PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 30, 2026Journal of risk and financial management3 citationsOpen Access

Measuring and Reporting ESG: A Systematic Review of Frameworks for Financial Sustainability

View Full Paper
JSJessica Karina Fernández SalazarMGMargarita Del Milagro Chafloque GonzalesFAFiorella Suley Failoc Alban

Key Points

  • To analyze and synthesize scholarly literature on ESG measurement and reporting frameworks from an accounting perspective.
  • Conducted a systematic review following PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
  • Searched Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases from 2020 to 2025.
  • Yielded 50 peer-reviewed articles for analysis.
  • Identified Stakeholder Theory and Institutional Theory as key conceptual underpinnings.
  • Three framework categories emerged: measurement, reporting, and integrated approaches.
  • Reported methodological heterogeneity among ESG metrics with varied comparability levels.

Abstract

The escalating prominence of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria within contemporary corporate practice has generated a proliferation of measurement and reporting frameworks, creating substantial challenges regarding comparability and standardisation. This study aimed to critically analyse and synthesise the scholarly literature on ESG measurement and reporting frameworks from an accounting perspective. A systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines was conducted, searching Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases for the period 2020–2025, yielding a final corpus of 50 peer-reviewed articles. Findings reveal that Stakeholder Theory and Institutional Theory constitute the predominant conceptual underpinnings, with three framework categories identified: measurement, reporting, and integrated approaches. The analysis evidenced persistent methodological heterogeneity among ESG metrics and considerable variation in achieved comparability levels. Notably, the governance dimension remains underdeveloped relative to environmental and social dimensions, and small and medium-sized enterprises continue to be underrepresented despite their economic significance. This review contributes by providing a classification of ESG frameworks and their theoretical foundations, whilst identifying gaps that delineate avenues for future inquiry.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Salazar et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f2a47b8c0f03fd677637b5https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19050309
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Social capital, trust, and bank tail risk: The value of ESG rating and the effects of crisis shocks2023 · 62 citations
  2. 2Board gender composition and waste management: Cross-country evidence2022 · 180 citations
  3. 3“The moderating role of legal enforcement in ESG's impact on corporate crash risk: Evidence from Asian stock market”2025 · 10 citations
  4. 4Sustainable strategic investment decision-making practices in UK companies: The influence of governance mechanisms on synergy between industry 4.0 and circular economy2022 · 237 citations
  5. 5Beyond CO2 emissions – The role of digitalization in multi-dimensional environmental performance measurement2023 · 18 citations