Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices have become central to capital-market decision-making and corporate accountability, yet evidence from emerging and transitioning markets remains fragmented and uneven. This study presents a PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review (SLR) of ESG practices in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), synthesizing Scopus-indexed scholarship to clarify dominant research streams, measurement approaches, institutional drivers, and outcome pathways. Using a transparent Scopus search strategy (TITLE-ABS-KEY) covering 2010–2026 and pre-specified eligibility criteria, the review applies a structured screening workflow, quality appraisal rubric, and codebook-driven data extraction. The resulting corpus is mapped through descriptive and light bibliometric profiling and then synthesized via thematic analysis. The synthesis yields six interrelated themes: (1) institutional and regulatory drivers; (2) corporate governance mechanisms; (3) ESG measurement and disclosure quality; (4) ESG and firm outcomes; (5) sectoral heterogeneity; and (6) implementation constraints. Across themes, the evidence suggests that Saudi ESG scholarship is rapidly growing but remains disclosure-centric and method-dependent. Positive ESG, outcome associations are frequently reported; yet, findings vary with measurement choice, endogeneity handling, sample selection, and time-window length, indicating the need to distinguish ESG "reporting outputs" from ESG "organizational practices". To integrate these insights, the study develops a conceptual framework linking institutional context to firm-level enablers, ESG practices, and outcomes, moderated by sector intensity, firm size and visibility, governance strength, ownership type, and assurance quality, and mediated by capability, disclosure quality, and credibility. The review advances theory and practice by offering a replicable SLR protocol, an integrative model to reconcile mixed findings, and a Saudi-specific research agenda emphasizing causal policy evaluation, materiality-sensitive measurement, assurance and data governance, and richer qualitative process evidence.
Musa et al. (Thu,) studied this question.