trends in entrepreneurship education a systematic literature review

Trends in entrepreneurship education: a systematic literature review

Purpose: This systematic literature review provides an overview of the entrepreneurship education research, by outlining the recent trends of research on entrepreneurship education. This research study has two primary goals. First one is the identification and categorization of the entrepreneurship education in scientific research by providing sequential distribution of published articles, and the research output of scientific journals, authors, and different countries. Another goal is to recognize the themes of research that are most developed and examined by the researchers.

Design/methodolog ...  Show more

Design/methodology/approach: This research systematically examines published scientific documents on entrepreneurship education taken from Scopus database ranging from 1950 to 2021. A total of 1,531 articles were selected for final analysis after a systematic process of elimination based on specific criteria. VOSviewer [visualization of similarities viewer] was used for bibliographic coupling, keyword co-occurrence, distance based mapping, clustering, and co-citation analysis of articles, countries, journals, and authors.

Findings: The systematic literature review revealed that in the last 15 years, scientific literature has shown a variation in direction of research in this area. The literature has moved from focusing on traditional means of entrepreneurship education towards more subtle and output-oriented factors of entrepreneurship education such as intentions, motivation, attitude, and behavior. The most popular topic among researchers and with the greater number of published papers is entrepreneurial intentions, and it is closely related to practice, innovation, and entrepreneurial learning.

Originality/value: This is one of the few systematic literature reviews on entrepreneurship education, and perhaps the only systematic review that analyzes literature on entrepreneurship education from 1950 to 2021 with VOSviewer analysis techniques.

Published abstract. Show less

Authors: Shabbir, Muhammad Salman ; Batool, Fatima ; Mahmood, Arshad

Published: Bradford, England, Emerald Group Publishing, 2022

Resource type: Article

Journal title: Higher education, skills and work-based learning

Journal volume: 12

Journal number: 6

Journal date: 2022

Pages: pp. 1040-1056

ISSN: 2042-3896

Peer reviewed: Yes

Document number: TD/TNC 151.799

Report a broken link

Leave your email and we'll notify you when the requested link is available again.

Subjects: Higher education Teaching and learning Innovation Research

Keywords: Trend Entrepreneurship Systematic review Literature review Educational research Analysis

Download files

Get citation.

NCVER Author-Date style

• Citation only
• Full record

Scan this QR code using your mobile or use the below permanent URL for this page

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, entrepreneurship education: systematic literature review and future research directions.

World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development

ISSN : 2042-5961

Article publication date: 28 June 2021

Issue publication date: 7 September 2021

The purpose of the study is to further understanding of entrepreneurship education, highlighting current trends and directions for further research.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper used systematic literature review of published articles to collect, evaluate, and interpret entrepreneurship education literature from selected databases between 2009 and 2019. The study reviewed 90 articles from the entrepreneurship education literature. There are several different topics that have been analyzed; with the most researched topic being analyzed was focusing on entrepreneurship education development.

Entrepreneurship education programs have become an increasingly important focus of attention in recent years. This paper deeply investigates the literature on entrepreneurship education to help entrepreneurship education decision makers to develop better solutions.

Research limitations/implications

It must be noted that this study has some limitations, which suggest avenues for further research. In reviewing the articles, the study used only four databases and only considered papers published between 2009 and 2019. Other studies may include more databases and a longer time frame.

Originality/value

Regarding the theories most used in the reviewed articles, TPB and social learning theory (SLT) were most used in relation to entrepreneurship education. This shows that researchers were focusing on the influence of entrepreneurship education in relation to the entrepreneurial intention, behavior and attitude of the individuals.

• Entrepreneurship education
• Systematic literature review
• Entrepreneurial learning

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to the thank Center for Research and Development of SIMAD University for funding this research project through Grant No: SU-DA-RGS-2019-005.

Mohamed, N.A. and Sheikh Ali, A.Y. (2021), "Entrepreneurship education: systematic literature review and future research directions", World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development , Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 644-661. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-07-2020-0084

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

E-learning in Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Literature Review

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Adoption of mobile learning in the university context: Systematic literature review

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation School of Industrial Engineering, Universidad Señor de Sipán, Chiclayo, Perú

Roles Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Centro de investigaciones, Institución Universitaria Escolme, Medellín, Colombia

Roles Formal analysis, Resources, Software, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Coordinación de Investigaciones e Innovación, Fundación Universitaria Católica del Norte, Medellin, Colombia

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Facultad de Ciencias Económicas Administrativas y Contables, Fundación Universitaria Católica del Norte, Medellín, Antioquía, Colombia

Roles Investigation, Software, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Instituto de Investigación y Estudios de la Mujer, Universidad Ricardo Palma, Lima, Peru

• Alejandro Valencia-Arias, 
• Sebastian Cardona-Acevedo, 
• Sergio Gómez-Molina, 
• Rosa María Vélez Holguín, 
• Jackeline Valencia

• Published: June 7, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

The study on the adoption of mobile learning in university education reveals a growing interest in mobile technologies to improve the learning process; both the acceptance and rejection of these tools among students have been analyzed. However, there are gaps in the research that require a deeper exploration of the factors that influence the adoption and use of these technologies. Understanding these aspects is crucial to optimize mobile learning strategies and improve the educational experience in the university setting. The objective is to examine research trends regarding the topic. PRISMA-2020 is used in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The results show the questionnaires as the main collection instruments; geographical contexts show that it has been researched predominantly in Asia; The studies have focused on university students; the most applied theories are TAM and UTAUT; and latent variables such as behavioral intention and attitude. The conclusions summarize the trends and patterns observed in the reviewed literature, as well as the research gaps identified, providing a solid foundation for future research and highlighting the importance of addressing this issue in the current context of digital education. The systematic review identifies key models and factors in the adoption of mobile learning in university settings, revealing both theoretical and practical implications. Furthermore, this text provides practical guidance for selecting effective data collection tools and making informed educational and policy decisions. However, it acknowledges limitations such as potential publication and language bias in the search process.

Citation: Valencia-Arias A, Cardona-Acevedo S, Gómez-Molina S, Vélez Holguín RM, Valencia J (2024) Adoption of mobile learning in the university context: Systematic literature review. PLoS ONE 19(6): e0304116. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116

Editor: Eric Amankwa, Presbyterian University College, GHANA

Received: February 13, 2024; Accepted: May 6, 2024; Published: June 7, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Valencia-Arias et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10655493

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

The integration of mobile learning platforms in the university context is a significant topic of interest in contemporary educational research. With the growing prevalence of mobile devices and digital technologies, these platforms have been adopted to improve accessibility and flexibility of learning. Mobile learning is the use of mobile devices to facilitate the teaching and learning process. It has transformed educational dynamics by allowing students to access educational resources at any time and place [ 1 ]. This modality of education not only offers flexibility in terms of time and location but also provides opportunities for personalized learning, peer collaboration, and active student participation [ 2 ].

The acceptance and adoption of mobile learning among students and teachers is a crucial research topic that has generated a significant body of literature. Theoretical models have been proposed to understand the factors that influence students’ intention to use mobile learning. These models highlight elements such as previous experience with technology, perceived usefulness, and ease of use [ 3 ]. Recent research has also explored how factors such as mobile self-efficacy and 21st-century skills influence the willingness of teachers to adopt mobile learning technologies in their pedagogical practices [ 4 ].

Empirical analysis has identified reasons and perceptions that influence the adoption of mobile learning applications among students [ 5 ]. Investigating the changing dynamics and emerging contexts in the use of mobile learning is crucial, particularly in light of external events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, to understand students’ response to and experience with educational technologies [ 6 ].

The integration of mobile devices and digital technologies in university learning environments has made mobile learning an increasingly popular topic. This is due to its potential to improve the accessibility, flexibility, and effectiveness of learning. Mobile learning allows students to access educational resources conveniently and personalize their learning experience anytime and anywhere. Its adoption is important because it can transform traditional teaching methods and facilitate the creation of more dynamic and interactive learning experiences [ 7 ].

Recent research has investigated different aspects of mobile learning adoption in the university context. These studies have analyzed the factors that affect students’ perception of mobile learning and its impact on enhancing learning. For instance, researchers have analyzed mobile learning adoption models that consider student perceptions as key determinants for improving the learning process [ 8 ]. Additionally, studies have identified socioeconomic and cultural factors that influence students’ attitudes towards the use of mobile devices in learning, highlighting the importance of understanding contextual differences in the adoption of these technologies [ 9 ].

Understanding the factors that influence the adoption of mobile learning systems among university students is crucial for designing effective implementation and promotion strategies. Previous studies have examined the impact of theoretical models, such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the SOR (Stimulus-Organism-Response) Model, on enhancing learning through mobile learning [ 10 ]. In 2023, the adoption of mobile learning systems in the Indonesian educational context was examined, emphasizing the significance of cultural and contextual factors in their implementation [ 11 ]. These studies underscore the importance of researching and understanding the adoption processes of mobile learning in the university context to optimize its potential as an educational tool.

The topic analyzed in this study has gaps that require attention and systematic analysis. Although various systematic reviews have been carried out in the field of mobile learning adoption, there is a need to delve into current trends and the factors that influence the acceptance and use of these technologies in specific university environments. For instance, while studies like Kumar and Chand [ 12 ] and Alsharida et al. [ 13 ] have explored the general adoption of mobile learning, further research is needed to examine how factors such as technostress and compatibility can impact the adoption of mobile learning among foreign language learners, as suggested by Wang et al. (insert year here). These gaps in the literature justify conducting a systematic review in 2022 that integrates and critically analyzes the available evidence. This will allow for the identification of emerging research areas and contribute to the theoretical and practical development of mobile learning adoption in specific university contexts. The purpose of this study is to analyze research trends in the adoption of mobile learning in the university context from 2013 to 2024. The following questions will guide the research:

• RQ1: What are the primary data collection instruments utilized in articles regarding the implementation of mobile learning in university settings?
• RQ2: In what geographical contexts has the implementation of mobile learning in university settings been studied?
• RQ3: What are the various population segments that have been the focus of research on the implementation of mobile learning in university settings?
• RQ4: What psychobehavioral theories are used to understand the adoption of mobile learning in the university context?
• RQ5: What are the primary latent variables or constructs used to comprehend the adoption of mobile learning in the university context?

This study compiles and synthesizes various theories, variables, and models used to understand the adoption of mobile learning in university educational environments. The aim is to identify predominant trends and approaches in research and offer a comprehensive vision of the factors that influence the acceptance and use of mobile learning in different university contexts worldwide. The study provides a solid foundation for building a unified mobile learning adoption model.

This study aims to identify the countries and populations that have been researched in this field. Recognizing geographical and demographic variations in the implementation and acceptance of this educational modality is important. The goal is to develop a conceptual framework based on the unified model that is applicable and relevant in various cultural and socioeconomic contexts. This integrative approach enables us to advance the theoretical understanding of mobile learning adoption in higher education and inform more effective and contextualized educational implications.

2. Methodology

Exploratory research was conducted using secondary sources. The methodology was based on the parameters and guidelines established by the PRISMA-2020 declaration, which provides a rigorous and transparent framework for conducting and presenting systematic reviews. Relevant studies were carefully selected, and key data were extracted to explore the factors that influence the adoption of mobile learning in specific university environments. This allowed for the identification of trends, research gaps, and areas of interest for future research in this emerging field of digital education.

2.1. Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria are divided into two sections. The first section includes inclusion criteria that mainly focus on titles and keywords as metadata. Specifically, it looks for the combination of terms such as ’mobile learning’ and ’university’ in various forms of citation, including variations such as ’m-learning’ and ’mobile learning’. These criteria allow for an exhaustive and precise search for relevant studies that address the adoption of mobile learning in university environments, ensuring the inclusion of the most relevant literature for analysis.

The exclusion process involves three phases. The first phase excludes all records with erroneous indexing or those not directly related to the study’s topic. The second phase of exclusion aims to eliminate all documents for which full text access is not available. This phase applies only to Systematic Literature Reviews since the review in question focuses exclusively on the analysis of metadata. Finally, the third phase, the Exclusion phase, is responsible for discarding documents that do not present a clearly defined or explicit mobile learning adoption model. These exclusion criteria ensure the rigor and quality of the ongoing systematic literature review’s study selection process.

2.2. Source of information

The Scopus and Web of Science databases were chosen as the primary sources of information. Scopus and Web of Science are considered the main bibliometric databases today due to their wide coverage and reputation in the academic and scientific fields. Research, such as that conducted by [ 14 ], has compared the quality and coverage of different bibliometric databases, concluding that Scopus and Web of Science are two of the most complete and reliable platforms available. Similarly, Tennant [ 15 ] conducted a study comparing the quality and coverage of different bibliometric databases, contributing to the understanding of the scope of platforms such as Scopus and Web of Science in the field of scientific knowledge collection. Although it is important to acknowledge that no database is entirely comprehensive, both Scopus and Web of Science provide a broad selection of academic and scientific journals, along with advanced search and analysis tools, making them ideal options for conducting a systematic literature review in a university setting.

2.3. Search strategy

To facilitate the search for relevant studies in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, two specialized search equations were designed. These equations were adapted to the defined inclusion criteria and the search characteristics of each platform. They were meticulously developed to ensure comprehensiveness and precision in identifying relevant articles on the adoption of mobile learning in the university context. The search equations were materialized on January 30, 2024, taking advantage of the advanced search functionalities of both databases to maximize the collection of relevant literature in the field of study.

For the Scopus database: (TITLE (("mobile learning") OR (mlearning) OR (m-learning)) AND TITLE (student OR scholar OR undergraduate OR learner) AND TITLE ((adoption) OR (use) OR (acceptance) OR tam OR tpb OR utaut)) OR (KEY (("mobile learning") OR (mlearning) OR (m-learning)) AND KEY (student OR scholar OR undergraduate OR learner) AND KEY ((adoption) OR (use) OR (acceptance) OR tam OR tpb OR utaut))

For the Web of Science database: (TI = ((“mobile learning”) OR (mlearning) OR (m-learning)) AND TI = (student OR scholar OR undergraduate OR learner) AND TI = ((adoption) OR (use) OR (acceptance) OR TAM OR TPB OR UTAUT)) OR (AK = ((“mobile learning”) OR (mlearning) OR (m-learning)) AND AK = (student OR scholar OR undergraduate OR learner) AND AK = ((adoption) OR (use) OR (acceptance) OR TAM OR TPB OR UTAUT))

2.4. Data management

The study utilized the Microsoft Excel® tool to extract, store, and process information from selected databases. This tool provided an organized structure to record relevant data from identified studies, allowing for efficient subsequent analysis. Each article obtained from the databases underwent an extensive and thorough full-text review to identify its relevance, contributions, and findings regarding the adoption of mobile learning in university settings. This systematic and detailed approach ensured completeness and quality in the collection and analysis of scientific literature relevant to the study’s topic.

2.5. Selection process

Following the PRISMA 2020 statement guidelines, it is crucial to utilize internal automatic classifiers to facilitate the systematic literature review study selection process [ 16 ]. This practice helps to mitigate the risk of missing studies or incorrect classifications when applying inclusion and exclusion criteria more efficiently. Additionally, it is essential to validate these classifiers internally or externally to understand and control the risk of bias in study selection. In this study, we utilized an automation tool created in Microsoft Excel® as an internal classifier. All researchers involved in the study independently applied this tool during the study selection process, using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This approach helped to minimize the risk of missing studies or incorrect classifications by converging the results and carefully reviewing the extracted metadata.

Furthermore, we used a specific Microsoft Excel® tool to homogenize all the articles extracted from both sources of information. This facilitated the process of excluding duplicates and applying the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This ensures clear and unambiguous identification of the texts that will be analyzed in-depth for this systematic literature review. It guarantees consistency in the selection process mentioned earlier and contributes to the study’s integrity and validity by minimizing the risk of missing relevant studies or making incorrect classifications.

2.6. Data collection process

As per the guidelines of [ 16 ], it is essential to specify the methods employed for collecting data from reports in a systematic literature review. In this study on the adoption of mobile learning in the university context, we used Microsoft Excel® as an automated tool for data collection from the selected databases, Scopus and Web of Science. The authors acted as reviewers for data validation, with each author conducting an independent evaluation to ensure an objective and thorough assessment of the information extracted from the studies. Subsequently, the authors collectively confirmed the data, comparing and contrasting the results obtained by each reviewer. The process was developed until achieving absolute convergence in the results, ensuring the reliability and integrity of the data collected in the literature review systematics.

2.7. Data elements

The objective was to gather data from all articles that met the research objective, which required adherence to the specialized search equation created for each database. This involved searching for results related to the implementation of mobile learning in the university context. The selected texts covered relevant measurements, time points, and analyses. However, if any information was missing or unclear, it was excluded as ’non-relevant texts’ since they do not contribute to the understanding of knowledge on the topic. The purpose and scope of the research were considered to ensure consistency, allowing for the inclusion of significant and relevant results for the analysis of the adoption of mobile learning in the university context.

2.8. Assessment of the risk of bias of the study

The process of assessing the risk of bias in the included studies was a collaborative effort among all authors. The authors used the same automated Microsoft Excel® tool for data collection and evaluation of included studies. Each author independently assessed the studies using predefined criteria to identify potential sources of bias. The use of this automated tool standardized the evaluation process, ensuring the quality and integrity of the results. This comprehensive and rigorous approach contributed to the validity and reliability of the systematic literature review on the adoption of mobile learning in the university context.

2.9. Measures of effect

It is relevant to specify that the effect measures traditionally used in primary research, such as the risk ratio or the difference in means, are not applicable in the analysis of secondary research sources. In this study, variables related to the data collection instruments, the geographical context of application of the study, the target population, the psychobehavioral theory used and latent variables within each evaluated model are analyzed. These aspects are addressed through the use of Microsoft Excel® to organize and analyze the data, as well as the use of VOSviewer® to determine thematic associations between the selected studies, this allows a deeper and more holistic understanding of the adoption of mobile learning in the university context, expanding the scope beyond conventional effect measures and providing a comprehensive view of the factors that influence this educational phenomenon.

2.10. Synthesis methods

It was established that all the studies included in the analysis had to be open access to ensure the availability of the full text and facilitate a thorough examination of each article. The data extracted from the selected studies were then stored in Microsoft Excel®. This tool provided a centralized platform to systematically tabulate and organize information, allowing for the comparison of study characteristics, preparation of data for presentation and synthesis, and efficient and coherent display of results. The use of Microsoft Excel® as a data management tool contributed to the rigorous organization and structured analysis of the information collected in this systematic review.

2.11. Assessment of reporting bias

When conducting a systematic literature review, it is important to be aware of potential biases towards certain synonyms found in thesauri, such as the IEEE. These biases may influence inclusion criteria, search strategy, and data collection, which could result in the exclusion of relevant studies that use alternative terms to describe the concept of mobile learning adoption. Additionally, excluding texts without a defined adoption model may lead to the omission of valuable information that could contribute to the understanding and construction of knowledge on the subject. Therefore, it is essential to take steps to mitigate the impact of these potential biases on the systematic literature review process.

2.12. Certainty evaluation

As part of this systematic investigation, we comprehensively and exhaustively evaluated the certainty of the body of evidence. We applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to each study to determine the suitability of the selected articles. Additionally, we conducted an individual evaluation of each article to identify any possible methodological biases or limitations of the study. These aspects were mentioned in both the description of the methodological designs and the discussion of the study’s limitations. This contributed to a comprehensive evaluation of the certainty of the body of evidence, ensuring the transparency and reliability of the results obtained in the systematic review of literature on the adoption of mobile learning in university contexts (see Fig 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Own elaboration based on Scopus and Web of Science.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116.g001

In this systematic literature review, the selection and exclusion of studies were carried out in several stages. First, we conducted an exhaustive search in selected information sources to identify relevant studies. Then, we eliminated duplicate records to ensure data integrity. Finally, we proceeded with the selection and exclusion of studies based on pre-defined criteria. Three exclusion phases were carried out, applying predefined criteria to discard studies that did not meet the research objectives and scope. After this rigorous selection process, 44 articles were included as pertinent and relevant to address the issue of mobile learning adoption in the university context.

The results section provides a comprehensive overview of the findings obtained from the systematic analysis of the relevant literature. This section presents the main emerging results of the review in an organized and structured manner. It addresses key aspects such as the instruments used for data collection, the geographical contexts where the phenomenon has been studied, the population segments under investigation, the theoretical models used, and the latent variables or constructs identified.

This systematic literature review examines the adoption of mobile learning in university environments, following the parameters established by the PRISMA-2020 declaration. The summary of the articles included in the study is presented in Table 1 , which includes only those that passed the inclusion phase and the three exclusion phases. This summary provides a clear and transparent understanding of the evidence base used in the analysis of the adoption of mobile learning in the university environment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116.t001

Table 2 details the identification and classification of the data collection instruments used in the included studies. These instruments are essential for understanding how information related to the adoption of mobile learning is collected in the university context. The analysis reveals that questionnaires and surveys are the main data collection instruments used by researchers to gather information on the adoption of mobile learning in university environments. This provides a clearer understanding of the phenomenon.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116.t002

The study provides a comprehensive review of the geographical contexts in which various populations have been analyzed in relation to the adoption of mobile learning. Fig 2 presents these geographical contexts. The research highlights those Asian countries, including China, Turkey, Iran, India, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia, among others, have been the most prominent in this field. Similarly, the topic has been extensively studied in Europe, with research conducted in countries such as Sweden, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Romania. This information offers a global perspective on the geographical distribution of research on mobile learning adoption in universities, highlighting worldwide areas of interest.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116.g002

In addition to the geographical analysis, the study provides context about the population that the different authors have researched to understand the determining factors of mobile learning adoption. This context is presented in Fig 3 . Research on the adoption of mobile learning in the university setting has primarily focused on university students in general, as well as students in various classifications. This suggests a broad and varied approach to understanding the topic. The information provides a clear vision of the interest groups in this field of research.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116.g003

Fig 4 outlines the theoretical frameworks and psychobehavioral models utilized by researchers to forecast the factors that influence the adoption of mobile learning. The authors predominantly use the Technology Acceptance Theory (TAM) followed by others such as the Unified Model of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Proprietary Models, Extended UTAUT, and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). This highlights the diversity of theoretical approaches used in research on the adoption of mobile learning in the university setting, contributing to a more complete understanding of this phenomenon.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116.g004

Fig 5 presents the main latent variables, factors, or constructs that different authors have adopted to understand the adoption of mobile learning among university populations in various geographical contexts. Researchers exploring the adoption of mobile learning in university settings have identified several key variables, including Behavioral Intention, Attitude, Expectation of Effort, Current Use, Compatibility, Confirmation, Academic Relevance, and Commitment. This information provides a deeper and more holistic understanding of the phenomenon.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116.g005

4. Discussion

This section provides a detailed analysis of the research results, presenting their relevance and meaning. The findings are discussed, and the theoretical and practical implications derived from the results are presented. The study’s limitations are also identified. The study identifies the main research gaps and proposes a research agenda based on the results. Additionally, a theoretical model on the adoption of mobile learning in university environments is presented, utilizing the main theories and variables identified. This section is crucial for contextualizing and providing meaning to the review results, as well as guiding future research in the field of university mobile learning.

4.1. Analysis of data collection instruments

The results section indicates that the primary data collection instruments used were questionnaires and surveys. Several studies have contributed significantly to the understanding of questionnaires as data collection instruments. For example, Kumar et al. (2022) examined the behavioral change among university engineering students in the acceptance of mobile learning after the pandemic, providing an insightful view on how students perceive and adopt this educational modality. Similarly, Camilleri and Camilleri [ 35 ] explored the utilitarian motivations and facilitating conditions for mobile learning, delving into the factors that influence the adoption of this technology.

Baghcheghi et al. [ 23 ] analyzed the factors that affect the adoption of mobile learning in health professional students using the Technology Acceptance Model. The study provided valuable information on students’ perceptions and attitudes towards the use of mobile devices for learning. This research, along with others in the literature, has significantly contributed to the understanding of the factors that influence the adoption of mobile learning in the university setting. It has been a key reference in this field of research.

4.2. Analysis of the geographical context of the adoption of mobile learning in the university context

The results section reveals that the theme has mainly occurred in Asia, including countries such as China, Turkey, Iran, India, Saudi Arabia, and Malaysia. It has also been observed in Europe, specifically in Sweden, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Romania. In China, Peng et al. [ 10 ] conducted a study on improving students’ English language learning through mobile learning, integrating the Technology Acceptance Model and the SOR Model. Kucuk et al. [ 1 ] proposed a model for medical students’ behavioral intention towards mobile learning in Turkey, examining their perceptions and attitudes in this educational field.

Azizi and Khatony [ 32 ] explored the factors that influence the intention of medical science students to adopt mobile learning in Iran, providing a detailed view of the variables that affect this decision. Gupta et al. [ 42 ] investigated Indian students’ perception of mobile learning as a tool for education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alturki and Aldraiweesh [ 44 ] analyzed the use of mobile learning in higher education during the pandemic in Saudi Arabia, providing valuable insights into students’ experiences.

Saroia and Gao [ 34 ] investigated university students’ intention to use mobile learning management systems in Sweden, exploring their attitudes and perceptions towards this emerging technology. Additionally, Andujar et al. [ 31 ] examined the integration of flipped learning through mobile devices in Spain, exploring technological acceptance and the flipped learning experience. Abu-Al-Aish and Love [ 25 ] investigated the factors that influence the acceptance of mobile learning among students in the United Kingdom. Their study provides a detailed view of the elements that affect the adoption of this educational modality.

4.3. Analysis of the target population in the adoption of mobile learning in the university context

As previously mentioned, the topic has gained prominence in several countries including Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, China, Spain, India, and Indonesia. The results section indicates that research on this topic has primarily focused on university students and students in general in these countries. Ismiyati et al. [ 48 ] conducted a study to investigate Semarang State University students’ intention to use mobile learning as an alternative to in-person learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alturki and Aldraiweesh [ 44 ] examined students’ perceptions of the actual use of mobile learning in higher education during the pandemic, providing a detailed view of their experiences.

Lo et al. [ 47 ] conducted a study on augmented reality-based learning for natural science inquiry activities in primary schools in Taiwan, from the perspective of sustainable development. The study focused on students in general. Research sheds light on the effectiveness and sustainability of AR-based learning in the Taiwanese school context. These investigations represent significant contributions to understanding the adoption and benefits of mobile learning in different educational contexts.

4.4. Analysis of psychometric theories in the adoption of mobile learning in the university context

The results section reveals that the main theories used to understand the factors that determine the adoption of mobile learning in the university context are TAM, UTAUT, Own Models, Extended UTAUT, and TPB. Within the scope of Technology Acceptance Theory (TAM), Almaiah et al. [ 24 ] examined the factors that affect the acceptance of a mobile learning application in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic, using the Ann-Sem modeling technique. Alghazi et al. [ 29 ] developed an extended model to examine the effect of technical factors on the sustainable use of mobile devices as a learning tool, based on the Unified Technology Acceptance Model (UTAUT).

Pramana [ 11 ] investigated the determinants of mobile learning system adoption among university students in Indonesia. Similarly, Alfalah [ 26 ] explored the factors influencing the adoption and use of mobile learning management systems among students in Saudi Arabia. Azizi and Khatony [ 32 ] investigated the factors that affect students’ intention to adopt mobile learning in medical sciences, using the Extended UTAUT model and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). The study provides a deep understanding of the underlying theories that influence the adoption of mobile learning in the university context.

4.5. Analysis of the main variables of adoption of mobile learning in the university context

The results indicate that the main latent variables used to determine adoption of mobile learning in the university context are Behavioral Intention, Attitude, Expectation of Effort, and Current Use. Regarding the Behavioral Intention variable, Andujar et al. [ 31 ] explored the integration of foreign language learning through mobile devices, focusing on technological acceptance and the flipped learning experience. As for the Attitude variable, Azizi and Khatony [ 32 ] investigated the factors that affect medical science students’ intention to adopt mobile learning, analyzing the influence of their attitude towards this educational modality.

Dahri et al. [ 3 ] investigated teachers’ acceptance of mobile learning technology, focusing on the influence of mobile self-efficacy and training based on 21st century skills, while Almaiah et al. [ 24 ] examined the factors affecting the adoption of a mobile learning application in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic using the Ann-Sem modeling technique. These studies provide a deeper understanding of the latent variables that influence the adoption of mobile learning in the university environment.

In addition to the previously mentioned variables, other factors have emerged as significant in analyzing the adoption of mobile learning in university contexts. One such factor is Academic Relevance, which pertains to students’ perception of the usefulness and relevance of mobile learning for their academic training. The influence of the perception of usefulness and academic relevance on students’ intention to use learning management systems has been explored in studies such as Alfalah [ 26 ] and Saroia and Gao [ 34 ]. This study examines the use of mobile learning management systems in different university environments.

Another important factor to consider is engagement, which refers to the level of dedication and emotional connection that students have with mobile learning. This variable has been analyzed by Imlawi et al. [ 2 ] and Andujar et al. [ 31 ] to understand how student engagement influences their intention to use mobile learning management systems in university environments. It is important for the active involvement of students in the educational process.

Compatibility is a relevant variable that has been extensively studied in the context of mobile learning adoption. It refers to students’ perception of the agreement between mobile learning and their needs, skills, and technological environment [ 29 ]. This variable has been explored in studies such as those by Wang, Zhao, and Cheng [ 19 ] and Alghazi et al. The language used in the text is clear, concise, and objective, with a formal register and precise word choice. The text follows a logical structure with causal connections between statements. The grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct. No changes were made to the content of the original text. Masa’deh et al. [ 45 ] and Chen [ 8 ] have investigated the impact of perceived compatibility on students’ adoption of mobile learning. They analyzed how technical factors, such as technological stress and available resources, affect students’ perceptions of mobile learning. It is important to consider the compatibility of mobile learning with your individual learning needs and expectations.

Finally, confirmation is another variable that has gained importance in the literature on the adoption of mobile learning in higher education. It is defined as the continuous evaluation that students make of the usefulness and effectiveness of mobile learning after its initial implementation. Mobile learning applications have been extensively studied to explore the factors that influence students’ confirmation of continuing to use them. These studies, such as those by Roslan et al. and Alowayr and Al-Azawei, highlight the impact of these factors on user satisfaction and intention to continue using these technologies. The language used is clear, objective, and value-neutral, with a formal register and precise word choice. The text follows conventional structure and adheres to formatting features and style guides. The grammar, spelling, and punctuation are correct. No changes in content have been made.

From another perspective, it is crucial to take into account the perspectives provided by Al-Adwan, Al-Adwan and Berger [ 50 ] and Al-Adwan, Al-Madadha and Zvirzdinaite [ 51 ], highlighting the importance of analyzing other factors that influence the adoption of mobile learning in higher education, highlighting the relevance of delving into factors such as student disposition and the enigmatic nature of adoption to unravel the complexities surrounding the adoption of mobile learning.

4.6. Main research gaps

Table 3 presents the main research gaps identified in the field of mobile learning in the university context that need to be addressed in future research. These gaps highlight areas where the existing literature may be insufficient or where greater depth is needed to fully understand the adoption of mobile learning and its implications in the university context.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116.t003

The identified gaps in research on the adoption of mobile learning in university contexts provide an opportunity for further exploration to enhance our understanding of this dynamic. One of the gaps identified is the lack of studies in Latin American countries, which highlights the need for specific investigation into the factors that influence the adoption of mobile learning in universities in this region. How do these factors differ from those identified in other geographic contexts? Examining these differences could provide insight into the cultural and socioeconomic factors that impact the adoption of these technologies in various regions of the world.

Additionally, there is a lack of application of emerging theories in the study of mobile learning adoption. While traditional theories like TAM and UTAUT have been extensively utilized, incorporating emerging theories could provide a more comprehensive and current understanding of the phenomenon. How do these new theoretical models compare to traditional ones in explaining the adoption of mobile learning in university contexts? Investigating this question could reveal new facets of the adoption process and provide innovative insights for the design of implementation and promotion strategies.

Another significant gap identified is the lack of consideration of accessibility in studies on mobile learning adoption. Accessibility is a crucial factor in ensuring the effectiveness and equity of technologies for all students. To design more inclusive and effective strategies, it is important to explore how the accessibility of mobile technologies affects the adoption of mobile learning among diverse student groups. What strategies can be implemented to improve the accessibility of mobile learning platforms? Investigating this question could lead to identifying practices and policies that encourage broader and more equitable adoption of mobile learning in university settings.

The gaps in research on the adoption of mobile learning in university settings not only highlight areas where current knowledge is limited but also point to the importance of addressing these gaps to promote more complete and balanced development in this field. By exploring and closing these gaps, we can advance our theoretical understanding of mobile learning adoption. This will enable us to more accurately inform educational policies and practices that encourage the effective and equitable integration of these technologies into teaching and learning at universities.

4.7. Theoretical implications

The evaluation of the data collection instruments used in the studies allows us to identify trends, methodological approaches, and possible biases in the measurement of key variables. Additionally, analyzing the geographical context of each study reveals regional patterns in the implementation and acceptance of mobile learning. This may suggest the influence of cultural, economic, and technological factors in the adoption of this educational modality.

Considering the target population of the studies provides valuable information on the demographic, academic, and socioeconomic characteristics of the university students involved in the adoption of mobile learning. Additionally, exploring the theoretical models used to understand the adoption phenomenon offers insights into the predominant theoretical perspectives and their applications in different educational contexts. Identifying the key factors used to approach the understanding of mobile learning in the university environment allows for a critical evaluation of the determinants that influence adoption and the effective use of this technology.

The systematic literature review, conducted using the PRISMA-2020 methodology, reveals the research gaps in the adoption of mobile learning in university contexts. Identifying gaps in research is crucial for future studies on mobile learning adoption in universities. These gaps may be due to a lack of research in certain geographic areas, scarcity of studies using emerging theories, absence of consideration of relevant factors, or the need to delve into specific aspects of the phenomenon. By identifying these gaps, efforts can be focused on areas where greater theoretical and empirical development is required to comprehensively understand mobile learning adoption in the university environment.

4.8. Practical implications

The current study has significant practical implications for both academics and decision-makers in the field of education. The evaluation of data collection instruments enables identification of the most effective ones for capturing relevant information on the adoption of mobile learning. This can guide academics in designing future research and developing evaluation tools for more accurate monitoring and measuring of progress in implementing this technology.

The analysis of the geographical context of each study provides a global view of the trends and specific challenges associated with the adoption of mobile learning in different regions of the world. This information is invaluable for decision-makers in the educational field as it allows them to identify geographic areas where greater support and resources are needed to promote the successful adoption of this educational modality, as well as to adapt implementation strategies to the local needs and realities of each context.

Consideration of the target population is crucial for understanding the specific characteristics and needs of university students in relation to mobile learning. This insight allows decision-makers to design educational programs and policies that best suit the preferences and abilities of the students, promoting greater participation and commitment to this learning modality.

The analysis of theoretical models and factors used to understand the adoption of mobile learning in the university context provides academics and decision-makers with a solid conceptual framework to design intervention strategies and training programs that encourage successful and sustainable adoption of this technology. Identifying research gaps is also essential as it highlights areas where further research and development are required to address specific challenges and maximize the impact of mobile learning in university education.

It provides educators and educational policy makers with a deep understanding of the trends, challenges, and best practices related to the integration of mobile learning in university environments. This allows them to make informed decisions about the implementation of educational technologies and design teaching strategies that make the most of the potential of mobile learning to improve the learning experience of students.

Furthermore, a systematic review can impact the allocation of resources and strategic planning in educational institutions. It identifies priority areas for investment in technological infrastructure, teacher training, and development of digital content. Additionally, it can guide the formulation of policies and support programs that promote equity of access and digital inclusion, particularly for students who may face socioeconomic or geographic barriers to accessing digital educational resources.

Understanding the factors that influence the adoption and effective use of mobile learning in university environments can inform training and professional development strategies in companies and organizations. This can help design mobile learning programs that align with the needs and expectations of today’s workforce. The practical implications can be extended to the industry and business sector.

Additionally, the review’s findings and recommendations can inform government decision-makers in formulating education and technology-related public policies. This can promote effective integration of mobile learning into national or regional educational systems, fostering innovation and continuous improvement in higher education.

4.9. Limitations

One limitation of this systematic literature review is the potential for publication bias, as only studies available in the Scopus and Web of Science databases were included. It is possible that relevant studies not indexed in these databases or available in other languages were not considered, leading to a limited selection of literature. Additionally, restricting articles to English may have excluded significant research conducted in other languages, potentially biasing the results towards a specific linguistic perspective.

Another limitation of this study is related to the search process. Although we used broad search criteria and explored multiple combinations of terms related to mobile learning adoption in university environments, it is possible that some relevant studies were not identified due to the complexity and diversity of the terminology used in this field. Additionally, the exclusion of studies not available in full text may have limited the inclusion of relevant research that was only available in abstract format or with restricted access. These limitations may have affected the exhaustiveness and representativeness of the systematic review, which could impact the generalization of the results and conclusions obtained.

Finally, a limitation of this study is that important databases, such as ERIC, were excluded. ERIC is recognized as one of the main sources of information in the field of education. The omission of this database may have resulted in a lack of access to relevant studies that could have further enriched the analysis and understanding of the topic. Therefore, future studies should aim to include a wider range of databases to ensure a comprehensive review of the literature and a more complete representation of available research.

4.10. Agenda for future research

Several recommendations for future research can be derived from the obtained results, which could enhance the understanding of this emerging field. Firstly, longitudinal studies are suggested to track the evolution of mobile learning adoption over time and assess its long-term impact on academic achievement and the student experience. These investigations could provide a more complete understanding of how attitudes and behaviors towards mobile learning change over time and identify predictors of sustained adoption.

Furthermore, it is recommended to expand the geographical scope of research to include less explored contexts, such as Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Comparative studies between different geographical regions could help identify common patterns and significant differences in the factors that influence mobile learning adoption.

To improve the impact of mobile learning on diverse university student populations, it is recommended to conduct research that analyzes the needs and preferences of different demographic groups, including students from various disciplines, educational levels, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This will enable the design of more personalized interventions that are better adapted to the needs of each group.

Regarding theoretical models, researchers are encouraged to validate new conceptual frameworks that accurately capture the underlying processes that influence mobile learning adoption. It is also recommended to integrate multiple theoretical models and approaches to obtain a more holistic and multidimensional understanding of this complex phenomenon.

Finally, it is recommended to investigate emerging and under-researched variables that may impact the adoption of mobile learning, such as digital accessibility, technological inclusion, data privacy, and cybersecurity. These aspects are crucial to ensure fair and sustainable adoption of mobile learning in university environments and can lead to new areas of research that address emerging needs and concerns in this constantly evolving field.

4.11. Main adoption model of mobile learning in the university context

Fig 6 shows the main theoretical models and variables used to understand or predict the adoption of mobile learning in the university context. The TAM and the UTAUT are consolidated conceptual frameworks that have been widely used to understand the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of university students towards the use of mobile technologies in their educational processes. Theoretical models, along with associated variables such as perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude toward use, social influence, and intention to use, have been crucial in contextualizing and analyzing the adoption of mobile learning in various university environments.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116.g006

This systematic literature review examines the adoption of Mobile Learning in the university context and proposes a comprehensive model that combines the UTAUT Model and the TAM. The model incorporates external variables for a holistic understanding of Mobile Learning adoption in university environments.

The proposed model integrates additional variables, such as Academic Relevance, Confirmation, and Compatibility factors, into the conceptual pillars of UTAUT and TAM. These variables are of vital importance in the academic field as they evaluate the relevance of Mobile Learning in the university educational context and determine the acceptance and effective use of this technology. This theoretical contribution provides a comprehensive and contextualized analytical framework for understanding the determinants that influence the adoption of Mobile Learning in the university environment. It can aid in the formulation of informed and relevant strategies in the higher education field.

5. Conclusions

The research has produced significant conclusions that address the research questions. The analysis indicates that questionnaires are the primary data collection instruments used in the studies, indicating a preference for quantitative methods to gather information on the adoption of mobile learning.

In terms of geographical contexts, research in the field of mobile learning has been primarily focused on Asia and Europe. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, China, the United Kingdom, and Spain have been leading this research. This finding emphasizes the global nature of mobile learning adoption and the importance of considering diverse contexts in future research.

Research on mobile learning adoption focuses mainly on university students, highlighting the importance of understanding the needs and perceptions of this demographic group when integrating mobile technologies in education. The identified theoretical models were TAM, UTAUT, and own models. This highlights the importance of understanding users’ attitudes and perceptions towards mobile learning from a consolidated theoretical framework.

The main variables used to understand the adoption of mobile learning in university contexts are behavioral intention, attitude, effort expectation, current use, and compatibility. The article highlights the need to develop integrative theoretical models that address the factors influencing the adoption of mobile learning. It is also recommended to explore new variables and geographical contexts to enrich the understanding of the phenomenon.

Regarding future research, it is recommended to investigate the impact of mobile learning in various fields of study and educational contexts. Additionally, it is important to examine the influence of contextual and cultural factors on the adoption of these technologies.

A theoretical model is presented that integrates the main theoretical models and variables identified in the review, providing a conceptual structure for future research in the field of mobile learning adoption in the university context.

Supporting information

S1 checklist. prisma 2020 checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304116.s001

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI

Exploring strategic corporate sustainability management in family businesses: A systematic literature review

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 06 June 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Simone Häußler   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1118-4733 1 &
• Patrick Ulrich 1  

The escalating demands from legislative authorities and stakeholders for companies to adopt corporate sustainability measures underscore the growing importance of strategic sustainability management. Despite the efforts made by companies in this domain, the strategic management of sustainability in family businesses remains an under-researched area. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic literature review covering the period from 2006 to 2022, on the topic of strategic sustainability management in family businesses. Our investigation encompasses a content analysis of 98 relevant studies. Our research question is: “What aspects are taken into account by family businesses in their corporate sustainability strategies?” We tackle this issue through a methodological triangulation of qualitative and quantitative methods. Our results yield three clusters of strategies for corporate sustainability in family businesses: (1) Family values and succession planning; Stakeholder relations and communication; (2) Risk taking, Inventions, and Technologies; and (3) Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship. In addition, we systematically present a range of descriptive indicators, including the research methodologies applied and the geographic focus of the published literature. This research contributes significant insights for scholars and practitioners alike, providing valuable guidance in this field. Moreover, our study paves the way for further investigations into the strategies that influence sustainability within the context of family businesses. By shedding light on this critical area, we aim to foster a more sustainable and informed approach to corporate practices among family-owned enterprises.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

The pressure on companies to implement corporate sustainability is increasing from both the legislature and stakeholders (Tjahjadi et al. 2021 ). Sustainability management is no longer just an individual corporate decision but is increasingly becoming a competitive factor. Given new and stricter requirements (e.g. on the part of the European Commission to achieve the 2- or preferably 1.5-degree target), companies will be more strongly obliged in the future to disclose their business activities regarding sustainability (European Parliament Council 2021 ).

Sustainability can improve consumers’ perceptions of product value (Bruttel 2014 ; Gómez-Ortega et al. 2023 ). A literature review by Schäufele and Hamm ( 2017 ) indicates that manufacturing and marketing with sustainability attributes is a promising strategy for quality differentiation. They report that consumers understand sustainability as a quality indicator and are therefore willing to pay more for sustainable products. Thus, through sustainability, preferences are created and purchasing behavior is influenced, which offers companies a competitive advantage. Sustainability can also help companies improve their image and generate more sales and customer loyalty as society takes on more and more social responsibility (Samudro et al. 2018 ). Sustainable marketing encompasses both sustainable products and social and economic practices. Addressing each of these elements can have a positive impact on competition. In a review paper, Batista and Francisco (2018) identified sustainable strategies of companies and analyzed the competitive advantages resulting from each of the three categories: environmental, economic, and social strategies. Actions falling under the environmental category are fundamental to maintaining competitiveness as they result from competitive behaviors and practices aimed at meeting specific requirements (e. g., the European requirements for sustainability reporting under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) and achieving the necessary level in developed countries. Conversely, the neglect of environmental strategies can drastically limit the ability of companies to act and grow and may result in lost opportunities for long-term investment. In the category of economic strategies, the indirect economic impacts are the development of new markets, opportunities for generating new jobs, increased effort toward accessibility, and adaptation to new economic contexts. The results regarding the social category show that companies strive to add value to their businesses by valuing and retaining their talent.

A paradigm shift toward sustainability is evident not only from a practical standpoint but also from a scientific standpoint. Academic interest in corporate sustainability issues has intensified in recent years (Pranugrahaning et al. 2021 ), but not every form of enterprise has come with a fair balance of scientific results. Although family businesses make up the most common type of companies listed in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America (Broccardo et al. 2019 ; Curado and Mota 2021 ), and they are estimated to account for over 70 percent of worldwide gross domestic product (De Massis et al. 2018 ; King et al. 2022 ), there is little evidence about sustainability management for this type of enterprise. Moreover, a clear distinction is lacking between family business and other types of companies. The main problem is defining what a family business is in the first place, as different definitions of family businesses can be found in the literature. While family businesses and non-family businesses can be small, medium, or large, they can also differ concerning their values and practices compared to non-family businesses (Behringer et al. 2019 ). Until now, certain core elements such as financial performance statements, familiarity, and corporate governance in family companies could be identified and considered in definitions (Astrachan and Zellweger 2008 ; Frank et al. 2010 ; Siebels and zu Knyphausen-Aufsess 2012 ; Harms 2014 ; Fries et al. 2019 ; Baltazar et al. 2023 ). However, a recent and comprehensive meta-analysis by Miroshnychenko et al. ( 2022 ) notes a possible negative environmental performance in companies that define themselves as having family ownership and management. The inclusion of sustainability in the term “family business,” in addition to the common characteristics of a family business such as family goals or vision and a long-term orientation, is essential to a contemporary definition (Miroshnychenko et al. 2022 ). Given the hitherto less pronounced but growing interest in the area of sustainability in family businesses (Le Breton-Miller and Miller 2016 ; Kammerlander 2022 ), definitions with a corresponding focus are once again being addressed. Chua et al. ( 1999 ) in their definitions of the term family business already included the pursuit of a corporate vision in a sustainable manner and thus serve as a starting point for further research (see for example Behringer et al. 2019 ). Concerning the above-mentioned aspects, the present study adds to the definition of Chua et al. ( 1999 ), which still appears to be up to date:

The family business is a business governed and/or managed intending to shape and pursue the vision of the business held by a dominant coalition controlled by members of the same family or a small number of families in a manner that is potentially sustainable [(importance of social and ecological aspects)] across generations of the family or families. (Chua et al. 1999 )

Most firms are family firms, but little is known about their approaches to sustainability (Clauß et al. 2022 ). It seems that despite increasing research in the area of sustainability, the knowledge of how to manage sustainability is limited in family businesses (Traxler and Greiling 2023 ). As López-Pérez et al. ( 2018 ) state, family businesses face complex issues affecting their governance and management that differ from those of non-family businesses. The results of their study suggest that the company profile (a family business vs. a non-family business) moderates the relationship between sustainability and company performance. Mariani et al. ( 2021 ) conducted a systematic review highlighting that family businesses and non-family businesses exhibit different behaviors in implementing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), with some studies indicating higher CSR performance among family businesses. As the influencing factors with which a company acts and the resulting adaptation of sustainability or the related performance are reported to differ between family businesses and other types of businesses, it would be of scientific value to analyze which strategies family businesses adapt to achieve corporate sustainability. Thus, this article focuses on strategies for corporate sustainability in family businesses and aims to analyze the latest literature. The research question is: What aspects are taken into account by family businesses in their corporate sustainability strategies? We expect the results to provide more clarity on why and how family businesses address the issue of sustainability and yield further insights into the corresponding content of the strategies. In addition, we provide detailed insights into the studies considered by breaking down the results according to geographical focus and the methods applied.

The literature review is considered a necessary tool for systematically evaluating and managing a given body of literature for a specific academic inquiry (Tranfield et al. 2003 ; Becker et al. 2018 ). Review articles can challenge established assumptions, identify critical problems and errors, and spark scientific dialogue on a topic (Kraus et al. 2022 ). However, we emphasize the systematic literature analysis, as it guarantees a high level of impact (Kraus et al. 2024 ) and transparency due to the structured implementation and clear presentation of content required. Thus, a systematic literature analysis exceeds the possibilities of narrative literature analysis (Hiebl 2023 ). Moreover, a systematic literature analysis requires a high commitment from researchers (Sauer and Seuring 2023 ) and enables them to design flexible databases of articles that can be easily updated and interrogated (Pickering and Byrne 2014 ). With the aim of presenting a clear picture of the strategies relating to sustainability in family firms in the recent literature, we conducted a systematic literature review based on the guidelines proposed by Briner and Denyer ( 2012 : 115). We used a systematic approach to identify relevant studies by combining two of the most comprehensive databases of scientific papers, Scopus ( 2023 ) and Web of Science ( 2023 ). In a preliminary search process, we searched all literature reviews that dealt with sustainability and family businesses. After reading the papers in full, we brainstormed relevant keywords and an established a set of exclusion criteria in order to define clear boundaries.

To this end, the following three limitations were set:

We considered only peer-reviewed scientific journals in English that had a management focus to ensure the identification of high-quality research and to narrow the scope of our review,

To capture the current scientific discourse and derive trends for the future, we focused mainly on the years 2006–2022.

Publications focusing on technical, political, or natural science focus were excluded.

A custom search string was developed and applied. The multi-part search string contained two keywords that logically limited the subject area. We searched the following term in either the abstract or the title: sustaina* (to ensure that the different variations such as “sustainability,” “sustainable development,” “business sustainability,” or “business sustainability” were captured). The first keyword was connected to a second phrase (specifically, “family business*” or “family firms” or “family enterprise” or “family-controlled firms”). In the first round, a total of 269 hits were achieved. To narrow down the hits in relation to the research question, we selected all journals related to management. This left 128 hits. After we removed the duplicates, 98 hits remained, which were read completely and subjected to content analysis. Compared to systematic literature analyses with a relatively similar context, the number of papers found appeared to be appropriate (for example, compare Morioka and de Carvalho 2016 ; Aarseth et al. 2017 ; Lim et al. 2019 ; Velte 2022 ). The authors individually read all of the abstracts and, if needed, the entire article to screen them for relevance. The selected sources were then evaluated and analyzed in terms of content. For the literature analysis and synthesis, a concept matrix based on Webster and Watson ( 2002 ) was used to structure the content of the results. This step is crucial to synthesizing and organizing a large volume of data and helps to provide an initial impression of the results. Consecutive steps can then be taken to further evaluate the data. Building on that initial analysis, we examined the results of the concept matrix using methodical triangulation (Fig. 1 ). We then conducted a qualitative content analysis (Mayring 2010 : 84) based on the research question “What aspects are taken into account by family businesses in their corporate sustainability strategies?” This was followed by a quantitative content analysis to break down the results according to geographical focus, year of publication, and applied methods (Benninghaus 2005 ).

Methodical Triangulation

The process model of inductive category formation according to Mayring ( 2010 : 84) was used to analyze the results, as this method is highly appropriate for the inductive and qualitative investigation of large amounts of data. In addition, further descriptive analyses were conducted, which provided information on the year of publication, the methodology used, and the location of the study. According to the process model of inductive category formation (Mayring 2010 : 84), firstly, the subject of the analysis was defined. The body of literature consisted of 98 peer- reviewed papers. After that, the level of abstraction was set and the material revision and formulation of keywords were carried out. This was followed by a revision of the keywords and a final review of the material. The last step entailed the interpretation and analysis of content.

For the quantitative analysis, descriptive clusters (Benninghaus 2005 ) were used to classify the body of literature. Descriptive clusters are groupings or categories of similar data points or objects that are identified based on common characteristics or attributes. These clusters are often used in statistical data analysis to improve the structure and organization of large datasets. The content of the literature was assessed using two questions:

What research methodologies are applied?

Which location is the main focus of the publications?

This section presents the results of the literature research. Firstly, the qualitative results, based on the application of the process model of inductive category formation, are presented and the research question is answered. Following this, the results of the quantitative analysis, using descriptive clusters, are revealed. The quantitative analysis provides information about the indicators (applied methods and geographical focus of the publication) of the literature.

3.1 Strategies for corporate sustainability management in family businesses

After various stages of processing the material, and running the process model of inductive category formation, three clusters of strategies were identified, which are presented in the following:

Family values and succession planning

Stakeholder relations and communication The predominant focus of the analyzed publications revolved around themes concerning the internal and external relationships within family businesses. This aspect emerges as a pivotal and determining factor concerning sustainability in the context of family enterprises. Understanding and effectively managing the intricate dynamics between family members, as well as fostering productive collaborations with external stakeholders, appears to play a central role in shaping the sustainability strategies of family businesses. Family values, succession planning, and stakeholder engagement emerge as factors that influence the extent to which sustainable practices are integrated into the core operations of these firms. Furthermore, this emphasis on relationships underscores the significance of transparent communication and effective governance structures within family businesses. Establishing clear lines of communication and governance mechanisms can facilitate a shared vision for sustainability and foster collective commitment to long-term sustainability goals. For example, when a non- family business is accused of unethical behavior, it reflects badly on the company, whereas in a family business, it is the reputation of the family itself that is at stake (Curado and Mota 2021 ). García‐Sánchez et al. ( 2020 ) examined this circumstance with an international sample of 956 listed firms and found that family firms perform a higher level of CSR compared to non-family firms. A positive relationship between family firms and sustainability is likely to emerge due to internally driven motivations, such as personal or organizational values and ideas, that align with ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) criteria (Sun et al. 2024 ). Particularly in the case of an impending generational change, the family’s values are crucial, especially regarding sustainability issues (Astrachan et al. 2020 ; Anggadwita et al. 2020 ). Succession planning (Bozer et al. 2017 ; Wang et al. 2019 ; Porfírio et al. 2020 ; Rodriguez Serna et al. 2022a , b ; Rodriguez Serna et al. 2022a ) and the associated reorientation about sustainability issues, as well as Stakeholder relations (Alwadani and Ndubisi 2020 ; Nguyen et al. 2020 ), are the most significant strategies for family businesses.

Risk taking, Inventions, and Technologies

In non-family firms, risk taking refers to the propensity of the organization to engage in ventures, investments, or strategic decisions that involve uncertain outcomes and potential exposure to financial, operational, or reputational hazards. The extent of risk- taking behavior in these firms is often influenced by factors such as organizational culture, management’s risk appetite, market conditions, and regulatory environments. Successful risk taking in non-family firms requires a balance between calculated risk assessment and the pursuit of opportunities that align with the organization’s strategic objectives and risk management framework. The way that risk is managed differs between family and non-family firms, as the perception of operational risk positively affects the perception of financial risk only in family firms (Santos et al. 2022 ). This circumstance influences the risk behavior of family firms, especially in times of crisis. As an example, the conduct of family firms during the COVID-19 pandemic has been studied by several authors. Anggadwita et al. ( 2022 ) identified instances in which family firms during the COVID-19 pandemic developed and implemented resilience. Chaudhuri et al. ( 2022 ) highlight the important moderating influence of strategic intent for sustaining family firms in uncertain times. However, apart from times of crisis, disruptive and new technologies also play a major role, with Kazancoglu et al. ( 2021 ) identifying Industry 4.0 as a driver for family business resources to improve sustainability.

Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship

An entrepreneur is an individual who identifies and exploits business opportunities, creates innovative ventures, and assumes significant risk in the pursuit of profit and market success. Entrepreneurs play a crucial role in economies by enhancing and advancing businesses (Gallardo-Vázquez et al. 2023 ). In contrast, an intrapreneur operates within an established organization, exhibiting entrepreneurial characteristics to drive innovation, develop new projects, and advance the organization’s objectives while often benefiting from the organization’s resources and support. Whereas entrepreneurs act independently and are active within their companies, intrapreneurs are only partially independent because they work within the company as employees (Cadar and Badulescu 2015 ). Both entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs are crucial when it comes to sustainability in family businesses. Woodfield et al. ( 2017 ) explore the linkage between sustainable entrepreneurship and family firms and argue that family firms go beyond seeking financial gain and provide non-economic benefits (such as security and employment) to people and society. Rachmawati et al. ( 2022 ) assess family business performance and offer an overview of strategies. They point out that entrepreneurial orientation and family involvement are important factors in performance appraisal in family firms. Jamil et al. ( 2022 ) explore entrepreneurial qualities that lead to family business sustainability and indicate four supporting factors (cognitive characteristics, leadership role, motivation, and personality traits). Yet there are also limitations in this regard. Martínez Bobillo et al. ( 2021 ) show that efficiency factors in the design and potentiation of the entrepreneurial orientation and innovation capacity by family firms are hindered by the institutional (regulatory, legal, labor, and educational) environment, while more traditional factors such as ownership concentration and firm size are dominant.

3.2 Quantitative analysis of indicators

After the previous qualitative evaluation of results, the quantitative evaluation and graphical illustration of indicators are presented below.

Based in the recommendations Curado and Mota ( 2021 ) and Herrera and de las Heras-Rosas ( 2020 ), the geographical backgrounds of the publications studied were systematically collected. It should be mentioned that the naming of a geographical focus is always closely related to the selection of the research method. A geographical context is crucial for a case study but not for meta-level investigations, such as a literature review. For this reason, the number of publications that cannot be assigned a geographical focus is relatively high (n=33), which left a set of 65 publications. Among the assignable results, Asia (n=27) and Europe (n=23) are the regions with the highest number of publications. The emphasis on these regions reflects the growing interest and prevalence of family businesses in these areas and their significance in contributing to sustainable development. Only a few publications indicated Africa, America, Australia, or South America as the geographic context (Fig. 2 ). The predominance of Asia and Europe as the geographic focus in most publications on sustainability in family firms could be attributed to several factors. Firstly, these regions are home to a significant number of family- owned enterprises, making them important contributors to the global economy and sustainability discourse. Secondly, Asia and Europe have witnessed a growing awareness and emphasis on sustainability issues, leading to an increased interest in studying sustainable practices within family businesses in these regions. Lastly, the availability of research funding, academic resources, and established networks of scholars and institutions in these areas may have facilitated the production and dissemination of research on this topic.

Geographical context of the publications

According to the literature review by Seuring and Müller ( 2008 ), five different research methods were distinguished and each paper (n=98) was assigned to only one method (Fig. 3 ). Surveys (n=34) were the most frequently chosen method to tackle sustainability in family firms, followed by case studies (n=22) and models (n=19).

Research methodologies applied

The prevalence of surveys as the most commonly used method in papers on sustainability in family firms could be attributed to several factors. First of all, surveys are well-suited for collecting quantitative data from a large sample of family businesses, allowing researchers to obtain comprehensive insights into the prevalence and nature of sustainability practices across a diverse range of companies. Furthermore, surveys provide a structured and standardized approach, enabling researchers to ask consistent questions and compare responses systematically. This enhances the reliability and validity of the findings, making surveys an attractive method for studying sustainability-related phenomena in family firms. Surveys offer a cost-effective and efficient means of data collection, particularly when compared to qualitative methods, which often require extensive time and resources for in-depth interviews or case studies. As sustainability in family firms remains a burgeoning research area, surveys allow researchers to cover a wide range of topics and gather data from a larger pool of respondents. Lastly, the anonymous nature of surveys can encourage respondents to provide more honest responses on sensitive topics, such as internal family dynamics or business strategies. This can lead to a more accurate representation of the actual practices and challenges faced by family firms concerning sustainability.

4 Discussion

Corporate strategy refers to the strategy used to achieve a company’s goals, i.e. to implement the company’s policy (Davies 2000 ). According to Porter ( 1996 ), the […] “essence of strategy is choosing to perform activities differently than rivals do.” A strategy can be considered as a means of deciding what actions to pursue (Evered 1983 ). In terms of corporate strategy, there are specifics in the case of family businesses. Corporate sustainability strategies encompass deliberate plans and initiatives aimed at fostering the enduring economic, social, and environmental sustainability of a company’s operations. These strategies entail a comprehensive evaluation of the ecological, societal, and economic consequences of business activities, coupled with the implementation of measures to mitigate adverse impacts and enhance positive contributions to society and the environment (Eweje 2011 ).

Various types of sustainability strategies can be identified, each serving distinct purposes (Baumgartner and Ebner 2010 ). Introverted strategies focus on risk mitigation, adhering to external standards and regulations to safeguard the company from potential liabilities. Extroverted strategies, on the other hand, emphasize the building of positive external relationships and securing the social license to operate effectively. Conservative strategies prioritize eco-efficiency and cleaner production as a means of enhancing resource efficiency. Lastly, visionary strategies adopt a holistic approach, incorporating sustainability considerations across all business activities. Based on the papers found in our review, we agree with these statements and emphasize that the inclusion of internal (issues such as family succession) and external relationships in sustainability strategies should be considered as a matter of urgency.

Chirapanda ( 2020 ) aimed to elucidate the main strategies for family firms to ensure the successful continuation of their enterprises. The author points out that of the family firms surveyed, 60 percent agree that corporate and management strategies must be established along with a properly thought-out succession plan (ibid). In addition to succession planning, conflict strategies are also an important topic in strategic considerations in family businesses, in contrast to non-family businesses. Wu et al. ( 2018 ) show that managing the level of conflict between family business board members at an appropriate level by studying the main cause of conflict and identifying its nature led to better performance and sustainable development of family businesses.

As other authors have also recently noted (Henschel et al. 2021 ), sustainability issues are a continuously growing trend for family businesses, which can be deduced from the increasing number of corresponding publications, especially since 2010. Although sustainability in family businesses is an under-researched field, there have been several recent literature reviews that deal with partial aspects. These include Henschel et al. ( 2021 ), who conducted a systematic literature review on the topic of family businesses and CSR. However, the evaluation method (bibliographic coupling analysis) led to a higher degree of abstraction of the results, with a focus on thematic connections and the contexts offered by the bibliographic coupling network visualization. In contrast, the present work goes significantly deeper to qualitatively explore the topics through inductive category formation.

Regarding the limitations of this work, we note that we have not considered peer-reviewed literature or literature not published in languages outside of English in the results of the literature analysis. We acknowledge that there may have been relevant literature in these sources that could have contributed to the summarized results. In addition, we limited our search to two digital databases, Scopus and WoS. Although these databases are extensive, some studies may have been overlooked.

5 Conclusion

Our study offers advice for colleagues and practitioners by highlighting key aspects of sustainability in family businesses. Future research can be developed on these topics and solutions can be offered to these companies. The study also gave family businesses an insight into potential areas for development and provided an overview of three clusters of strategies that have been captured in the recent literature on sustainable family businesses: (1) Family values and succession planning; Stakeholder relations and communication (2) Risk taking, Inventions, and Technologies (3) Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship. In addition, we offered insights into the studies considered by breaking down the results by geographical focus, methods applied, and year of publication. We recommend that future research be conducted on the following topics.

Regarding sustainability, strategies for family businesses’ internal as well as external relationships should be included. Core elements of the studies found relate internally to the topics of family values and succession planning and externally to the topics of stakeholder relationships, including maintaining the good reputation of the family name. We recommend a longitudinal study to follow up on the core elements identified, focusing on the long-term impact of sustainability strategies on the performance and resilience of family businesses and to identify best practices.

A future research direction could be to analyze the possibilities of implementing sustainability strategies based on company size regarding the resources required and in particular concerning technologies in the company, associated costs, and risks for family businesses. This could reveal whether larger family businesses with more capital, for example, are better able to drive forward technologies in terms of sustainability development.

Regarding the topic of family businesses and sustainability, it is important to strike a balance between efficiency/entrepreneurship, family factors, and the quality characteristics of sustainability. In this context, it would be interesting to examine the influence of family management structures and dynamics on the adoption and implementation of sustainability strategies and to analyze how family traditions, values, and decision-making processes influence the integration of sustainability into the core business strategy.

6 Data availability statement

Not applicable.

Aarseth W, Ahola T, Aaltonen K, Økland A, Andersen B (2017) Project sustainability strategies: A systematic literature review. Int J Project Manage 35(6):1071–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.006

Article   Google Scholar  

Alwadani R, Ndubisi NO (2020) Sustainable family business: The role of stakeholder involvement, mindful organizing, and contingent human factors. Int J Manpow 41(7):945–965. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-08-2019-0359

Anggadwita G, Profityo WB, Alamanda DT, Permatasari A (2020) Cultural values and their implications to family business succession: A case study of small Chinese-owned family businesses in Bandung. Indones J Family Bus Manag 10(4):281–292. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-03-2019-0017

Anggadwita G, Permatasari A, Alamanda DT, Profityo WB (2022) Exploring women’s initiatives for family business resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Family Bus Manag 13(3):714–736. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-02-2022-0014

Astrachan JH, Zellweger T (2008) Performance of family firms: A literature review and guidance for future research. Zeitschrift Für KMU Und Entrep 56(1–2):1–22. https://doi.org/10.3790/zfke.56.1_2.83

Astrachan JH, Astrachan CB, Campopiano G, Baù M (2020) Values, Spirituality, and Religion: Family Business and the Roots of Sustainable Ethical Behavior. J Bus Ethics 163(4):637–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04392-5

Baltazar JR, Fernandes CI, Ramadani V, Hughes M (2023) Family business succession and innovation: a systematic literature review. RMS 17(8):2897–2920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00607-8

Baumgartner RJ, Ebner D (2010) Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustain Dev 18(2):76–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.447

Becker W, Ulrich P, Stradtmann M (2018) Geschäftsmodellinnovationen als Wettbewerbsvorteil mittelständischer Unternehmen. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

Book   Google Scholar  

Behringer S, Ulrich P, Unruh A (2019) Compliance management in family firms: A systematic literature analysis. Corp Ownersh Control 17(1):140–157. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv17i1art13

Benninghaus H (2005) Einführung in die sozialwissenschaftliche Datenanalyse: Buch mit CD- ROM. Oldenbourg, München

Bozer G, Levin L, Santora JC (2017) Succession in family business: multi-source perspectives. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 24(4):753–774. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-10-2016-0163

Briner RB, Denyer D (2012) Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In: Rousseau DM (ed) The Oxford Handbook of evidence-based management. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 112–129

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Broccardo L, Truant E, Zicari A (2019) Internal corporate sustainability drivers: What evidence from family firms? A literature review and research agenda. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 26(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1672

Bruttel O (2014) Nachhaltigkeit als Kriterium für Konsumentscheidungen. Ökologisches Wirtschaften Fachzeitschrift 29(1):41–45. https://doi.org/10.14512/OEW290141

Cadar O, Badulescu (2015) Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship. A Literature Review. The Annals of the University of Oradea: Economic Sciences 2(XXIV): 658–664. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/78871/1/MPRA_paper_78871.pdf . Accessed 15 Aug 2023

Chaudhuri R, Chatterjee S, Kraus S, Vrontis D (2022) Assessing the AI-CRM technology capability for sustaining family businesses in times of crisis: the moderating role of strategic intent. J Family Bus Manag 13(1):46–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-12-2021-0153

Chirapanda S (2020) Identification of success factors for sustainability in family businesses: Case study method and exploratory research in Japan. J Family Bus Manag 10(1):58–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-05-2019-0030

Chua JH, Chrisman JJ, Sharma P (1999) Defining the family business by behavior. Entrep Theory Pract 23(4):19–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300402

Clauß T, Kraus S, Jones P (2022) Sustainability in family business: Mechanisms, technologies and business models for achieving economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 176(1):121450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121450

Curado C, Mota A (2021) A systematic literature review on sustainability in family firms. Sustainability 13(7):3824. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073824

Davies W (2000) Understanding strategy. Strategy & Leadership 28(5):25–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570010379428

De Massis A, Frattini F, Majocchi A, Piscitello L (2018) Family firms in the global economy: Toward a deeper understanding of internationalization determinants, processes and outcomes. Glob Strateg J 8(1):3–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1199

European Parliament Council (2021) Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’). Official Journal of the European Union, L 243/1. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R1119 . Accessed 15 Aug 2023

Evered R (1983) So what is strategy? Long Range Plan 16(3):57–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(83)90032-8

Eweje G (2011) A shift in corporate practice? Facilitating sustainability strategy in companies. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 18(3):125–136. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.268

Frank H, Lueger M, Nosé L, Suchy D (2010) The concept of “Familiness”: Literature review and systems theory-based reflections. J Fam Bus Strat 1(3):119–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2010.08.001

Fries A, Kammerlander N, Leitterstorf M (2019) Leadership Styles and Leadership Behaviors in Family Firms: A Systematic Literature Review. J Fam Bus Strat 12(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100374

Gallardo-Vázquez D, Herrador-Alcaide TC, de la Cruz S-D (2023) Developing a measurement scale of corporate socially responsible entrepreneurship in sustainable management. RMS 18:1377–1426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00658-5

García-Sánchez IM, Martín-Moreno J, Khan SA, Hussain N (2020) Socio-emotional wealth and corporate responses to environmental hostility: Are family firms more stakeholder oriented? Bus Strateg Environ 30(2):1003–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2666

Gómez-Ortega A, Flores-Ureba S, Gelashvili V, Jalón MLD (2023) Users’ perception for innovation and sustainability management: evidence from public transport. RMS 18:859–882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00625-0

Harms H (2014) Review of Family Business Definitions: Cluster Approach and Implications of Heterogeneous Application for Family Business Research. Int J Financ Stud 2(3):280–314. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs2030280

Henschel T, Florio C, Jharni S, Stellmacher M (2021) The impact of corporate social responsibility on advancing the enterprise risk management performance relationship in small and medium-sized enterprises. J Int Council Small Bus 3(4):321–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1955122

Herrera J, de las Heras-Rosas C (2020) Economic, non-economic and critical factors for the sustainability of family firms. J Open Innov: Technol, Market, Complex 6(4):119. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040119

Hiebl MRW (2023) Sample Selection in Systematic Literature Reviews of Management Research. Organ Res Methods 26(2):229–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281209868

Jamil M, Fadzil AFM, Waqar A, Yaacob MR (2022) Exploring entrepreneurial qualities for the sustainability of family businesses in Pakistan. J Family Bus Manag 13(4):856–872. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-05-2022-0073

Kammerlander N (2022) Family business and business family questions in the 21st century: Who develops SEW, how do family members create value, and who belongs to the family? J Fam Bus Strat 13(2):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2021.100470

Kazancoglu Y, Sezer MD, Ozkan-Ozen YD, Mangla SK, Kumar A (2021) Industry 4.0 impacts on responsible environmental and societal management in the family business. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 173:121108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121108

King DR, Meglio O, Gomez-Mejia L, Bauer F, De Massis A (2022) Family business restructuring: A review and research agenda. J Manage Stud 59(1):197–235. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12717

Kraus S, Breier M, Lim WM, Dabić M, Kumar S, Kanbach D et al (2022) Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice. RMS 16(8):2577–2595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00588-8

Kraus S, Bouncken RB, YelaAránega A (2024) The burgeoning role of literature review articles in management research: an introduction and outlook. RMS 18:299–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00729-1

Le Breton-Miller I, Miller D (2016) Family firms and practices of sustainability: A contingency view. J Fam Bus Strat 7(1):26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2015.09.001

Lim S, Pettit S, Abouarghoub W, Beresford A (2019) Port sustainability and performance: A systematic literature review. Transp Res Part d: Transp Environ 72:47–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.04.009

López-Pérez ME, Melero-Polo I, Vázquez-Carrasco R, Cambra-Fierro J (2018) Sustainability and business outcomes in the context of SMEs: Comparing family firms vs. non-family firms. Sustainability 10(11):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114080

Mariani MM, Al-Sultan K, De Massis A (2021) Corporate social responsibility in family firms: A systematic literature review. J Small Bus Manage 61(3):1192–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1955122

Martínez Bobillo A, Rodríguez Sanz JA, Tejerina Gaite F (2021) Explanatory and predictive drivers of entrepreneurial orientation and innovation capacity: Evidence from family enterprises. Cuadernos de Gestión 21(2):63–76. https://hdl.handle.net/10810/52003 . Accessed 15 Aug 2023

Mayring P (2010) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse – Grundlagen und Techniken. 11., aktualisierte und überarbeitete Auflage. Beltz Verlag, Weinheim Basel

Miroshnychenko I, De Massis A, Barontini R, Testa F (2022) Family firms and environmental performance: A meta-analytic review. Fam Bus Rev 35(1):68–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944865211064409

Morioka SN, de Carvalho MM (2016) A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business. J Clean Prod 136:134–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.104

Nguyen HTT, Costanzo LA, Karatas-Özkan M (2020) Stakeholders’ perceptions of sustainable entrepreneurship within the context of a developing economy. J Small Bus Manage 61(2):441–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1796465

Pickering C, Byrne J (2014) The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for PhD candidates and other early-career researchers. High Educ Res Dev 33(3):534–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841651

Porfírio JA, Felício JA, Carrilho T (2020) Family business succession: Analysis of the drivers of success based on entrepreneurship theory. J Bus Res 115:250–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.054

Porter ME (1996) What is strategy? Harvard business review Nov–Dec 74(6):61–78. https://hbr.org/1996/11/what-is-strategy . Accessed 15 Aug 2023

Pranugrahaning A, Donovan JD, Topple C, Masli EK (2021) Corporate sustainability assessments: A systematic literature review and conceptual framework. J Clean Prod 295:126385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126385

Rachmawati E, Suliyanto S, Suroso A (2022) Direct and indirect effect of entrepreneurial orientation, family involvement and gender on family business performance. J Family Bus Manag 12(2):214–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-07-2020-0064

Rodriguez Serna L, Bowyer DM, Gregory SK (2022) Management control systems. A non- family stakeholder perspective on the critical success factors influencing continuous stakeholder support during businesses succession. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 30(2):290–310. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-09-2021-0364

Rodriguez Serna L, Nakandala D, Bowyer D (2022b) Why do eligible successors withdraw from the succession process in family businesses? A social exchange perspective". J Family Bus Manag 12(4):999–1019. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-04-2021-0036

Samudro A, Sumarwan U, Yusuf EZ, Simanjuntak M (2018) Perceived value, social bond, and switching cost as antecedents and predictors of customer loyalty in the B2B chemical industry context: A literature review. Int J Market Stud 10(4):124–138. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v10n4p124

Santos E, Tavares V, Tavares FO, Ratten V (2022) How is risk different in family and non- family businesses? A comparative statistical analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Family Bus Manag 12(4):1113–1130. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-10-2021-0123

Sauer PC, Seuring S (2023) How to conduct systematic literature reviews in management research: a guide in 6 steps and 14 decisions. RMS 17:1899–1933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00668-3

Schäufele I, Hamm U (2017) Consumers’ perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. J Clean Prod 147:379–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.118

Scopus (2023) https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=authorLookup#author . Accessed 15 Aug 2023

Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for the sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16(15):1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020

Siebels JF, zuKnyphausen-Aufsess D (2012) A review of theory in family business research: The implications for corporate governance. Int J Manag Rev 14(3):280–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00317.x

Sun J, Pellegrini MM, Dabić M, Wang K, Wang C (2024) Family ownership and control as drivers for environmental, social, and governance in family firms. RMS 18(4):1015–1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-023-00631-2

Tjahjadi B, Soewarno N, Mustikaningtiyas F (2021) Good corporate governance and corporate sustainability performance in Indonesia: A triple bottom line approach. Heliyon 7(3):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06453

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence- informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Traxler AA, Greiling D (2023) Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung und -controlling in Familienunternehmen. In: Duller C, Hiebl MRW, Kuttner M, Mayr S, Mitter C (eds) Herausforderungen im Management von Familienunternehmen. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 263–277

Velte P (2022) Which institutional investors drive corporate sustainability? A systematic literature review. Bus Strateg Environ 32(1):42–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3117

Wang YZ, Lo FY, Weng SM (2019) Family businesses successors knowledge and willingness on sustainable innovation: The moderating role of leader’s approval. J Innov Knowl 4(3):188–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.05.001

Web of Science (2023) https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/basic-search . Accessed 15 Aug 2023

Webster J, Watson R (2002) Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly 26(2):xiii–xxiii. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4132319

Woodfield P, Woods C, Shepherd D (2017) Sustainable entrepreneurship: another avenue for family business scholarship? J Family Bus Manag 7(1):122–132. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFBM-12-2015-0040

Wu M, Zhang L, Imran M, Lu J, Hu X (2018) Conflict coping strategy evolution of top management team members in China’s family enterprises. Chin Manag Stud 12(2):246–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-08-2017-0227

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The project underlying this report was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under the grant number 03FHP139C. The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Aalen Institute of Management (AAUF), Aalen University, Aalen, Germany

Simone Häußler & Patrick Ulrich

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Häußler .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest, nor any financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Häußler, S., Ulrich, P. Exploring strategic corporate sustainability management in family businesses: A systematic literature review. Rev Manag Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00776-8

Download citation

Received : 18 August 2023

Accepted : 17 May 2024

Published : 06 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00776-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Family Firms
• Strategic Management
• Sustainability Management
• Literature Review

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research