The Nexus of Green Transformational Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility: A Bibliometric Review and Future Research Agenda

2.1 Green transformational leadership

GTL is an extension of transformational leadership theory that integrates environmental values into leadership behaviors. Rooted in the foundational work of Burns [15] and Bass [16], transformational leadership emphasizes the ability of leaders to inspire, intellectually stimulate, and motivate followers to transcend self-interest for collective goals. GTL builds on this framework by embedding environmental sustainability into leaders’ vision, communication, and decision-making processes [17, 18].

GTL has been shown to influence employees’ pro-environmental behaviors, green creativity, and organizational environmental performance [19, 20]. Leaders who exhibit green transformational behaviors encourage employees to adopt environmentally responsible practices through role modeling, environmental vision articulation, and fostering a culture of sustainability [21]. Moreover, GTL is closely associated with green human resource management (GHRM) practices [22], which further reinforce sustainability-oriented behaviors at the organizational level.

2.2 Corporate social responsibility

CSR refers to organizational actions and policies that consider stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental performance. The conceptualization of CSR has evolved significantly, with early definitions emphasizing discretionary responsibilities [23] and later perspectives framing CSR as a strategic and integrative component of business operations [24].

CSR is grounded in several theoretical frameworks, including stakeholder theory, legitimacy theory, and institutional theory. Stakeholder theory posits that organizations must address the interests of multiple stakeholders to achieve long-term success [25]. Legitimacy theory emphasizes the need for organizations to align their actions with societal norms and expectations, while institutional theory highlights the role of external pressures in shaping CSR practices [26].

Empirical research demonstrates that CSR contributes to enhanced corporate reputation, financial performance, and stakeholder trust [27]. In the sustainability context, CSR has increasingly focused on environmental responsibility, aligning closely with global sustainability frameworks such as those proposed by the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [28]. However, despite its strategic importance, CSR implementation often varies across organizations, depending on leadership commitment, organizational culture, and external pressures.

2.3 Green transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility

The intersection between GTL and CSR represents a critical yet underdeveloped area of research. Conceptually, GTL provides the behavioral and motivational mechanisms through which sustainability-oriented values are translated into organizational practices, including CSR initiatives. Leaders play a pivotal role in shaping CSR strategies by influencing organizational vision, resource allocation, and stakeholder engagement [29, 30].

Emerging studies suggest that GTL positively influences CSR by fostering a sustainability-oriented organizational culture and enhancing employees’ commitment to socially responsible practices [31]. GTL encourages the integration of environmental considerations into corporate strategies, thereby strengthening CSR performance and outcomes. Furthermore, green leadership has been linked to increased environmental innovation, which serves as a key dimension of CSR in addressing ecological challenges [32].

The distribution of the 146 documents across subject areas reveals the inherently multidisciplinary nature of research on GTL and CSR. The majority of publications are concentrated in Business, Management and Accounting (n = 98), indicating that the discourse is primarily anchored within organizational and managerial contexts. This dominance reflects the central role of leadership practices in shaping CSR strategies and sustainable organizational outcomes. In addition, a substantial proportion of studies falls within the Social Sciences (n = 60), highlighting the broader societal implications of GTL and CSR, including stakeholder engagement, institutional pressures, and social legitimacy. The presence of Environmental Science (n = 39) further underscores the ecological dimension of the field, suggesting that sustainability-oriented leadership is increasingly examined in relation to environmental performance and climate-related challenges.

Similarly, contributions from Economics, Econometrics and Finance (n = 37) indicate a growing interest in understanding the financial and economic consequences of CSR initiatives driven by GTL. These studies often explore value creation, firm performance, and long-term sustainability from a strategic perspective. Although less dominant, the inclusion of disciplines such as Computer Science (n = 19) and Energy (n = 18) points to emerging intersections with digital transformation and energy sustainability, respectively. This suggests that technological advancements and energy transitions are becoming relevant contexts for examining leadership and CSR integration. Furthermore, contributions from Arts and Humanities (n = 14) and Decision Sciences (n = 12) provide nuanced insights into ethical considerations, cultural narratives, and decision-making processes associated with sustainable leadership.

Other subject areas, including Engineering (n = 8), Psychology (n = 5), and several smaller fields such as Mathematics, Materials Science, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Physics and Astronomy, Medicine, and Chemistry, demonstrate the peripheral yet important contributions that enrich the field’s interdisciplinary foundation. These areas, although limited in number, signal opportunities for future research to integrate technical, behavioral, and scientific perspectives into leadership and CSR scholarship.

2.png

Figure 2. Publication trends from 2010 to 2026

Figure 2 illustrates the temporal evolution of publications on GTL and CSR over the period 2010 to 2026, revealing a progressively increasing yet non-linear trajectory. In the early stage, spanning 2010 to 2014, scholarly output remained relatively limited, with annual publications ranging from two to five documents. This period can be characterized as the nascent phase of the field, where research attention to the intersection of environmental leadership and CSR was still emerging and fragmented.

From 2015 to 2019, the field began to exhibit modest growth, with publication counts fluctuating between four and seven articles per year. This gradual increase suggests a growing recognition of the strategic importance of sustainability-oriented leadership, particularly in response to rising global awareness of environmental issues and corporate accountability. However, the growth during this phase remained incremental, indicating that the topic had not yet reached mainstream prominence within leadership and organizational studies.

A more noticeable shift occurs from 2020 onwards. Although 2021 shows a slight decline, the overall trend reflects a significant acceleration in scholarly output, culminating in a sharp increase from 2022 (n = 14) to 2025 (n = 30), which represents the peak of publication activity within the dataset. This surge likely corresponds with heightened global emphasis on sustainability, climate change mitigation, and responsible business practices, as well as the increasing integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations into leadership research.

The partial data for 2026 (n = 12) suggests a continuation of strong research interest, although the lower count should be interpreted cautiously due to incomplete indexing for the current year. Overall, the trend demonstrates a transition from a relatively underexplored niche to a rapidly expanding research domain.

Table 1 presents the five most frequently cited publications within the intersection of leadership and CSR, offering important insights into the intellectual foundations of this research domain. The most cited study by Groves and LaRocca [35], with 228 citations, underscores the pivotal role of ethical values embedded within transformational leadership in shaping followers’ attitudes toward CSR. This work establishes a critical behavioral mechanism, suggesting that leadership is not only a structural driver but also a moral catalyst for CSR engagement. The prominence of this study indicates that early scholarship strongly emphasized the ethical underpinnings of leadership as a foundation for socially responsible organizational behavior.

Table 1. Five most frequently cited papers

Similarly, Du et al. [36], the second most cited article, advances the conversation by systematically examining how different leadership styles influence CSR outcomes. The high citation count reflects the study’s contribution in broadening the leadership-CSR nexus beyond transformational leadership alone, highlighting that leadership styles function as strategic enablers of CSR implementation. This reinforces the view that CSR is not merely a corporate policy but is deeply contingent upon leadership orientation and managerial discretion.

The third-ranked study by Angus-Leppan et al. [37] further deepens the theoretical landscape by integrating institutional theory and sense-making perspectives into CSR leadership research. Its influence suggests that CSR practices are shaped not only by individual leadership traits but also by broader institutional pressures and cognitive interpretations. This marks an important shift from purely leader-centric explanations toward more contextually embedded understandings of CSR.

The fourth article by Manzoor et al. [38] reflects a transition toward examining mediating mechanisms, particularly the role of CSR in linking transformational leadership to firm-level outcomes such as job performance. This indicates a growing scholarly interest in unpacking the “black box” between leadership and performance by positioning CSR as a critical intervening variable. Such work contributes to the operationalization of CSR within organizational behavior frameworks.

Finally, the recent contribution by Abbas [39] highlights an emerging direction in the literature, integrating GTL with CSR and green innovation. This study signals a paradigmatic evolution toward sustainability-oriented leadership, where environmental concerns, dynamic capabilities, and technological innovation converge. The inclusion of this recent work among the most cited papers suggests a rapidly growing emphasis on the environmental dimension of CSR and the strategic role of green leadership.

Table 2 identifies the five most influential authors in the GTL-CSR research domain, based on a combination of productivity (documents), scholarly impact (citations), and academic influence (H-index). The results reveal a highly concentrated yet evolving intellectual structure within this field. Groves, K.S. emerges as the most influential scholar, with the highest number of publications (6) and citations (391), along with a strong h-index (21). This dominance indicates a foundational role in shaping the leadership-CSR discourse. Groves’ contributions primarily center on the ethical and transformational dimensions of leadership, reinforcing the argument that leadership values and behaviors are critical antecedents of CSR engagement. The prominence of this author suggests that early intellectual development in this field has been strongly driven by normative and values-based leadership perspectives.

Table 2. Five most influential authors

Closely following, LaRocca, M.A. demonstrates substantial influence despite a smaller number of publications (3), with 315 citations and a solid h-index (12). This pattern indicates high-impact contributions rather than high productivity, suggesting that seminal or widely recognized works play a crucial role in shaping the field. The strong co-presence of Groves and LaRocca also reflects the importance of collaborative scholarship in establishing core theoretical foundations.

In contrast, authors such as Atan, T., Senathirajah, A.R.B.S., and Gazi, M.A.I. represent a newer wave of contributors. Although their citation counts remain comparatively lower, their h-index values (14, 15, and 20, respectively) indicate growing academic recognition and sustained research activity. This suggests a diffusion of the research field toward a broader and more diverse scholarly base, particularly across emerging and international institutions.

Notably, the geographic diversity of affiliations, spanning institutions in the United States, Cyprus, Malaysia, and China, highlights the global expansion of leadership and CSR research. This diversification reflects the increasing relevance of CSR as a universal organizational concern, transcending regional and institutional boundaries. It also indicates that the GTL-CSR nexus is being examined within varied socio-economic and cultural contexts, which may contribute to richer theoretical development.

Table 3 presents the five most influential journals contributing to the GTL-CSR nexus, based on publication output, citation impact, and journal quality indicators. The results reveal a multidisciplinary yet strategically concentrated publication landscape. The journal Sustainability (Switzerland) ranks first in terms of productivity, with the highest number of documents (12) and a substantial citation count (369). This dominance reflects the increasing alignment between CSR and sustainability-oriented research, where leadership is examined as a driver of environmental and social performance. The journal’s positioning within the domain of geography, planning, and development further suggests that the leadership-CSR relationship is being extended beyond traditional management boundaries into broader sustainability and societal contexts.

Table 3. Five most influential journals

In contrast, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management demonstrates a strong balance between productivity (6 documents) and scholarly impact (232 citations), supported by a high SJR (2.147). This indicates that the journal serves as a central outlet for strategically oriented CSR research, particularly in linking leadership practices with environmental management and organizational strategy. Its prominence reinforces the growing integration of CSR into core business and management disciplines.

Similarly, Social Responsibility Journal contributes significantly to the field, with consistent publication output and citation impact. Its focus on business, management, and accounting highlights the operationalization of CSR within organizational systems, suggesting that leadership research in this outlet often emphasizes implementation and managerial implications.

Notably, Journal of Business Ethics stands out with the highest citation count (698) despite a relatively smaller number of publications (5). This pattern indicates that the journal functions as a key intellectual cornerstone, publishing highly influential and foundational works. Its strong SJR (3.138) further confirms its role in shaping the theoretical and ethical dimensions of the leadership-CSR nexus. The prominence of this journal suggests that ethical considerations remain central to understanding how leadership drives socially responsible behavior.

Finally, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies appears as a specialized outlet within this domain, with a moderate number of publications (3) and citations (92). Its inclusion highlights the growing recognition of CSR within leadership-focused scholarship. Unlike broader CSR or sustainability journals, this journal provides a more focused platform for examining leadership mechanisms, behaviors, and organizational implications, thereby bridging micro-level leadership theories with macro-level CSR outcomes.

Table 4 presents the five most productive organizations contributing to the scholarly discourse on the nexus between GTL and CSR. The findings reveal a geographically diverse yet uneven distribution of institutional productivity and scholarly impact. Pepperdine University emerges as the most productive and influential institution, with six publications and a notably high citation count (391). This indicates not only consistent research output but also strong academic resonance and influence within the field. The substantial citation impact suggests that research originating from this institution plays a foundational or widely recognized role in shaping the intellectual structure of GTL and CSR scholarship.

Table 4. Top 5 productive organizations

In contrast, the University of Barishal ranks second in productivity with four publications but demonstrates a comparatively low citation impact (28). This disparity highlights a common pattern in bibliometric studies where emerging or less globally visible institutions contribute to output volume but may face limitations in terms of international visibility, collaboration networks, or journal placement.

Among Chinese institutions, Jiangsu University and Beijing Institute of Technology each contribute three publications. However, their citation performance differs significantly. Jiangsu University records a relatively high citation count (136), suggesting stronger academic influence, whereas Beijing Institute of Technology shows a modest citation impact (23) despite its global standing (QS ranking 259). This discrepancy indicates that institutional prestige does not necessarily translate directly into citation impact within this specific research domain.

Similarly, INTI International University contributes three publications with 28 citations, despite having a relatively strong QS ranking (509). This further reinforces the observation that institutional ranking and bibliometric impact in niche research areas such as GTL and CSR may not always align.

Table 5 highlights the five most productive countries contributing to the literature on GTL and CSR, revealing important patterns in global research productivity and scholarly impact. The United States ranks first in both research output (35 documents) and citation impact (1,254 citations), consistent with its leading position in the SCImago Country Rank (SCR = 1). This dominance reflects a well-established research ecosystem, extensive funding opportunities, and strong international collaboration networks, which collectively enhance both productivity and global visibility. The United States’ leadership also suggests its central role in shaping theoretical and empirical advancements in GTL and CSR.

Table 5. Top 5 productive countries

Similarly, China demonstrates substantial scholarly contribution, ranking second in both publications (25 documents) and citations (1,003), aligned with its SCR position (2). This indicates not only high productivity but also increasing influence in the global research landscape. China’s strong citation performance suggests that its contributions are gaining recognition and are actively shaping emerging debates in green leadership and sustainability practices.

In contrast, India ranks third in productivity (16 documents) but exhibits a relatively modest citation count (225), despite holding a strong SCR position (6). This discrepancy suggests that while India is an active contributor, its research may face challenges related to international visibility, journal impact, or citation diffusion within the global academic community.

A particularly notable finding is the case of Pakistan, which ranks fourth in publication output (15 documents) but demonstrates a remarkably high citation count (946), outperforming countries with higher SCR rankings such as India and Saudi Arabia. Despite its lower SCR position (39), Pakistan’s citation impact suggests that its contributions are highly influential, potentially driven by strong collaborations, impactful research topics, or publications in high-visibility journals. This indicates that research quality and thematic relevance may outweigh overall national ranking in determining scholarly influence.

Finally, Saudi Arabia ranks fifth with 10 publications and 519 citations (SCR = 27), reflecting a growing but still developing presence in the field. The country’s moderate citation performance suggests increasing engagement with sustainability-related research, likely supported by national initiatives promoting environmental responsibility and organizational transformation.

Figure 3 presents the co-authorship network, highlighting the intellectual collaboration patterns among scholars in the field of GTL and CSR. The network reveals a centralized structure, with Hossain, M.M. (Jahangirnagar University, Bangladesh) emerging as the most influential and well-connected author within this cluster. Hossain, M.M. occupies a strategic bridging position, acting as a key connector linking multiple researchers across different institutional and geographical contexts. Notably, strong collaborative ties are observed between Hossain and Gazi, M.A.I. (Jiujiang University, China), indicating a significant cross-country research partnership that enhances knowledge exchange between South Asia and East Asia.

3.png

Figure 3. Co-authorship network

In addition, Hossain’s collaborative network extends to several other scholars, including: Amin, M.B. (State University of Bangladesh, Bangladesh), Senathirajah, A.R.B.S. (INTI International University, Malaysia), Al Masud, A. (University of Barishal, Bangladesh), Abdullah, M. (University of Debrecen, Hungary), and Islam, S. (University of Barishal, Bangladesh). This pattern indicates that Hossain functions as a core hub, facilitating both intra-national collaboration (within Bangladesh) and international research linkages spanning Malaysia, China, and Hungary.

The temporal evolution of the GTL-CSR nexus in Figure 4 reveals a clear transition from a compliance-based and externally driven perspective to a leadership-centered, behaviorally grounded, and digitally enabled sustainability framework, where GTL functions as a critical integrative mechanism across individual, organizational, and strategic levels.

4.png

Figure 4. Temporal overlay of the co-word occurrence map for green transformational leadership (GTL) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature

The early phase (2010-2020) was dominated by macro-level concerns such as environmental sustainability and climate change, with limited emphasis on leadership. The transitional phase (2021-2023) marked the emergence of GTL as a central construct, emphasizing behavioral and organizational mechanisms. The most recent phase (2024-2026) reflects a mature and integrative perspective, where leadership, technology, culture, and strategy converge to drive sustainable performance and growth.

Figure 5 and Table 6 illustrate the intellectual structure of the GTL-CSR literature through six distinct but interrelated thematic clusters. The configuration reflects a multi-level, capability-driven, and increasingly digitalized sustainability discourse.

5.png

Figure 5. Overlay visualization of keywords co-occurrence

Table 6. Summary of thematic clusters derived from keyword co-occurrence analysis

Cluster 1 represents the largest and most behaviorally grounded stream, emphasizing employee green behavior, pro-environmental behavior, motivation, and GHRM as key enablers of environmental and organizational sustainability. This cluster highlights the micro-level mechanisms through which GTL translates into CSR outcomes. Recent studies suggest that GTL fosters intrinsic motivation and environmental commitment, which in turn stimulate employee-level green behaviors and collective sustainability outcomes [41, 42]. Moreover, GHRM practices act as institutionalized mechanisms that reinforce leadership signals, aligning employee behavior with sustainability goals [40].

Cluster 2 centers on environmental performance, green innovation, and climate change, and is conceptually grounded in the Natural Resource-Based View (NRBV). This cluster reflects a strategic, capability-oriented perspective on the GTL-CSR nexus, where environmental responsibility is framed not merely as an ethical obligation but as a source of organizational competitiveness. Within this view, firms develop unique environmental capabilities, such as pollution prevention, eco-efficiency, and sustainable product innovation, that are difficult to imitate and therefore contribute to long-term competitive advantage [12, 43].

GTL plays a pivotal role as a strategic enabler. Leaders with strong environmental vision and commitment actively shape organizational capabilities by fostering a culture of sustainability, encouraging experimentation, and allocating resources toward green initiatives [30]. As a result, GTL becomes a key driver of green innovation, supporting the development of environmentally friendly processes, products, and technologies that respond to increasing climate change pressures [21]. Moreover, this cluster highlights the interdependence between environmental performance and innovation outcomes. Firms that successfully integrate GTL into their CSR strategies are better positioned to enhance their environmental performance while simultaneously addressing regulatory demands and stakeholder expectations related to climate change. Recent studies reinforce this linkage, showing that GTL stimulates green innovation, which in turn mediates improvements in environmental performance and strengthens firms’ adaptive capacity in the face of ecological uncertainty [52, 53].

Cluster 3 brings together green capability, job performance, organizational performance, and sustainable growth, forming a coherent meso-level performance framework that bridges individual and organizational analysis. This cluster moves beyond purely strategic or behavioral perspectives by explaining how sustainability is operationalized through capabilities that connect leadership inputs to measurable outcomes. At its core, this cluster emphasizes the role of green dynamic capabilities, which refer to firms’ abilities to integrate, build, and reconfigure environmental competencies in response to changing conditions [44]. Within the GTL-CSR nexus, GTL functions as a key antecedent that nurtures these capabilities by shaping employees’ environmental awareness, encouraging skill development, and fostering adaptive learning processes [39]. In doing so, GTL translates abstract sustainability goals into actionable organizational routines and practices. These capability-building processes have direct implications at multiple levels. At the individual level, employees equipped with green competencies tend to exhibit higher job performance, particularly in tasks related to environmental responsibility, efficiency, and innovation. At the organizational level, the accumulation and orchestration of such capabilities enhance overall performance by improving resource utilization, strengthening innovation outcomes, and aligning operations with sustainability objectives.

Cluster 4 centers on organizational identification and values congruence, capturing the social-psychological foundation of the GTL-CSR relationship. This cluster explains how sustainability is internalized by employees, emphasizing that the success of GTL depends not only on strategic direction or capability development but also on the alignment between organizational values and individual beliefs. From this perspective, CSR initiatives function as important symbolic and substantive signals that communicate the organization’s ethical stance and commitment to sustainability [45]. When employees perceive these initiatives as authentic and consistent, they are more likely to develop stronger organizational identification, which is a sense of belonging and emotional attachment to the organization [46]. At the same time, values congruence emerges when employees feel that their personal values align with the organization’s sustainability-oriented mission.

Cluster 5 introduces an emerging theme combining digital transformation, organizational culture, and sustainable performance. This reflects a contemporary shift toward digital sustainability. Recent research highlights that digital technologies (e.g., AI, big data) enable firms to optimize sustainability practices and monitor CSR performance in real time [47, 48]. However, their effectiveness depends on a supportive organizational culture shaped by leadership.

Cluster 6, while comparatively smaller in size, captures a critical dimension of the sustainability discourse by focusing on decision-making and business development. This cluster reflects the managerial and entrepreneurial roles of leadership, where sustainability is not treated as a peripheral concern but as a core strategic priority. In this context, leaders act as key decision architects who align CSR initiatives with organizational objectives, ensuring that sustainability considerations are embedded within high-level strategic choices [50]. More specifically, this cluster highlights how leadership facilitates the integration of CSR into business development processes, linking ethical responsibility with value creation and competitive advantage. Recent studies further support this perspective by demonstrating that leaders with a sustainability orientation systematically incorporate CSR into their decision-making frameworks. This integration enables organizations to pursue business model innovation that is both economically viable and socially responsible, ultimately contributing to long-term organizational resilience and sustainable development [49, 51].