Next Article in Journal
Analysis of the Spatial Distribution Characteristics of Residences and Workplaces under the Influence of Metro Transportation in Metropolises from the Perspectives of Accessibility and Travelers’ Industries: The Case of Guangzhou
Previous Article in Journal
Morphometric, Meteorological, and Hydrologic Characteristics Integration for Rainwater Harvesting Potential Assessment in Southeast Beni Suef (Egypt)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 21
10.3390/su142114185
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research Trends in Corporate Social Responsibility and Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis

by
Mingyue Chu
*,
Haslinah Binti Muhamad
,
Mazlina Binti Mustapha
,
Ong Tze San
,
Fangfang Zan
and
Xiaoxiao Jia
School of Business and Economics, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(21), 14185; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114185
Submission received: 20 September 2022 / Revised: 17 October 2022 / Accepted: 22 October 2022 / Published: 31 October 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and innovation has received considerable attention in the last two decades. While several studies have explored the impact of CSR on innovation. While several studies have explored the impact of CSR on innovation, few studies have attempted to use bibliometric methods to analyze and visualize the evolution and trends in the CSR and innovation fields. In this research, 1279 Web of Science (WoS) published papers on CSR and innovation were collected and analyzed using VOSviwer, CiteSpace, and Bibliometrix R-package and the MK trend test. The analysis was conducted in terms of the number of articles published per year, most productive journals, authors, and countries, as well as collaboration between countries and authors, keyword analysis, co-citation clustering analysis, and research frontiers. The results showed that: (a) The MK trend test shows that the amount of CSR and innovation research is increasing. The top three journals in terms of productivity are Sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production, and Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. The collaboration between authors forms a loose network and Ahmad, N has the most extensive network of international collaborations. There is close cooperation between countries, with a predominance of Asian, European, and North American collaborations, and the MK trend test shows that each country’s publications on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and innovation in the past 20 years have an obvious upward trend. (b) Through the analysis of keywords, it is necessary to research “corporate social responsibility”, “sustainability”, “innovation”, “financial performance “, and other topics associated with these themes. (c) The intellectual structure of CSR and innovation establishes five core clusters, including social innovation, CSR practice, sustainable global value chain, sustainable business model, and buyer–supplier collaboration. (d) Two forward-looking directions for future CSR and innovation research are proposed, and the limitations of the research are discussed.

1. Introduction

In recent years, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has received widespread attention from scholars and companies alike. The European Commission defined CSR essentially as “a concept whereby companies decide voluntarily to contribute to a better society and a cleaner environment” [1]. In addition, the Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2005) [2], as well as the ISO26000 Global Network of Stakeholders (UN, 2018) [3], established to promote CSR and sustainable development, have demonstrated their commitment to CSR. These advances have brought CSR to many regional and international organizations.
The Introduction of new directions in the field of research combining CSR and innovation by countries to maintain a competitive position in the globalized world economy has led to an expansion of the existing literature in this field [4]. This is since innovation is driven not only by the development of new technologies and skills, but also by the global focus on CSR issues. Today, for companies to succeed and innovate, they must consider the social and environmental impact of their operational processes, stimulate the creativity of their employees, and collaborate with their suppliers, customers, and other business partners to design and develop new and innovative products and services, which closely link corporate social responsibility and innovation.
The relationship between CSR and innovation has been studied for almost 20 years, and many scholars have achieved fruitful results during this period. In 2001, official documentation showed the significance of the connection between CSR and innovation [1]. However, there is disagreement regarding how CSR and innovation are related [5]. Wagner [6] noted that although many academics agree theoretically that there is a connection between CSR and innovation, empirical research is limited and only leads in one direction—from CSR to innovation. According to other writers, this connection is a positive feedback cycle that finally results in the tightly integrated use of CSR and innovation on the company’s path to maturity [7]. Therefore, the recent increase in research on CSR [8,9] and innovation [10,11,12], indicates that these research areas have developed rapidly in recent years. The relationship between CSR and innovation is multidisciplinary and multidisciplinary [13,14,15], and case studies and empirical studies from a single perspective may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between CSR and innovation, and no scholars have been found to have completed a systematic review and bibliometric analysis of the research in this area. Therefore, this paper aims to summarize the current research on CSR and innovation by combining bibliometric methods, analyzing the research structure and quantitative information in this field comprehensively, and providing a visual mapping to outline the overall framework of research in this field for scholars, and show the focus of research in this field, this year’s development trend and predictions for the future. Specifically, the following research questions (RQs) are posed:
  • What is the status of publication on CSR and innovation?
  • What are the most productive journals, authors, and countries in the field of CSR and innovation? What are the authors and the trends of cooperation between countries?
  • What are the “hot spots” in CSR and innovation and how have these “hot spots” evolved over time?
  • What is the knowledge structure between CSR and innovation?
  • What are the future research directions in the field of CSR and innovation?

2. Materials and Methods

This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of CSR and innovation, including an analysis of the evolutionary trends in the field over the years, publications, authors, national collaborations, cluster analysis, and research perspectives. The rationale for the choice of bibliometric analysis is as follows:
  • The bibliometric analysis employs computer analysis using mathematical, statistical, and graphical tools, to accurately analyze large amounts of data over a period of time [16].
  • It provides research ideas for researchers in the world who are studying core literature and core clusters [17].
  • The tools VOSviwer [18], CiteSpace [19], Bibliometrix R-package [20,21], and the Mann–Kendall (MK) trend test [22] used for bibliometric analysis, allow the reader to understand the development and evolution of the research field clearly and intuitively, and also increase the interest of scholars studying this field and contributing to it.

2.1. Data Collection

Using the statistical tools VOSviwer, CiteSpace, and bibliometrix R-package, 1279 articles on CSR and innovation were analyzed to determine the research’s evolution, current state, and outlook for the future in the field. All articles on CSR or innovation published in the Web of Science Core Collection™ were analyzed for this study [23]. Because Web of Science (WoS) publications are considered the most acceptable database for collecting and analyzing scientific papers [23,24], and it also has a large number of journals and papers that all meet the peer review requirements [25].
The search for the study was conducted In January 2022, so the data collected were all data up to 31 December 2021. It should be noted that when searching for research topics in the field of CSR and innovation, two articles from 1997 and 1999 were removed because their content did not fit the field, so the research in this field started in 2002, that is, the article’s study period is from 2002 to 2021.
Figure 1 shows the logical sequence used to obtain the data to be studied. First, only original papers and reviews are included. Conference proceedings papers, online publications, book chapters, editorial material, and books are excluded. Second, non-English articles were removed [26,27]. Finally, articles that were not relevant to the study topic were removed. A total of 1297 articles were identified for the final study.

2.2. Bibliometric Analysis

In this paper, four types of analyses of the data were performed using statistical software: (a) journal, author, and country analysis, (b) keyword analysis, (c) cluster analysis, and (d) research frontier analysis.
The first analysis is an analysis of journals, authors, and countries that will provide information about the most productive journals, authors, and countries for the study (RQ2). To achieve this goal, first, all data were analyzed to filter the top ten journals, authors, and countries and to analyze the important indicators associated with them. Secondly, a network diagram of the collaboration between authors was presented using VOSviwer, which was color-coded into different clusters and illustrated using a table for the different clusters. Third, the bibliometrix R-package and the MK trend test were used to analyze the collaboration between countries.
In the second analysis, a collaborative analysis was conducted using the software VOSviwer and bibliometrix R-package to identify the hot topics of research in the field of CSR and innovation in the last 20 years (RQ3). First, keywords were analyzed using the software VOSviwer, and keyword co-occurrence was used to analyze the most popular and emerging topics in the CSR and innovation knowledge base. Second, the bibliometrix R-package was used to divide the collected articles from 2002 to 2021 into four phases, each spanning five years: (a) 2002–2006, (b) 2007–2011, (c) 2012–2016, and (d) 2017–2021. Then, a quantitative analysis of keywords was conducted for each phase.
The third analysis was a cluster analysis using CiteSpace software to identify the knowledge structure of research in the field of CSR and innovation (RQ4). It is worth noting that the knowledge structure can represent the main research directions in a given research area [28]. To determine the knowledge structure of research in the field of CSR and innovation, a co-citation cluster analysis was used. First, in the CiteSpace software, the node type “Reference” was selected, referring to the selected start time of January 2002 and end time of December 2021, to generate a clustering map based on co-cited literature. Second, the keywords extracted from the co-cited literature were clustered, and this co-cited literature was grouped into different clusters. Third, each co-cited literature is in a cluster with the co-cited literature related to it.
The last type of analysis was performed using CiteSpace software to predict emerging trends and future research in the field of CSR and innovation (RQ5). First, the keywords were visualized. Second, 20 burst keywords were generated and analyzed.

3. Results

3.1. Publications by Year

We analyzed publication trends from 2000 to 2021. Figure 2 shows the publication trend in the number of articles on CSR and innovation from 2000 to 2021. Only about 10% of the articles were published between 2002 and 2013 (134 out of 1279); it is after 2013 that the number of publications shows a clear increasing trend. This is close to the release of ISO 26000 in 2012, an international standard that provides guidance on the responsibility of organizations for the impact of their activities on society and the environment. The upward trend also indicates that these topics are receiving academic attention, especially in recent years. In addition to, 94% of the articles (1200 out of 1279) were published in the last decade (2012–2021), while 77% of the total articles (985 out of 1279) were published in the last 5 years (2017–2021). This demonstrates the novelty of research on CSR and innovation. Overall, the increase in the number of publications on CSR and innovation over time reflects the recognition by scholars of the importance of the field of CSR and innovation. There is no indication that interest is waning. Figure 3 shows the results of the MK trend test for the trends in the number of CSR and innovation publications from 2000 to 2021 has a significant upward trend.
Figure 3 shows the results of the MK trend test for the trends in the number of CSR and innovation publications from 2000 to 2021. The MK statistic z-values of annual CSR and innovation publication numbers were calculated to obtain the correlation significance level (p-value). The results show that the time series data have a significant upward trend at the 99% confidence level (z ≥ 2.576).

3.2. Analysis of Scientific Production by Areas: Journals, Authors, and Countries

3.2.1. Distribution of Publications by Journal

This section presents the distribution of publications from different journals. Table 1 shows the top 10 journals publishing in the field of CSR and innovation. It is worth noting that they are all in the first quartile (Q1) of the SJR 2021 index. These journals have a total of 514 articles, representing 40% of all articles published in this research area.
Table 1 shows the top 10 journals publishing articles in the area of CSR and innovation. It was found that 1279 articles related to this topic were published in 86 journals. The journal with the highest output was “Sustainability”, which published 12.28% of the sample articles, followed by “Journal of Cleaner Production” (80, 6.25%), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management” (70, 5.47%), “Journal of business ethic “(67, 5.24%) and “Business Strategy and the Environment” (49, 3.83%). Moreover, only “Journal of business ethic” has been published continuously for four five-year periods, and it is the first journal to include articles on this field, while “Social Responsibility Journal” and “International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health” started to receive articles in this field only in the last five years. The above shows that this research topic has attracted the attention of the research community. Finally, it is worth noting that 70% of scientific journals belong to EU member states, while the remaining 20% are in the United States and 10% are from Switzerland, while no other continent has any journals in the most productive journals.

3.2.2. Author Productivity

The aim of this section is to show the authors with high productivity and the collaboration between them based on co-authorship metrics. Thus, Table 2 shows the 10 most productive researchers in the analysis of CSR and innovation-related articles from 2000–2021.
First, the authors with more than four publications are Gallardo-Vazquez, D (7), Ahmad, N (6), Garcia-Sanchez, IM (6), Kumar, A (6), Liu, Y (6), Adomako, S (5), Blok, V (5), Gallego- Alvarez, I (5), Pinkse, J (5), and Poussing, N (5). The most prolific author is Gallardo-Vazquez, D from the Technol Inst Sonora institution, while Garcia-Sanchez, IM and Gallego-Alvarez, I are the two most cited authors, and they are also the authors who have studied the field for the longest duration. In addition, Ahmad, N and Poussing, N have not published in this field since 2019.
Second, among the ten most productive researchers, three are from the UK, two are from Spain, and the other five are from different countries.
Third, Figure 4 shows a map of collaboration between lead authors publishing in CSR and innovation based on co-authorship analysis. These papers were entered into the VOSviewer, which grouped the authors into clusters in Table 3. Each color represents a different cluster, and the size of the circle represents the number of articles published by each author, the larger the circle the higher the number of publications. It can be observed that the network is rather fragmented, and the clusters are not strongly connected. Among the most productive authors in Table 2, only Ahmad, N has a stable network of international collaborations, which may be more conducive to the rapid development of the field. As for the other authors, Sial, Muhammad Safdar, and Scholz, Miklas have also developed an international collaborative network on CSR and innovation.

3.2.3. Productivity of Countries

Table 4 shows the countries with the highest productivity in the field of CSR and innovation for the period 2002–2021. First, the analysis shows that the countries of origin are more dispersed, with 50% in Europe (Spain, Italy, UK, Germany, and the Netherlands), followed by 20% in the Americas (USA and Canada), 20% in Asia (China and Korea) and 10% in Oceania (Australia). Second, China has the highest number of publications (241), followed by the United States (129) and Spain (111). Finally, it is worth noting that although China is the country with the highest number of published articles (17.69% of published articles), the number of citations to papers is much lower than that of the United States, which far exceeds the number of citations to all countries.
Figure 5 shows the results of the MK trend test for the top 10 of the most productive countries in the number of articles. Calculate the MK statistic Z value for the top 10 of the most productive countries and obtain the associated significance level (p-value). The results show that the time series data for each country has a clear upward trend at the 99% confidence level (z ≥ 2.576).
Figure 6 shows the level of cooperation between participating countries in the field of CSR and innovation for the period 2002–2021. The intensity in blue indicates the number of articles published, and the thickness of the pink line indicates the intensity of cooperation with other countries. As can be seen from the graph, China has large-scale cooperation with other countries, followed by the UK and the US, which also cooperate more with other countries.
Figure 7 shows the number of articles published in collaboration with authors from different countries as well as the number of articles published in collaboration with authors from the same country. It can be observed that, first, except for Germany and Canada, there are more articles in which researchers from the same country collaborate than the number of collaborations with other countries. This indicates that the rate of collaboration between countries is relatively low. Second, among the countries that collaborated with authors from other countries on publications, China tops the list (75 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (37), the United States (34), and Italy (26). Finally, it should be pointed out that Australia, Germany, Canada, and South Korea have a generally consistent number of articles published in collaboration with different countries and with national authors.

3.3. Keyword Analysis

This section generated a keyword co-occurrence network as shown in Figure 8. This analysis was implemented with VOSviwer, using the color of the nodes to distinguish the different clusters, the size of each circle representing the frequency of keyword occurrences, and the distance of the circles representing the relevance of the keywords. For the keyword selection, at least seven interactions were identified, resulting in the identification of 92 keywords. Thereby, eight clusters of each different color were generated to identify the focus of the study. As shown in Table 5, the red cluster highlights the importance of “firm performance” and consists of 17 projects. The green cluster, which is organized around “sustainability” and “innovation,” consists of 13 items. Three is the blue cluster with 12 items. Four is the yellow cluster with 11 items associated with “sustainable development. Five is the purple cluster, which focuses on “corporate sustainability” with 10 items. Six is the light blue cluster, which is associated with “CSR” with 11 items. Seven is the orange cluster, which is closely related to “stakeholder engagement”. Eight is the pink cluster, which focuses on “corporate social responsibility”.
On the other hand, Figure 8 shows that the most frequently used keyword is “corporate social responsibility”, corresponding to cluster 8, with 405 occurrences. Subsequently, “sustainability” and “innovation” ranked first and second in cluster 2 with 173 and 149 occurrences, respectively. These three keywords are closely interconnected with most of the keywords, and most of the other clusters are extensions of them. Moreover, the keywords in the study of CSR and innovation areas show different industries, such as “manufacturing industry”, “food industry” and “tourism”, as well as the different countries “Pakistan”, “Ghana” and “China “, showing that the study is distributed in different fields and different countries. Finally, keywords about the environment are repeated, such as “environmental regulation”, “climate change”, “ sustainable innovation”, “environmental responsibility”, etc., and the repeated repetition of the economic terms “financial performance”, “circular economy”, “business strategy”, etc., shows the importance of corporate social responsibility and innovation research to the environmental and economic fields.

3.4. Evolution of CSR and Innovation Research from 2002 to 2021

Figure 9 presents an alluvial diagram of the thematic evolution of research in the field of CSR and innovation over the last 20 years in different time phases. The time frame is divided into four phases, each spanning 5 years, represented in blocks. The first phase (2002–2006) was the initial phase of research in the field, with only one cluster of “corporate social responsibility”, while the second phase (2007–2011) was the breakthrough phase of the field, growing to six clusters, with the addition of research on “smes”, “sustainability development”, “corporate social performance”, “innovation” and “CSR”. The third phase (2012–2016) is the rapid development of the field, with 14 clusters and the addition of new clusters such as “entrepreneurial orientation”, “collaboration”, and “service innovation”. The fourth stage is the maturing stage, where many clusters are gradually integrated, with “sustainability”, “corporate social responsibility”, “financial performance” and “green innovation” as the main research objects.
It is also shown in Figure 9 that there are multiple curve variations between blocks, which lead to the merging of subsequent phases and the formation of new clusters. First, the alluvial diagram shows the various variations between the blocks in the three phases from 2002–2016. Most of these curve flows are eventually combined with “corporate social responsibility” and “sustainability” in the final phase of 2017–2021. Secondly, the dominance of CSR has been evident from 2002 to 2016, while innovation became the main cluster in the 2007–2011 period, with a break after 2011, which does not mean that research on this topic stopped, but rather that it merged with the CSR and environmental management clusters to form other new research topics. Third, from the first phase of 2002–2006, there was only one keyword “corporate social responsibility” to the next three phases, which added “innovation”, “sustainability”, “sustainable development”, “firm performance” and “green innovation”, showing that research in this area is continuing to develop rapidly. Finally, it is worth noting that the research on innovation is diversifying into “service innovation”, “green innovation” and “product innovation”.

3.5. Intellectual Structure of CSR and Innovation Research

Citation–author co-citation analysis is based on the combination of cited authors and references between different articles [29,30] and can therefore be used to identify the research focus of a specific field and the influential authors in that field. This conclusion uses CiteSpace to analyze the co-citation relationships in the collected dataset. First, CiteSpace was used to generate authors and article years by setting the node type to “reference” [31]. Second, the most popular terms were extracted from the abstracts of the most cited articles within the clustering labels as clustering criteria, and the visual clusters in Figure 8 were generated. Finally, additional content analysis was performed on the authors’ high-frequency co-cited articles and journals, as shown in Table 6.
This section analyzes the largest and most representative top five clusters, i.e., cluster 0 (social innovation), cluster 1 (CSR practice) cluster 2 (sustainable global value chain), cluster 3 (sustainable business model), cluster 4 (buyer–supplier collaboration). Moreover, the first five clusters with a cluster profile value greater than 0.8 were considered as high-quality clusters and proved the reliability of the data [32,33,34]. Figure 10 reveals that Porter M paper is mainly cited by social innovation and CSR practice clusters, while Boons F and Bocken N’s paper plays a key role in sustainable business model study. The buyer–supplier collaboration cluster is less cited, and Berrone P is the most popular author. In addition, Harvard Business Review (26) and J Clean Prod (55) are the two most cited journals, Harvard Business Review is mainly cited before 2011, while J Clean Prod is mainly cited from 2012 onwards.

3.6. Citation Burst Analysis

This section synthesizes keyword data from 2002 to 2021 and extracts burst keywords. Burst keywords show frequent occurrences during a specific time period [55] as well as predict future trends [56,57] (RQ5). In this paper, we detect changes in burst words over time through CiteSpace, and the 20 burst keywords in Figure 11 show that, first, the keywords “business ethic” (2005–2017) and “capability“ (2007–2016) have the longest burst durations of 12 and 9 years, respectively, indicating their long-term impact on the CSR and innovation domains. Secondly, the keywords “strategy” and “business” have the strongest citation bursts of 6.29 and 6.18, respectively, indicating that they are the most frequently discussed cutting-edge topics in the field. Third, it is worth noting that knowledge management is the breakout word in the field for 2020–2021, and although it has only been around for one year recently, it cannot be ignored in the future.
On the other hand, it needs to be clarified that other emergent keywords may reappear or disappear soon. Taking corporate sustainability as an example, it can be seen from Figure 9 that the burst period of corporate sustainability is only one year in 2018, but this does not necessarily mean that the research on it will continue to fade in the future, because for the current topic on corporate sustainability, the many influential papers have been published on, for example, the impact of the three strategic management dimensions of the strategic process, strategic content and strategic context on corporate sustainability [58], the impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance [59], etc., these articles have put together a substantial analysis of the factors that affect corporate sustainability and the impact of corporate sustainability on other factors. Thus, research on corporate sustainability may continue to gain momentum, but not in this relationship between corporate social responsibility and innovation.

4. Conclusions

This study analyzed the literature in the field of CSR and innovation in the WoS database, with the aim of conducting an econometric analysis of the CSR and innovation fields and identifying the knowledge map between these two topics. In this study, quantitative analysis and visualization of the CSR and innovation domains were carried out using VOSviwer, CiteSpace, and bibliometrix R-package. We focused on the journal, author and country analysis, author collaboration analysis, country collaboration analysis, keyword and keyword evolution analysis, clustering analysis, and emergent word analysis of articles.

4.1. CSR and Innovation Research Becomes Richer and More Global

First, regarding the annual publication trends of CSR and innovation research, research in this field from 2002, which grew slowly in 2002–2013, showed a significant growth trend after 2013, which is consistent with the study of Ratajczak and Szutowski [60]. Secondly, regarding journals, the top three productivity journals are Sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production, and Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. This is consistent with the results of the bibliometric analysis of previous studies focused on the CSR and sustainability domains [31,61]. It is worth mentioning that although Sustainability only started publishing papers on CSR and innovation between 2012 and 2016, the number of publications in the last five years far exceeds that of other journals. Third, regarding authors, Gallardo-Vazquez, D is the most productive author, while Ahmad, N has the most extensive network of international collaborations. Fourth, regarding the analysis of countries, European countries represent 50% of the 10 most productive countries. It is worth noting that the United States and China contribute the most to the output of papers in this field. Specifically, China is the country with the highest number of publications and collaborative publications with other countries, while the number of citations to US articles far exceeds that of other countries. Fifth, the results show steady growth in the development of the study in terms of collaboration across countries, especially in Asia, North America, and Europe.

4.2. Knowledge Structures in CSR and Innovation Research Have Become More Complex

First, our co-citation analysis identifies Porter M, Boons F, and Bocken N as the most influential authors in CSR and innovation research. All these authors have made significant contributions to the field of CSR and innovation. In addition, we clustered these co-citations and found that they influence different fields. For example, Porter M is highly respected in the fields of social innovation and CSR practice, and Boons F and Bocken N are more important in the fields of Boons F and Bocken N. This distinction provides a more concrete reference for more in-depth research in corporate social responsibility and innovation.

4.3. Hot Diversity in CSR and Innovation Research

After analyzing the keywords, we generated seven different clusters to help researchers understand the hot topics in the field, including CSR, sustainability, innovation, financial performance, and other topics associated with these themes, such as sustainability, corporate sustainability, technology innovation, green innovation, environmental performance, etc., which are the focus of research today (e.g., [13,31,62,63,64,65]).

4.4. CSR and Innovation Research Will Face Two Forward-Looking Directions

First, when performing the keyword evolution analysis, innovation appears in other forms in the study from 2011, such as: service innovation, green innovation, etc. Similarly, the co-citation analysis confirms that innovation becomes more diversified, which is in line with the current research trend (e.g., [66,67,68,69,70]). This suggests that there should be horizontal expansion and vertical depth in the study of CSR and innovation. Second, from the co-citation analysis and burst words, since 2005, there are papers with outstanding citations and burst words at each stage, which represent the research direction at that time. For example, “business ethic” and “capability” continued to appear for 12 and 9 years, respectively. However, after 2016, the number of articles and keywords with significant impact became fewer and less influential. In particular, the rate of emergence of breakout words has slowed down significantly in the past three years. This means that the relationship between CSR and innovation needs to include more new research directions.

5. Limitations

Despite the contribution of this paper to the field of CSR and innovation, there are some limitations. First, the chosen database web of science is probably one of the most important bibliographic databases in the world, but it covers a limited number of articles. It is the search for articles related to CSR and innovation in different databases that can be analyzed to make the study more convincing. Second, the article only analyzes articles whose language is English, and the research in other countries and regions where English is not the first language cannot be analyzed systematically. Third, although the article evolves the keywords of the main studies using an alluvial diagram and clusters the co-citation analysis, other information about the deeper level of the research topics involved, including the methodology and theoretical background, is not explored more completely and thoroughly. Future research should continue to follow this area to gain deeper insights.

Author Contributions

Methodology, data curation, software, visualization, writing—original draft, M.C.; funding acquisition, writing—review and editing, H.B.M.; supervision, M.B.M.; project administration, O.T.S.; resources, F.Z. Conceptualization, X.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data collection was made from the main collection of the Web of Science (WoS) database from Clarivate Analytics on 17 January 2022.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Employment Commission Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs. Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2001; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/DOC_01_9 (accessed on 19 September 2022).
  2. Cepal, N.; UNICEF. The Millennium Development Goals: A Latin American and Caribbean Perspective; United Nations Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  3. Moratis, L. Signalling Responsibility? Applying Signalling Theory to the ISO 26000 Standard for Social Responsibility. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Nyuur, R.B.; Ofori, D.F.; Amponsah, M.M. Corporate social responsibility and competitive advantage: A developing country perspective. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2019, 61, 551–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lockett, A.; Moon, J.; Visser, W. Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. J. Manag. Stud. 2006, 43, 115–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wagner, M. Corporate social performance and innovation with high social benefits: A quantitative analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 94, 581–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. MacGregor, S.P.; Fontrodona, J. Exploring the Fit between CSR and Innovation; Working Paper No. WP-759; University of Navarra, IESE Center for Business Society (CBS): Pamplona, Spain, 2008; Available online: www.iese.edu/research/pdfs/DI-0759-E.pdf (accessed on 27 April 2014).
  8. Faller, C.M.; zu Knyphausen-Aufseß, D. Does equity ownership matter for corporate social responsibility? A literature review of theories and recent empirical findings. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 15–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Feng, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Lai, K.-H. Corporate social responsibility for supply chain management: A literature review and bibliometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 158, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, K.-H.; Umar, M.; Akram, R.; Caglar, E. Is technological innovation making world “Greener”? An evidence from changing growth story of China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 165, 120516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Oeij, P.R.; Van Der Torre, W.; Vaas, F.; Dhondt, S. Understanding social innovation as an innovation process: Applying the innovation journey model. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Russell, M.G.; Smorodinskaya, N.V. Leveraging complexity for ecosystemic innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2018, 136, 114–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kraus, S.; Rehman, S.U.; García, F.J.S. Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: The mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 160, 120262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bocquet, R.; Le Bas, C.; Mothe, C.; Poussing, N. Strategic CSR for innovation in SMEs: Does diversity matter? Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 101913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wu, W.; Liu, Y.; Chin, T.; Zhu, W. Will green CSR enhance innovation? A perspective of public visibility and firm transparency. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Song, P.; Wang, X. A bibliometric analysis of worldwide educational artificial intelligence research development in recent twenty years. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2020, 21, 473–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sedita, S.R.; Caloffi, A.; Lazzeretti, L. The invisible college of cluster research: A bibliometric core–periphery analysis of the literature. Ind. Innov. 2020, 27, 562–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Van Eck, N.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Torres-Pruñonosa, J.; Plaza-Navas, M.A.; Díez-Martín, F.; Beltran-Cangrós, A. The intellectual structure of social and sustainable public procurement research: A co-citation analysis. Sustainability 2021, 13, 774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Derviş, H. Bibliometric analysis using Bibliometrix an R Package. J. Scientometr. Res. 2019, 8, 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gavrilov, M.; Markovic, S.; Jarad, A.; Korac, V. The analysis of temperature trends in Vojvodina (Serbia) from 1949 to 2006. Therm. Sci. 2015, 19, 339–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. González-Serrano, M.H.; Añó Sanz, V.; González-García, R.J. Sustainable Sport Entrepreneurship and Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis of This Emerging Field of Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Van Nunen, K.; Li, J.; Reniers, G.; Ponnet, K. Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Saf. Sci. 2018, 108, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vázquez-Ingelmo, A.; Garcia-Penalvo, F.J.; Theron, R. Information dashboards and tailoring capabilities-a systematic literature review. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 109673–109688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lee, A.M.; Chavez, S.; Bian, J.; Thompson, L.A.; Gurka, M.J.; Williamson, V.G.; Modave, F. Efficacy and effectiveness of mobile health technologies for facilitating physical activity in adolescents: Scoping review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019, 7, e11847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hartling, L.; Featherstone, R.; Nuspl, M.; Shave, K.; Dryden, D.M.; Vandermeer, B. Grey literature in systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2017, 17, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. García-Lillo, F.; Úbeda-García, M.; Marco-Lajara, B. The intellectual structure of research in hospitality management: A literature review using bibliometric methods of the journal International Journal of Hospitality Management. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 52, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Anand, A.; Muskat, B.; Creed, A.; Zutshi, A.; Csepregi, A. Knowledge sharing, knowledge transfer and SMEs: Evolution, antecedents, outcomes and directions. Pers. Rev. 2021, 50, 1873–1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Walter, C.; Ribière, V. A citation and co-citation analysis of 10 years of KM theory and practices. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2013, 11, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ye, N.; Kueh, T.-B.; Hou, L.; Liu, Y.; Yu, H. A bibliometric analysis of corporate social responsibility in sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Deng, W.; Liang, Q.; Li, J.; Wang, W. Science mapping: A bibliometric analysis of female entrepreneurship studies. Gend. Manag. Int. J. 2020, 36, 61–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Su, X.; Li, X.; Kang, Y. A bibliometric analysis of research on intangible cultural heritage using CiteSpace. Sage Open 2019, 9, 2158244019840119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Li, M.; Porter, A.L.; Suominen, A. Insights into relationships between disruptive technology/innovation and emerging technology: A bibliometric perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 129, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Creating shared value: Redefining capitalism and the role of the corporation in society. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2011, 89, 62–77. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gallego-Álvarez, I.; Prado-Lorenzo, J.M.; García-Sánchez, I.M. Corporate social responsibility and innovation: A resource-based theory. Manag. Decis. 2011, 49, 1709–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bouchard, M.J. Social innovation, an analytical grid for understanding the social economy: The example of the Quebec housing sector. Serv. Bus. 2012, 6, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Austin, J.E.; Seitanidi, M.M. Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2012, 41, 726–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 78–92. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Strategy and society. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 78. [Google Scholar]
  41. Porter, M.E. The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 25–40. [Google Scholar]
  42. McWilliams, A.; Siegel, D.S.; Wright, P.M. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. J. Manag. Stud. 2006, 43, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Mackey, A.; Mackey, T.B.; Barney, J.B. Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 817–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Aguilera, R.V.; Rupp, D.E.; Williams, C.A.; Ganapathi, J. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 836–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Barnett, M.L. An attention-based view of real options reasoning. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33, 606–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Boons, F.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bocken, N.M.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Klewitz, J.; Hansen, E.G. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jay, J. Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 2013, 56, 137–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Crane, A.; Palazzo, G.; Spence, L.J.; Matten, D. Contesting the value of “creating shared value”. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2014, 56, 130–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Berrone, P.; Fosfuri, A.; Gelabert, L.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R. Necessity as the mother of ‘green’inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013, 34, 891–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Engert, S.; Rauter, R.; Baumgartner, R.J. Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2833–2850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gallardo-Vázquez, D.; Sanchez-Hernandez, M.I. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility for competitive success at a regional level. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 72, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Aguilera-Caracuel, J.; Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. Green innovation and financial performance: An institutional approach. Organ. Environ. 2013, 26, 365–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mou, J.; Cui, Y.; Kurcz, K. Bibliometric and visualized analysis of research on major e-commerce journals using Citespace. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2019, 20, 219–237. [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhao, L.; Yang, M.M.; Wang, Z.; Michelson, G. Trends in the Dynamic Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility and Leadership: A Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hou, J.; Yang, X.; Chen, C. Emerging trends and new developments in information science: A document co-citation analysis (2009–2016). Scientometrics 2018, 115, 869–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Baumgartner, R.J.; Rauter, R. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Eccles, R.G.; Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Manag. Sci. 2014, 60, 2835–2857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Ratajczak, P.; Szutowski, D. Exploring the relationship between CSR and innovation. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2016, 7, 295–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Meseguer-Sánchez, V.; Gálvez-Sánchez, F.J.; López-Martínez, G.; Molina-Moreno, V. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability. A bibliometric analysis of their interrelations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chuang, S.-P.; Huang, S.-J. The effect of environmental corporate social responsibility on environmental performance and business competitiveness: The mediation of green information technology capital. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 991–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Imran, R.; Alraja, M.N.; Khashab, B. Sustainable performance and green innovation: Green human resources management and big data as antecedents. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Li, L.; Msaad, H.; Sun, H.; Tan, M.X.; Lu, Y.; Lau, A.K. Green innovation and business sustainability: New evidence from energy intensive industry in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Singh, S.K.; Del Giudice, M.; Chierici, R.; Graziano, D. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 150, 119762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Takalo, S.K.; Tooranloo, H.S.; Parizi, Z.S. Green innovation: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 122474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Khan, P.A.; Johl, S.K. Nexus of comprehensive green innovation, environmental management system-14001-2015 and firm performance. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2019, 6, 1691833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gürlek, M.; Tuna, M. Reinforcing competitive advantage through green organizational culture and green innovation. Serv. Ind. J. 2018, 38, 467–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Albort-Morant, G.; Leal-Millán, A.; Cepeda-Carrión, G. The antecedents of green innovation performance: A model of learning and capabilities. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 4912–4917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schiederig, T.; Tietze, F.; Herstatt, C. Green innovation in technology and innovation management—An exploratory literature review. Rd Manag. 2012, 42, 180–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 14185 g001 550
Figure 1. The flowchart of data selection.
Figure 1. The flowchart of data selection.
Sustainability 14 14185 g001
Sustainability 14 14185 g002 550
Figure 2. Publications associated with CSR and innovation on a yearly basis.
Figure 2. Publications associated with CSR and innovation on a yearly basis.
Sustainability 14 14185 g002
Sustainability 14 14185 g003 550
Figure 3. Results of the MK trend test for the number of publications in different years.
Figure 3. Results of the MK trend test for the number of publications in different years.
Sustainability 14 14185 g003
Sustainability 14 14185 g004 550
Figure 4. The network of cooperation, based on the co-authorship of the main author.
Figure 4. The network of cooperation, based on the co-authorship of the main author.
Sustainability 14 14185 g004
Sustainability 14 14185 g005 550
Figure 5. Results of the MK trend test for the top 10 of the most productive countries in the number of articles.
Figure 5. Results of the MK trend test for the top 10 of the most productive countries in the number of articles.
Sustainability 14 14185 g005
Sustainability 14 14185 g006 550
Figure 6. International research collaboration map in original articles.
Figure 6. International research collaboration map in original articles.
Sustainability 14 14185 g006
Sustainability 14 14185 g007 550
Figure 7. Top 10 country collaboration index. Note: MCP—multiple country publications; SCP—single country publications.
Figure 7. Top 10 country collaboration index. Note: MCP—multiple country publications; SCP—single country publications.
Sustainability 14 14185 g007
Sustainability 14 14185 g008 550
Figure 8. Keyword clusters.
Figure 8. Keyword clusters.
Sustainability 14 14185 g008
Sustainability 14 14185 g009 550
Figure 9. The alluvial diagram of the keyword.
Figure 9. The alluvial diagram of the keyword.
Sustainability 14 14185 g009
Sustainability 14 14185 g010 550
Figure 10. A visualized output of the co-citation cluster analysis [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54].
Figure 10. A visualized output of the co-citation cluster analysis [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54].
Sustainability 14 14185 g010
Sustainability 14 14185 g011 550
Figure 11. Top 20 citation burst of keywords.
Figure 11. Top 20 citation burst of keywords.
Sustainability 14 14185 g011
Table
Table 1. Ranking 10 journals with the highest scientific production.
Table 1. Ranking 10 journals with the highest scientific production.
Journal NameAPercentageSJRCFirst
Article		Last
Article		Article Number
2002–20062007–20112012–20162017–2021
Sustainability15712.28%Q1Switzerland201320210010147
Journal of Cleaner
Production		806.25%Q1United Kingdom20082021021563
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management705.47%Q1United Kingdom2011202101772
Journal of business ethic675.24%Q1Netherlands200220213192223
Business Strategy and the Environment493.83%Q1United Kingdom2012202100742
Journal of Business
Research		282.19%Q1United States2013202100919
Social Responsibility Journal181.41%Q1United Kingdom2017202100018
Management Decision161.25%Q1United Kingdom200820210358
Technological Forecasting and Social Change151.17%Q1United States2015202100312
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health141.09%Q1Switzerland2018202100014
Table
Table 2. Top 10 of most productive authors.
Table 2. Top 10 of most productive authors.
AuthorsATCInstitutionCFirst ALast A
Gallardo-Vazquez, D786Technol Inst SonoraMexico20172021
Ahmad, N682Univ Cent PunjabPakistan20172019
Garcia-Sanchez, IM6240Univ SalamancaSpain20112021
Kumar, A634London Metropolitan UnivUnited Kingdom20192021
Liu, Y663Aalto UnivFinland20172021
Adomako, S565Univ BradfordUnited Kingdom20202021
Blok, V5179Wageningen UnivNetherlands20152021
Gallego-Alvarez, I 5293Univ SalamancaSpain20112021
Pinkse, J567Univ ManchesterUnited Kingdom20152021
Poussing, N5216 Luxembourg Inst Socioecon ResFrance20132019
Table
Table 3. Clusters on co-authorship for scientific production.
Table 3. Clusters on co-authorship for scientific production.
Cluster 1
Red		Cluster 2
Green		Cluster 3
Blue		Cluster 4
Yellow
Alvarez-Otero, SusanaHusain, ShahidArshad, Muhammad Z.Cheng, Guping
Cherian, JacobKhan, Mohammed ArshadHan, HeesupFu, Qinghua
Comite, UbaldoLiu, XintaoJafri, Syed Khuram AliRabbani, Mustafa Raza
Fan, XuOlah, JuditKhan, Waris AliSun, Huidong
Li, BeiliPopp, JozsefSabir, Raja IrfanZia-Ud-Din, Malik
Sial, Muhammad SafdarYucel, Ali GokhanScholz, Miklas
Vasa, LaszloZhang, BoyaoUllah, Zia
Cluster 5
Purple		Cluster 6
Light blue		Cluster 7
Orange
Ahmad, NaveedBadulescu, AlinaAdnan, Mohammad
Ahmed, Rahil IrfanBadulescu, DanielGuo, Mengneng
Usmani, Muhammad S.Khan, Farman ullahKhalil-Ur-Rehman
Yan, ChengUllah, SajidNaveed, Rana Tahir
Zhao, Guohao
Table
Table 4. Top 10 of the most productive countries in the number of articles.
Table 4. Top 10 of the most productive countries in the number of articles.
RCo-Authorship by CountriesNumber% of 1279Total
Citations		Average Article Citations
1China24117.69%377815.68
2USA1299.47%964874.79
3Spain1118.15%230920.80
4Italy836.09%153642.88
5United Kingdom826.02%351618.51
6Australia463.38%130228.30
7Germany352.57%114632.74
8Canada342.50%143442.18
9Netherlands342.50%79323.32
10Korea332.42%33310.09
Table
Table 5. The details of keywords in clusters.
Table 5. The details of keywords in clusters.
ClusterColorKeywords
1Sustainability 14 14185 i001competitive advantage, competitiveness, eco-innovation, economic performance, environmental innovation, environmental performance, environmental policy, financial performance, firm performance, firm value, green innovation, institutional theory, manufacturing industry, Pakistan, product innovation, social responsibility, tourism
2Sustainability 14 14185 i002entrepreneurship, environmental sustainability, innovation, innovativeness, knowledge management, organizational performance, smes, social entrepreneurship, strategy, supply chain management, sustainability, sustainable entrepreneurship, triple bottom line
3Sustainability 14 14185 i003corporate governance, corporate social responsibility, esg, ethics, governance, industry, intellectual capital, performance, research and development, responsible research and innovation, stakeholders, technological innovation
4Sustainability 14 14185 i004circular economy, corporate responsibility, dynamic capabilities, environmental regulation, family firms, innovation performance, organizational learning, r&d, sme, sustainable development, sustainable development goals
5Sustainability 14 14185 i005business ethics, case study, collaboration, corporate citizenship, corporate sustainability, environmental management, food industry, small and medium enterprises, supply chain, sustainable business model
6Sustainability 14 14185 i006csr, entrepreneurial orientation, environment, Ghana, market orientation, regulation, responsible innovation, small and medium-size enterprises, stakeholder, value creation
7Sustainability 14 14185 i007business model, business strategy, climate change, content analysis, creating shared value, open innovation, organizational culture, stakeholder engagement, sustainability reporting, sustainable innovation
8Sustainability 14 14185 i008China, corporate social responsibility, emerging markets, environmental responsibility, resource-based view, service innovation, social innovation, stakeholder management, stakeholder theory
Table
Table 6. The top five clusters in CSR and innovation research.
Table 6. The top five clusters in CSR and innovation research.
Cluster IDSizeSilhouetteCluster LabelTop Term in LLRArticles with High-Frequency Co-Citation
0640.929Social innovationSocial innovation, absorptive capacity, for-profit organization, social entrepreneurship, nonprofits developmentPorter M (2011) [35] Harvard Business Review (13)
Gallego-Álvarez, I (2011) [36] Manage Decis (5)
Bouchard, M. (2012) [37] Serv Bus (4)
Austin J. (2012) [38] Nonprof Volunt Sect Q (4)
1510.955CSR practiceCsr practice, sustainable practice, csr engagement, divergent corporate social responsibility, Canada, TunisiaPorter M (2006) [39] Harvard Business Review (13)
Hull C (2008) [40] Strategic Manage J (11)
Porter M (2008) [41] Harvard business review
(6)
Mcwilliams A (2006) [42] J Manage Stud (6)
Mackey A (2007) [43] Acad Manage Rev (6)
2500.996Sustainable global value chainSustainable global value chain, global value chain, corporate responsibility, new concept, international businessAguilera R (2007) [44] Acad Manage Rev (5)
Barnett M (2008) [45] Acad Manage Rev (5)
3430.955Sustainable business modelSustainable business model, business model innovation, business model, institutional logics, corporate sustainabilityBoons F (2013) [46] J Clean Prod (16)
Bocken N (2014) [47] J Clean Prod (15)
Klewitz J (2014) [48] J Clean Prod (12)
Jay J (2013) [49] Acad Manage J (7)
Crane A (2014) [50] Calif Manage Rev (7)
4410.837Buyer–supplier collaborationBuyer–supplier collaboration, technical innovation, top management commitment, nonlisted firmBerrone P (2013) [51] Strategic Manage J (8)
Engert S (2016) [52] J Clean Prod (6)
Gallardo-vazquez D (2014) [53] J Clean Prod (6)
Aguilera-caracuel J (2013) [54] Organ Environ (5)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chu, M.; Muhamad, H.B.; Mustapha, M.B.; San, O.T.; Zan, F.; Jia, X. Research Trends in Corporate Social Responsibility and Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114185

AMA Style

Chu M, Muhamad HB, Mustapha MB, San OT, Zan F, Jia X. Research Trends in Corporate Social Responsibility and Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21):14185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114185

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chu, Mingyue, Haslinah Binti Muhamad, Mazlina Binti Mustapha, Ong Tze San, Fangfang Zan, and Xiaoxiao Jia. 2022. "Research Trends in Corporate Social Responsibility and Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis" Sustainability 14, no. 21: 14185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114185

APA Style

Chu, M., Muhamad, H. B., Mustapha, M. B., San, O. T., Zan, F., & Jia, X. (2022). Research Trends in Corporate Social Responsibility and Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability, 14(21), 14185. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114185

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop