Tendencias investigativas sobre contabilidad para la sostenibilidad y riesgos ASG: una revisión sistemática de la literatura (2016–2025)

Research Trends in Sustainability Accounting and ESG Risks: A Systematic Literature Review (2016–2025)

Publicado 2026-07-30


https://doi.org/10.30554/lumina.v27.n1.5708.2026
Abrir | Descargar
PDF FLIP EPUB HTML XML
Número
Vol. 27 Núm. 1 (2026): Lúmina 27(1)
Sección
Artículos de revisión
Cómo citar
Guao Samper, R., García Lobo, L., & Rivas Carrero, T. (2026). Tendencias investigativas sobre contabilidad para la sostenibilidad y riesgos ASG: una revisión sistemática de la literatura (2016–2025). Lúmina, 27(1), 27-1. https://doi.org/10.30554/lumina.v27.n1.5708.2026
Descargar cita
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX
DOI

https://doi.org/10.30554/lumina.v27.n1.5708.2026
Dimensions
PlumX

Cómo citar

Guao Samper, R., García Lobo, L., & Rivas Carrero, T. (2026). Tendencias investigativas sobre contabilidad para la sostenibilidad y riesgos ASG: una revisión sistemática de la literatura (2016–2025). Lúmina, 27(1), 27-1. https://doi.org/10.30554/lumina.v27.n1.5708.2026

Descargar cita

Licencia
Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.

Royman Guao Samper
Gobernación del Departamento del Cesar
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8800-1379 ORCID
Ligia García Lobo
La Universidad del Zulia-LUZ
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2743-1391 ORCID
Tanger Rivas Carrero
Universidad de Los Andes-ULA
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8366-1159 ORCID
Mostrar biografía de los autores

La contabilidad para la sostenibilidad y los riesgos ambientales, sociales y de gobernanza (ASG) conforman un campo emergente orientado a fortalecer la toma de decisiones para el desarrollo sostenible. El objetivo del estudio fue analizar las tendencias investigativas relacionadas con estas categorías en la literatura científica recuperada mediante Google Académico, DOAJ y Scopus durante el período 2016–2025, con énfasis en sus implicaciones para la gestión territorial. Metodológicamente, se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura de carácter interpretativo, siguiendo los lineamientos PRISMA. Inicialmente, se identificaron 219 registros; tras aplicar los criterios de inclusión y exclusión, el corpus final quedó conformado por 33 artículos. La principal tendencia corresponde a investigaciones que integran la contabilidad para la sostenibilidad y los riesgos ASG, con 31 artículos. En contraste, la relación de estas categorías con la gestión territorial aún es incipiente, pues solo se identificaron dos estudios, uno en cada uno de los dos ejes temáticos restantes. Asimismo, no se identificaron investigaciones que integraran simultáneamente la contabilidad para la sostenibilidad, los riesgos ASG y la gestión territorial. En conclusión, persiste un vacío de investigación que limita la construcción de enfoques integrales para apoyar la planificación territorial sostenible y evidencia la necesidad de fortalecer perspectivas interdisciplinarias que articulen estas tres categorías.

Visitas del artículo 26 | Visitas PDF 11

Descargas

Los datos de descarga todavía no están disponibles.
  1. Abhayawansa, S. (2022). Swimming against the tide: Back to single materiality for sustainability reporting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(6), 1361-1385. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-07-2022-0378
  2. Adams, C. A., & Larrinaga, C. (2019). Progress: Engaging with organizations in pursuit of improved sustainability accounting and performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(8), 2367-2394. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2018-3399
  3. Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
  4. Araos, M., Berrang-Ford, L., Ford, J. D., Austin, S. E., Biesbroek, R., & Lesnikowski, A. (2016). Climate change adaptation planning in large cities: A systematic global assessment. Environmental Science & Policy, 66, 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.009
  5. Azmat, F., Jain, A., & Michaux, F. (2022). Strengthening impact integrity in investment decision-making for sustainable development. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 13(1), 55-87. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2020-0368
  6. Baker-Shelley, A., van Zeijl-Rozema, A., & Martens, P. (2017). A conceptual synthesis of organisational transformation: How to diagnose, and navigate, pathways for sustainability at universities? Journal of Cleaner Production, 145, 262-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.026
  7. Bâtcă-Dumitru, C. G., Șendroiu, C., & Cuc, L. D. (2023). A new challenge in the risk management: Sustainability risks. Journal of Financial Studies, 15(8), 13-28. https://doi.org/10.55654/JFS.2023.SP.15
  8. Bertrand, J.-L., Chabot, M., Brusset, X., & Courquin, V. (2024). Identifying assets exposed to physical climate risk: A decision-support methodology. International Journal of Production Economics, 276, 109355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109355
  9. Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M. M., Bulkeley, H., Cashore, B., Clapp, J., Folke, C., Gupta, A., Gupta, J., Haas, P. M., Jordan, A., Kanie, N., Kluvankova-Oravska, T., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Meadowcroft, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2012). Navigating the anthropocene: Improving earth system governance. Science, 335(6074), 1306–1307. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217255
  10. Biesbroek, R.; Klostermann, J.; Termeer, C. & Kabat, P. (2011). Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in the Netherlands,” Climate Law, 2(2), 181-199. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=665464
  11. Cesarone, F., Martino, M. L., Ricca, F., & Scozzari, A. (2024). Managing ESG ratings disagreement in sustainable portfolio selection. Computers & Operations Research, 170, 106766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2024.106766
  12. Chattat, M., Ait-Lamallam, S., Bahmade, O., & Azzaoui, S. (2025). A GIS-based geoportal for land management and societal acceptability in mining: Case study of MANAGEM Group, Morocco. International Journal of Computer Engineering and Data Science, 4(3), 1-13. https://ijceds.com/ijceds/article/view/91
  13. Chicaíza-Becerra, L. A., Riaño Casallas, M. I., Rojas-Berrio, S. P., & Garzón Santos, C. (2017). Revisión sistemática de la literatura en administración. Documentos Escuela de Administración y Contaduría Pública, 29(18), 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3011931
  14. Doszhan, R. D., Sabidullina, A. E., Nurmagambetova, A. Z., & Kozhakhmetova, A. K. (2022). Green financing in Kazakhstan: Current state and prospects. Economics: The Strategy and Practice, 17(4), 170-184. https://doi.org/10.51176/1997-9967-2022-4-170-184
  15. Folke, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Galaz, V., Westley, F., Lamont, M., Scheffer, M., Österblom, H., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Seto, K. C., Weber, E. U., Crona, B., Daily, G. C., Dasgupta, P., Gaffney, O., Gordon, L. J., Hoff, H., Levin, S. A., ... Walker, B. H. (2021). Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere. Ambio, 50(4), 834–869. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01544-8
  16. Golocialova, I., & Cojocaru, M. (2025). The matrix of indicators for recognizing the agribusiness ecosystem assets: Convergence of SEEA and IFRS. Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development, 25(1), 429-444. https://managementjournal.usamv.ro/pdf/vol.25_1/Art44.pdf
  17. Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability…and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organisations and the planet Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.04.006
  18. Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203099414
  19. IFRS Foundation. (2023). IFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information. IFRS Foundation. https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/ifrs-sustainability-standards/
  20. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secretariat. https://files.ipbes.net/ipbes-web-prod-public-files/inline/files/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers.pdf
  21. Jankalová, M., & Jankal, R. (2024). Review of sustainability accounting terms. Administrative Sciences, 14(7), 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14070137
  22. Johnson, R., Mans-Kemp, N., & Erasmus, P. D. (2019). Assessing the business case for environmental, social and corporate governance practices in South Africa. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 22(1), a2727. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v22i1.2727
  23. Kalbouneh, A., Aburisheh, K., Shaheen, L., & Aldabbas, Q. (2023). The intellectual structure of sustainability accounting in the corporate environment: A literature review. Cogent Business & Management, 10(2), 2211370. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2211370
  24. Kelkar, V., & Katole, H. J. (2023). An overview of non-financial reporting practices around the world. The Online Journal of Distance Education and e-Learning, 11(2), 2742-2758. https://www.tojcam.net/journals/tojdel/articles/v11i23/v11i23-08.pdf
  25. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele University & National ICT. https://www.inf.ufsc.br/~aldo.vw/kitchenham.pdf
  26. Kono, V. R., Restuningdiah, N., & Juliardi, D. (2023). Corporate sustainability reporting in Southeast Asia: A scoping review. Journal of Applied Business, Taxation and Economics Research, 3(2), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.54408/jabter.v3i2.249
  27. Kotsantonis, S., & Serafeim, G. (2019). Four things no one will tell you about ESG data. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 31(2), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jacf.12346
  28. Murgolo, M., Tettamanzi, P., & Minutiello, V. (2024). Accounting, ESG dynamics and the pandemic: When the quality of disclosure becomes crucial to sustainable success. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 24(3), 509–540. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2023-0161
  29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). A territorial approach to the Sustainable Development Goals. OECD Urban Policy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1787/e86fa715-en
  30. Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
  31. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  32. Rahman, N., Wibowo, A. S., Setiawan, R. Y., & Zulaika, T. (2025). An overview of company valuation: Looking at the environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure dimension studies. Jurnal Akuntansi, 15(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.33369/jakuntansi.15.1.1-10
  33. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.
  34. Red Global del PNAD. (2021). Estrategia de la Red Global del PNAD hasta 2025. Instituto Internacional para el Desarrollo Sostenible. https://napglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/napgn-es-2023-nap-global-network-strategy-2025.pdf
  35. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849772440
  36. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin III, F. S., Lambin, E. F., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H. J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., ... Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
  37. Salazar, J. N., Vergara-Romero, A., Sorhegui-Ortega, R., & Garnica-Jarrin, L. (2021). Repensando el desarrollo sostenible en el territorio. Res Non Verba Revista Científica, 11(1), 19-33. https://revistas.ecotec.edu.ec/index.php/rnv/article/view/500
  38. Sánchez, J. (2010). Cómo realizar una revisión sistemática y un meta-análisis. Aula Abierta, 38(2), 53-64. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3316651.pdf
  39. Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., & Burritt, R. (2006). Sustainability accounting and reporting: Development, linkages and reflection—An introduction. In S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, & R. Burritt (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and reporting (pp. 1–33). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4974-3_1
  40. Shaikh, I. (2022). On the relationship between policy uncertainty and sustainable investing. Journal of Modelling in Management, 17(4), 1504–1523. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-12-2020-0320
  41. Simon, S. (2023). The role of Design Thinking to promote a sustainability transition within participatory urban governance: Insights from urban agriculture initiatives in Lisbon. Urban Governance, 3(3), 189-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ugj.2023.05.003
  42. Sklavos, G., Zournatzidou, G., Ragazou, K., & Sariannidis, N. (2025). Green accounting and ESG-driven eco-efficiency in European financial institutions: A two-stage DEA-CRITIC-TOPSIS approach. PLOS ONE, 20(10), e0334882. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334882
  43. Skrzypek, E. E. (2020). Extractive entanglements and regimes of accountability at an undeveloped mining project. Resources Policy, 69, 101815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101815
  44. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). (2018). SASB standards application guidance. https://www.sasb.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SASB-Standards-Application-Guidance-2018-10.pdf
  45. Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. (2017). Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Financial Stability Board.https://www.mobicogroup.com/media/fzkbxcj1/tcfd-disclosure-2021.pdf
  46. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
  47. United Nations Development Programme. (2014). Governance for sustainable development: Integrating governance in the post-2015 development framework (Discussion paper). https://www.undp.org/publications/discussion-paper-governance-sustainable-development
  48. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2022). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction 2022: Our world at risk. Transforming governance for a resilient future. UNDRR. https://globalplatform.undrr.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/Global%20Assessment%20Report%20on%20Disaster%20Risk%20Reduction%202022.pdf
  49. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ares70d1_es.pdf
  50. Valaskova, K., & Gajdosikova, D. (2025). Analysing the impact of corporate social responsibility on corporate performance in Central European countries. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 13(2), 8-26. https://doi.org/10.23762/FSO_VOL13_NO2_1
  51. Ziolo, M., Bąk, I., Cheba, K., Spozd, A., & Niedzielski, P. (2021). Sustainable financial systems toward sustainability in finance: Institutional and managerial approach. Procedia Computer Science, 192, 4237-4248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.200

Información

Perfil de Google Scholar

Indexación

Palabras clave

Código QR