownership structure and expropriation of rights: case of Malaysian small and medium enterprises. Int. J. Econ. Financ. Issues 6 (3S), 170e178. United Nations, 2014. Report of the Open Working Group of the General Assembly on Sustainable Development Goals. The United Nations, New York. van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L., 2014. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In: Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., Wolfram, D. (Eds.), Measuring Scholarly Impact. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 285e320. van Marrewijk, M., 2003. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. J. Bus. Ethics 44 (2e3), 95e105. Wagner, 2005. How to reconcile environmental and economic performance to improve corporate sustainability: corporate environmental strategies in the European paper industry. J. Environ. Manag. 76 (2), 105e118. Watson, A.B., 2009. Comparing citations and downloads for individual articles. J. Vis. 9 (4), 1e4. Wang, L., Ma, L., Wu, K.J., Chiu, A.S., Nathaphan, S., 2018. Applying fuzzy interpretive structural modeling to evaluate responsible consumption and production under uncertainty. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 118 (2), 432e462. Wibowo, S., Deng, H., 2015. Multi-criteria group decision making for evaluating the performance of e-waste recycling programs under uncertainty. Waste Manag. 40, 127e135. Wilson, M., 2003. Corporate sustainability: what is it and where does it come from? Ivey Bus. J. 67, 1e5. Winit, W., Kantabutra, S., 2017. Sustaining Thai SMEs through perceived benefits and happiness. Manag. Res. Rev. 40 (5), 556e577. Wu, K.J., Liao, C.J., Tseng, M.L., Chou, P.J., 2015. Understanding innovation for sustainable business management capabilities and competencies under uncertainty. Sustainability 7 (10), 13726e13760. Xiao, C., Wang, Q., Vaart, T., Donk, D.P., 2018. When does corporate sustainability performance pay off? The impact of country-level sustainability performance. Ecol. Econ. 146, 325e333. Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2007. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green supply chain practices and performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 45 (18), 4333e4355.  Zupic, I., Cater, T., 2015. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 18 (3), 429e472.