1. Erbil Polytechnic University, Iraq; nadeemashghar@gmail.com
2. Erbil Polytechnic University, Iraq; alijalil@gmail.com

*             Correspondence: nadeemashghar@gmail.com

Keywords: management, accountability, sustainability, function

1. INTRODUCTION

The importance of sustainability accounting and reporting has grown over the past three decades in many businesses and in society at large due to pressures from external stakeholders, new normative requirements for regulatory compliance, and manager initiatives. Management accounting and reporting must incorporate sustainability metrics and tools that support managers in incorporating sustainability standards into daily organizational operations and decision-making processes in order to guarantee that sustainability practices become deeply ingrained in businesses and integrated into corporate strategy [1-7]. A wealth of research has demonstrated that the management accountant is a crucial player in the efficient development and use of management accounting and reporting. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that this figure is essential for advancing managers’ real use of information, which influences their decision-making process [8-10], as well as for fostering innovations in management reporting and accounting [11-13]. Research has specifically shown how important management accountants are to the adoption of innovative internal business reporting formats in corporations, like the Intellectual Capital Report, and to their introduction [14-16]. In this context, Chiucchi [8] has demonstrated how the management accountant has played a critical role in helping managers focus on intellectual capital (IC). The management accountant has also encouraged IC reporting practices and the inclusion of IC-related variables in decision-making processes by influencing managers’ learning processes. Mio et al. [17], who illustrate and discuss the introduction of an Internal Integrated Report in a company, inspired by the Integrated Report proposed by the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), to support managerial decision-making processes, further highlight the importance of the accounting function in adopting new forms of internal business reporting. It would be interesting to investigate the role that management accountants may have in organisations to adopt and implement sustainability accounting and reporting, given the importance that literature generally attributes to management accountants in both introducing accounting innovations that support managerial decision-making processes and in implementing new forms of internal business reporting. This theme has attracted attention in real life as well: Management accountants should be involved in sustainability, according to professional management accounting associations like the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA), since they are qualified to measure and report data and can therefore be instrumental in advancing sustainability accounting and reporting [18]. In light of this, the goal of this work is to evaluate and assess the state of the art of the literature on management accountants’ role in sustainability accounting and reporting through a Structured Literature Review (SLR) [19]. In the process, we hope to identify emerging trends and suggest directions for further investigation. In comparison to non-accountants, such as sustainability managers, engineers, or other functional managers, our study adds to the current body of research by demonstrating that, as of now, management accountants’ involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting appears to be minimal. There is broad agreement, as evidenced by the literature that management accountants should be more heavily involved in sustainability accounting and reporting going forward. Accordingly, our SLR’s results also seem to suggest that management accountants’ future, possibly crucial engagement will depend on their capacity to expand their current area of expertise by picking up new sustainability-related skills and competencies. Following a critical analysis of the current state of research on the relationship between sustainability accounting and reporting and the role of management accountants, this paper identifies future research directions pertaining to management accountant involvement and role-playing, harmonization and standardization of sustainability information and its implications for management accountants, and, lastly, the value of sustainability accounting and reporting education for upcoming management accountants. Finally, some thoughts on how looking into these areas of research can also have applications are given.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

We developed the research questions that would direct our investigation and serve as the second stage of the SLR because of the objective for this study, which is described in the literature review process, and the research gap that it aims to address. An SLR “needs to critique an existing field of knowledge before it can offer a path towards future research,” according to Massaro et al. [19]. Drawing on Alvesson and Deetz [20] and their identification of the three crucial research tasks—”insight,” “critique,” and “transformative redefinitions”—Massaro et al. [21] assert that an SLR should be guided by at least three research questions. The first research topic should address how a body of literature has developed over time. This can be achieved by examining the influence, distribution, and trend of publications across journals, books, and other media, for instance. In order to critically analyse the advancements in a particular research subject, the second research question should provide light on the themes that run across the literature that is studied. To this end, an analytical framework needs to be created. Specifically, the analytical framework ought to consist of various analytical units to arrange and scrutinise previous research and its principal discoveries, as well as to encourage a critical evaluation of the relevant literature. This will open the door to addressing the third research question, which seeks to pinpoint fresh avenues for investigation that might advance our understanding of the matter at hand. Because of its extensive coverage of scholarly, peer-reviewed literature [23–25], Scopus is considered “one of the most appropriate data warehouses for literature review studies” (p. 3229), which is why we selected it as the database for publication selection. The search string that was applied to “titles, abstracts, and keywords” for publications published in English and included in the “Business, Management, and Accounting” area was then created using the pertinent keywords for our study. The search string’s section on sustainability accounting and reporting contains a number of terms that are related to this field, such as “sustainability accounting,” “sustainability report,” and “sustainability reporting,” which together constitute one of the most widely used accounting instruments for sustainability accounting as of this writing [26]. Moreover, phrases like “sustainable development,” “sustainability practices,” and “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” are included that are specifically linked to sustainability. In turn, the section on management accountants uses the terms “management accountants” and “controllers” since, in certain nations—such as those that speak German—the word “controller” is synonymous with “management accountant” [27]. The terms “Chief Financial Officer” and “CFO” are also included in this string since, in certain businesses, they may also serve as management accountants. Lastly, we included the term “accountant” because it is occasionally used interchangeably with “management accountant” in the accounting literature. It is crucial to note that other search terms, including “CFO” and “accountant,” were included in the search string in order to locate publications on the function of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting. However, we only included in our SLR publications that are explicitly related to management accounting and controlling, meaning that they have a specific focus on management accountants. This was made feasible by reading the full texts and abstracts, which offer details that help readers grasp the articles’ main points. For this reason, we will simply refer to the experts that oversee management accounting as “management accountants” in the remaining sections of the article. We did not omit any publications in order to conduct a thorough search and gather the most pertinent papers on the subject. For the same reason, we did not set a time limit or restrict the search to only journal articles but also books, book chapters, and working papers. Following the search, 202 papers were found, and basic data including the author(s), title, year of publication, abstract, and so on were obtained. We established inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to decide which studies should be included or eliminated. Publications whose primary focus was on management accountants’ involvement and role in sustainability reporting and accounting were included. We also excluded studies where the term “accountant” referred to auditors or fiscal experts, as well as publications where the term “controller” referred to electromechanical devices. In these cases, the management accountant was not the primary focus of the study, but rather one of the recipients of specific recommendations. Before deciding whether to include or exclude a publication, the title, keywords, and abstract were reviewed. If the information in the abstract was insufficient to determine whether to include or exclude a study, the whole text was reviewed. We selected 46 papers by the end of this process, which we started to go them completely. As we examined them, we found that some publications, although making clear in their abstracts about the role management accountants play in sustainability accounting and reporting, may only make brief references to management accountants in the full text, or they may, along with other accounting professionals, only receive general remarks about sustainability accounting and reporting. After removing these articles, we were left with a final sample of 23 research that were released between 2018 and 2023. Measuring the articles’ impact is the fourth phase in the SLR. Citation counts can be used as a surrogate for an article’s impact and quality; in this work, citation counts and citations per year (CPY) are the main metrics, derived from Google Scholar data. On November 30, 2020, the citation information for the publications was extracted using Harzing’s Publish or Perish 7 software. We utilise this method since it shows the most consistent and thorough coverage [28, 29], and we’ve used it in other SLRs as well, including [30, 31]. “Citations per year” is the total number of citations divided by the number of years between the publishing year and the current year. “Citations” refers to the total number of citations received by a study to date. In this sense, the CPY mitigates the effect of earlier research potentially garnering more citations than the most current research. The top five publications by citations and CPY [32–36] are displayed in Tables 1 and 2. It is evident that the first three publications are rated in the same order in both tables, although Fraser [35] and Çalişkan [36] take different places. It is important to stress that Tilt [34] is a book chapter, but the other four studies are published in scholarly publications. Three of the four journals’ primary areas of interest are management accounting, while the Social Responsibility Journal, the fourth, is primarily focused on social responsibility. The second category, “Location” (B), was used by Guthrie et al. [37], Dumay et al. [30], and Massaro et al. [25]. It relates to the nation of research. Unlike these earlier research, we chose to classify our chosen studies by specific regions or countries, leaving the five continents as broad features. This was carried out because, unlike what happened, for example, with Dumay et al. [30] in their SLR on Integrated Reporting, we did not anticipate seeing a sizable quantity of publications from particular nations. But as we were coding, we made note of the precise nations in which the investigations were conducted, when applicable. Using this unit of analysis, we may determine which continents have produced the majority of the literature on management accountants’ roles in sustainability reporting and accounting. The third category, “Jurisdiction” (C), indicates whether the literature on the subject being studied focuses on a single organisation, a single country (national), or a number of countries (supra-national). Based on seven criteria, Guthrie et al.’s initial classification approach [37] was used to create this group. Depending on their focus, the qualities “national” and “supra-national” in our article are further divided into “general,” “industry,” and “organisational.” Papers without an empirical foundation, including commentary and literature reviews (supra-national general) or studies focusing on particular countries, regions, and networks (national general), are included in the “general” category. This unit of analysis makes it clear if the majority of the literature in this stream is commentary on the subject or focuses on particular sectors, countries, or organisational contexts. The fourth category, which is called organisational focus (D) and was also taken from Guthrie et al. [37], adds to our knowledge of whether and how the characteristics of particular organisations, such as publicly traded companies, public or private organisations, and not-for-profit organisations, can affect management accountants’ involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting. In contrast to Guthrie et al. [37], we have not distinguished between large organisations and SMEs within the private sector; instead, we have grouped them under the same characteristic. This is because we do not anticipate a sizable proportion of articles to refer to large companies rather than SMEs. The many research techniques that the writers have used are listed in the fifth category, “Research method” (E). The taxonomy used is based on the ones put forth by Guthrie et al. [37] and Dumay et al. [30], but it has been expanded to include publications that use both qualitative and quantitative research methods (such as surveys and interviews) by adding the attribute “mixed methods.” The five categories that have been discussed thus far were taken from earlier SLRs, whereas the next five were created on the fly. These upcoming analysis sections share the goal of delving deeper into the function of management accountants in sustainability reporting and accounting. The sustainability definition used in the publications under analysis is referenced in the sixth category (F). Since the concept of sustainability includes the social, environmental, and economic aspects—also known as the “triple bottom line” [38, 39]—we use this unit of analysis to clarify which aspects of sustainability the individual studies focus on. The internal or external direction of sustainability accounting and reporting is the subject of the seventh category (G), which we refer to as the “Sustainability Accounting and Reporting Focus.” Three categories apply to it: both, internal, and exterior qualities. Previous research indicates that sustainability information might be provided with the intention of “fulfilling stakeholder expectations and serving information requirements by external parties” [7] (p. 832) with reference to the external focus of sustainability accounting and reporting. The “outside-in” approach to sustainable accounting is referred to by Burritt and Schaltegger [7] because its primary goal is the sharing of sustainability information that is helpful to different external stakeholders. Sustainability accounting is alternatively viewed as “the process for information collection and communication to support internal decision making to implement corporate sustainability” [7] when it is approached from an inside perspective. The reason the authors refer to this approach as the “inside-out” approach is that the organisations are interested in using sustainability measurement and management to define and implement their strategy; in fact, managers are the primary recipients of sustainability reports and use the information to inform their decision-making. The third characteristic has to do with the simultaneous emphasis on internal measurement and management of sustainability information in addition to external disclosure. Through this unit of analysis, we can determine whether sustainability accounting and reporting is an organisational practice focused on meeting the needs of external parties by disclosing sustainability information, or whether it is focused on managing sustainability to assist managers in implementing a company strategy. The current and foreseeable role of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting is discussed in categories eight (H) and nine (I). First, we ascertain if and to what degree management accountants are actively engaged in sustainable accounting and reporting by concentrating on their present involvement. In a similar vein, the study that follows focuses on prospective and future engagement to determine whether and how much management accountants should be involved in sustainability reporting and accounting in the future. The management accountant’s function in sustainability reporting and accounting is denoted by the tenth category (L). The terms “bean counter” and “business partner” are the two primary paradigms used in management accounting literature to characterise the work of management accountants inside organisations. A management accountant who does “recording, data inputting, and reporting tasks” [40] (p. 1188) is identified in the former, frequently carrying the derogatory label of a “narrow accountant” [41] (p. 437). On the other hand, a management accountant with “the willingness and ability to provide more added value to the management (decision-making and control) of the companies” [42] (p. 100) is linked to the business partner archetype. As a result, we chose to use the characteristics “other,” “business partner,” and “bean counter.” The studies that do not specifically mention the first two archetypes are identified by the third feature. It is important to emphasise that, in order to prevent misunderstandings that might skew our results, we based our coding on what was expressly stated in the publications. Because it can assist us determine the kinds of roles management accountants play in sustainability accounting and reporting, this unit of analysis is especially significant. For instance, if management accountants are seen to be business partners, then the management team will lean on them to offer invaluable assistance. As a result, we can comprehend whether and how management accountants can support the adoption of sustainability-focused decision processes within businesses as well as the spread of sustainability accounting and reporting. We used the Krippendorff’s alpha (K-alpha) inter-coder reliability test as a reliability measure, per Massaro et al. [19], to guarantee reliability. Researchers can evaluate the quality of coding and minimise errors and personal bias by using reliability measures. Furthermore, they can assist researchers in demonstrating that their data “mean the same thing to everyone who uses them, and (a) have been generated with all conceivable precautions in place against known pollutants, distortions and biases, intentional or accidental” [43] (p. 267). As per the K-alpha test, authors are advised to “consider variables with reliabilities between 0.667 and a = 0.800 only for drawing tentative conclusions” [43] (p. 325) and “rely on variables with reliability above a = 0.800”. The 23 publications were separately coded by two authors using different Excel files. The programmes “R” [44] and “irr” [45] were employed to test the consistency of our coding. All analysis units had a K-alpha greater than 0.800, indicating the reliability of the results; any remaining coding discrepancy was resolved by the third author.  Following Massaro et al. [19], we examined the validity of the literature review in this phase of the SLR to confirm the accuracy of the results obtained thus far. Specifically, we confirmed the internal and external validity of our SLR. Concerning internal validity, we examined a preliminary version of the analytical framework comprising five categories (A, B, C, D, and E) on five studies that were picked at random from our dataset to confirm that the units of analysis we selected produced reliable results. From this limited sample of papers, we also determined the components required for a more thorough analysis. Five new units of analysis (F, G, H, I, and L) were added to the framework to give us more in-depth knowledge about the relevant literature. The SLR method’s implementation is “fluid,” as evidenced by the fact that we broadened the analytical framework after examining five papers [19] (p. 772). Because we were aware that a “initial analysis uncovers new and relevant attributes,” we included new units of analysis in this instance [19]. Lastly, we coded every publication using the analytical framework. In terms of external validity—which is the potential for the study’s findings to be indicative of this line of inquiry—we did not restrict the Scopus search to any particular kind of document. In accordance with the Scopus taxonomy, we searched for every kind of publication, including book chapters, editorials, brief surveys, sessions, papers in press, and more. As a result, even if there isn’t much research on this particular subject, our dataset is thought to be reflective of the body of knowledge on the subject. The previous sections’ literature assessment demonstrates that, even with the small number of publications and their uneven publication across different journals, there is a growing body of academic work examining the role management accountants play in sustainability reporting and accounting. Oceania is the most researched region geographically, indicating the region’s great interest and ongoing contribution to the advancement of research on the measurement, management, and disclosure of non-financial capitals and intangibles. To gain a more comprehensive understanding, it would be worthwhile to carry out a more thorough examination of the European region, which has only been the subject of a limited number of empirical studies thus far. Additionally, it would be intriguing to expand the analysis to include China and the United States, which have not yet been thoroughly examined. Our review also emphasises the paucity of empirical studies, which seems to support the notion that, despite the field’s acknowledged importance, more research is still needed on this subject. The analysis of the literature in this area demonstrates how little is known about the function of management accountants in sustainability reporting and accounting in both public and private enterprises. Publicly traded enterprises and non-profit organisations, which ought to be at the forefront of sustainability discussions by nature, have not yet been the subject of any research. Our results show that a large number of research utilising our dataset concentrate on the measurement and management of sustainability information, and consequently, on the usefulness of sustainability information for organising, managing, and making decisions. However, compared to non-accountants, individuals who are often in charge of these duties and responsibilities—management accountants—are less involved in sustainability accounting and reporting. More precisely, rather than actually finding pertinent data and creating information, their function mostly entails regulating sustainability information flows between top management and the internal providers of this information. As noted by some writers, given that typical management accounting systems are insufficient for delivering sustainability information, this may be related to the ad hoc development of measurement and management tools, within specific departments, to address sustainability challenges. Furthermore, our research demonstrates that management accountants’ minimal involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting is not influenced by the industry these companies operate in or the organisational features of the company where they work. Since they are the ones with the necessary accounting competencies to support the spread of sustainability accounting and reporting within organisations, management accountants are expected to become more involved in sustainability accounting and reporting in the future, despite their current limited involvement. However, the ability of management accountants to get sustainability-related competencies and skills appears to be a prerequisite for their possible future engagement as well; colleges may be crucial in this regard. In conclusion, this review provides some insights into the taxonomy associated with the function of management accountants in this domain. The appropriate way to describe management accountants’ potential or actual contribution to sustainability reporting and accounting is still up for debate. The term “gatekeepers,” which is relatively new, has emerged in the accounting literature and is receiving some attention. Traditional archetypes developed in the accounting literature on the role of management accountants, such as bean counter and business partner, are not employed nor, perhaps, are they suitable to describe their role in sustainability accounting and reporting. The major goal of this part is to critically evaluate the SLR’s main results.” We provide additional commentary on the state of the literature today and outline potential directions for future research that result from our analysis in the sections that follow. The role of education in sustainability accounting and reporting for upcoming management accountants, the harmonisation and standardisation of sustainability information and its implications for management accountants, and the involvement and role of management accountants in sustainability accounting and reporting are all topics of discussion. The SLR demonstrates that management accountants’ present participation in sustainability reporting and accounting is, for the most part, minimal. Nonetheless, every article in our dataset points to management accountants’ potentially pertinent future involvement in sustainability, indicating that management accountants’ high level of involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting is required and ought to be encouraged.

3. CONCLUSION

Ultimately, we maintain that further study on this topic would add to and clarify the little body of knowledge already available on the subject of management accountants’ roles in sustainable accounting and reporting. The findings of our SLR have led us to identify a few theoretically intriguing research directions that could help us better understand management accountants’ roles and involvement in sustainability accounting and reporting, as well as how they may affect managers’ adoption of sustainable practices. There might be applications for some of these study avenues. For example, the ability of management accountants to expand their traditional areas of expertise and the contribution of accounting education to enhancing the sustainability knowledge of upcoming generations of management accountants will be key factors in determining how relevantly involved they can become. As such, educational institutions may find the research findings useful in developing their graduate and master’s programmes. In addition, the outcomes of the SLR would motivate and inspire management accountants to innovate and get involved in sustainability by integrating sustainability into corporate management accounting and reporting systems. This paper contains constraints like any other research work. The conclusions drawn from the data analysis and decisions made throughout the composition of this evaluation are the only ones that can be applied. To enable a replication and validation of the conducted methods, we meticulously documented every stage. Furthermore, in order to compare and debate the findings of other datasets, future literature reviews might examine other scientific databases, including Web of Science. Lastly, as our interpretation is what determines the conclusions of this work, we accept responsibility for the interpretation as well as any errors or omissions that may have occurred.

REFERENCES

1. De Villiers, C.J.; Rouse, P.; Kerr, J. A new conceptual model of influences driving sustainability based on case evidence of the integration of corporate sustainability management control and reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 136, 78–85.
2. Henri, J.-F.; Journeault, M. Eco-control: The influence of management control systems on environmental and economic performance. Account. Organ. Soc. 2010, 35, 63–80.
3. Lueg, R.; Radlach, R. Managing sustainable development with management control systems: A literature review. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 158–171.
4. Schaltegger, S. Sustainability as driver of corporate success. Control. Z. 2010, 22, 238–243.
5. Schaltegger, S.; Sturm, A. Eco-Efficiency through Eco-Control; VDF: Zurich, Switzerland, 1995.
6. Burritt, R.L.; Schaltegger, S. Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend? Account. Audit. Account. J. 2010, 23, 829–846.
7. Mohammad Musah Ibrahim & Munawar Rahman (2023). Brand Wrath and “The Negative Side of the Brand”: An Overview and Potential Research Focus. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):533-543.
8. Brenda Giray, Vargas Coutino-Gonzalez & Nicolas Reyes-Castillo (2023). A Systematic Literature Review on Risk Management in Small and Medium Scale Industries. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):544-549.
9. Sadia Asif, Shifa Mishta Shifat & Pritam Agnihotri (2023). Interconnection of Artificial Intelligence and Sustainability: A Study of Green Human Resource Management. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):550-555.
10. Salah Mahdi & Muhammad Ibrahim Juber (2023). The Connection among Audit Quality and Modifications in Iraq. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):556-563.
11. Maryam Sabah Salah Mahdi & Ali Jalil Mahadi (2023). Evaluation and Future Directions of Organization’ Human Resources Management Performance. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):564-570.
12. Chiucchi, M.S. Intellectual capital accounting in action: Enhancing learning through interventionist research. J. Intellect. Cap. 2013, 14, 48–68.
13. Emsley, D. Restructuring the management accounting function: A note on the effect of role involvement on innovativeness. Manag. Account. Res. 2005, 16, 157–177.
14. Ma, Y.; Tayles, M. On the emergence of strategic management accounting: An institutional perspective. Account. Bus. Res. 2009, 39, 473–495.
15. Goretzki, L.; Strauss, E.; Weber, J. An institutional perspective on the changes in management accountants’ professional role. Manag. Account. Res. 2013, 24, 41–63.
16. Hyvönen, T.; Järvinen, J.; Pellinen, J. Dynamics of creating a new role for business controllers. Nord. J. Bus. 2015, 64, 21–39.
17. Vaivio, J. Mobilizing local knowledge with ‘Provocative’ non-financial measures. Eur. Account. Rev. 2004, 13, 39–71.
18. Chiucchi, M.S. Measuring and reporting intellectual capital. Lessons learnt from some interventionist research projects. J. Intellect. Cap. 2013, 14, 395–413.
19. Giuliani, M.; Marasca, S. Construction and valuation of intellectual capital: A case study. J. Intellect. Cap. 2011, 12, 377–391.
20. Giuliani, M.; Chiucchi, M.S. Guess who’s coming to dinner: The case of IC reporting in Italy. J. Manag. Gov. 2018, 23, 403–433.
21. Mio, C.; Marco, F.; Pauluzzo, R. Internal application of IR principles: Generali’s Internal Integrated Reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 204–218.
22. Sustainability and the role of the management accountant. Res. Exec. Summ. Ser. 2011, 7, 1–14.
23. Massaro, M.; Dumay, J.; Guthrie, J. On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Account. Audit. Acc. J. 2016, 29, 767–801.
24. Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. Using qualitative research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base. Manag. Decis. 2006, 44, 213–227.
25. Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008.
26. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222.
27. Alvesson, M.; Deetz, S. Doing Critical Management Research; Sage: London, UK, 2000.
28. Secundo, G.; Ndou, V.; Del Vecchio, P.; De Pascale, G. Knowledge management in entrepreneurial universities: A structured literature review and avenue for future research agenda. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 3226–3257.
29. Massaro, M.; Dumay, J.; Garlatti, A. Public sector knowledge management: A structured literature review. J. Knowl. Manag. 2015, 19, 530–558.
30. Traxler, A.A.; Schrack, D.; Greiling, D. Sustainability reporting and management control—A systematic exploratory literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 122725.
31. Ahrens, T.; Chapman, C.S. Occupational identity of MAs in Britain and Germany. Eur. Account. Rev. 2020, 9, 477–498.
32. Harzing, A.-W. A preliminary test of Google Scholar as a source for citation data: A longitudinal study of Nobel prize winners. Science 2013, 94, 1057–1075.
33. Harzing, A.-W. A longitudinal study of Google Scholar coverage between 2012 and 2013. Science 2014, 98, 565–575.
34. Dumay, J.; Bernardi, C.; Guthrie, J.; DeMartini, P. Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. Acc. Forum 2016, 40, 166–185.
35. Cuozzo, B.; Dumay, J.; Palmaccio, M.; Lombardi, R. Intellectual capital disclosure: A structured literature review. J. Intellect. Cap. 2017, 18, 9–28.
36. Jones, M.J. Accounting for the environment: Towards a theoretical perspective for environmental accounting and reporting. Account. Forum 2010, 34, 123–138.
37. Ballou, B.; Casey, R.J.; Grenier, J.H.; Heitger, D.L. Exploring the Strategic Integration of Sustainability Initiatives: Opportunities for Accounting Research. Account. Horiz. 2012, 26, 265–288.
38. Tilt, C.A. Corporate Responsibility, Accounting and Accountants. In Professionals’ Perspectives of Corporate Social Responsibility; Idowu, S.O., Filho, W.L., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 11–32.
39. Fraser, M. “Fleshing out” an engagement with a social accounting technology. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2012, 25, 508–534.