ESG performance and the green finance ecosystem
a systematic review of green credit, reciprocal mechanisms, and geographic concentration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23925/2179-3565.2026v17i2e77746Palabras clave:
Green Credit, ESG Performance, Green Finance Ecosystem, Directionality, Systematic Literature Review (PRISMA)Resumen
Green credit has become a central financial instrument for channeling capital toward environmentally responsible economic activity, and corporate ESG performance is increasingly used by financial institutions to assess counterparty risk. Yet whether these two constructs form a genuinely reciprocal relationship, and how this relationship is embedded within the broader green finance ecosystem, remains inconsistently understood. This study conducts a PRISMA 2020-guided systematic review of the Scopus database, screening 802 records against pre-registered eligibility criteria to identify 383 eligible studies published between 2017 and 2026. Bibliometric analysis reveals a rapidly expanding literature, with 68.1% of the corpus published in the two most recent years, alongside pronounced geographic concentration: 72.3% of studies originate from Chinese institutions, and difference-in-differences designs anchored to China's 2012 Green Credit Guidelines dominate the methodology. A three-topic model identifies distinct thematic clusters spanning ESG disclosure and greenwashing, green finance policy and digital transformation, and banking governance. Manual reading-based coding of all included studies further reveals that only 66 studies (17.2%) directly test a green credit–ESG relationship, while the remaining majority examine ESG performance in relation to adjacent ecosystem constructs, including green innovation, governance, and digital transformation. These findings substantiate a directionality imbalance: reverse-pathway evidence, in which ESG performance shapes financing outcomes, is considerably thinner and less green-credit-specific than forward-pathway evidence. The review provides a systematic mapping of this literature's structure, geographic concentration, and methodological orientation, establishing a foundation for a forthcoming thematic synthesis addressing the field's core directionality and generalizability gaps.
Descargas
Citas
Abdul Kohar, U. H., Sikandar, H., Khan, N., & Indiran, L. (2026). Navigating the digital frontier: challenges and opportunities in sustainable manufacturing through digitalization. Foresight, 28(2), 180–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-09-2024-0164
Chen, Z., Zhang, Y., Wang, H., Ouyang, X., & Xie, Y. (2022). Can green credit policy promote low-carbon technology innovation?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132061
Chen, S., Song, Y., & Gao, P. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes: Analyzing the impact of ESG on financial performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118829
Chiaramonte, L., Dreassi, A., Girardone, C., & Piserà, S. (2022). Do ESG strategies enhance bank stability during financial turmoil? Evidence from Europe. European Journal of Finance, 28(12), 1173–1211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2021.1964556
Dorsaf, B. (2025). RETRACTED: Breaking glass ceilings or boardroom gridlock? Gender, independence and the new rules of MENA banking resilience [RETRACTED ARTICLE]. Journal of Economic Studies, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-06-2025-0440
Goel, R., & Kashiramka, S. (2026). Nonlinear effects of FinTech adoption on ESG disclosure: Evidence from emerging economies and the role of institutional heterogeneity. Research in International Business and Finance, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2026.103373
Hassan, M. S., Zahra, F. T., Farouk, F. M., & Hussin, W. N. W. (2026). Toward a digital and sustainable finance ecosystem: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis on Fintech and ESG. Business Strategy & Development, 9(2), e70349. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.70349
Jiang, Y., Qin, S., & Xu, Y. (2022). Impact of green credit policy on sustainability performance of high-pollution enterprises. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(52), 79199–79213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21315-6
Khan, I., & Shahid, M. S. (2026). The nexus between fintech and green finance in advancing sustainable performance across countries. Discover Sustainability, 7, 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-02268-5
Khan, N., Sikandar, H., Falahat, M., Akhtar, N., & Rizvi, S. M. R. (2026). Frugal intelligence for circularity: A systematic review of human-in-the-Loop decision support systems in SME circular supply chain optimization. Sustainable Futures, 11, 101838. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SFTR.2026.101838
Khan, N., Sikandar, H., Falahat, M., Alsaad, A. A., & Raza Rizvi, S. M. (2026). Theoretical integration of EFQM, Herzberg, Maslow and expectancy models into a TQM framework: implications for service innovation, service recovery and job satisfaction. Cogent Business & Management, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2026.2664907
Lei, N., Miao, Q., & Yao, X. (2023). Does the implementation of green credit policy improve the ESG performance of enterprises? Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Economic Modelling, 127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106478
Li, S., Liu, Q., Lu, L., & Zheng, K. (2022). Green policy and corporate social responsibility: Empirical analysis of the Green Credit Guidelines in China. Journal of Asian Economics, 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2022.101531
Liao, Y., & Zhou, X. (2024). Real green or fake green? Impact of green credit policy on corporate ESG performance. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03596-z
Manurung, K. A. A., Siregar, H., Fahmi, I., & Hakim, D. B. (2024). Value Chain and ESG Performance as Determinants of Sustainable Lending in Commercial Bank: A Systematic Literature Review. APTISI Transactions on Technopreneurship, 6(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.34306/att.v6i1.381
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pan, T., & Lin, B. (2025). Research on the mechanism of improving the energy-saving effect of green credit policy: green washing behavior and financial supervision. Energy, 327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.136485
Qin, F., & Zhang, M. (2026). AI-driven green transformation: A LLM-based AI quantification and empirical evidence from China. International Review of Financial Analysis, 109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2025.104790
Qureshi, M. I., Bhatti, S. H., & Khan, N. (2025). From hype to reality: a systematic literature review of blockchain’s role in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Management History. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMH-06-2024-0098/1254054
Qureshi, M. I., & Khan, N. (2026). Technological Evolution in Fintech: A Decadal Scientometric and Systematic Review of Developments and Criticisms. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 0, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/IJFE.70180;CSUBTYPE:STRING:AHEAD
Sikandar, H., Khan, N., Falahat, M., & Qureshi, M. I. (2026a). Generative AI for Sustainable Product Design: A Technology Convergence Framework Integrating Multi-Objective Optimisation and Smart Manufacturing. IET Collaborative Intelligent Manufacturing, 8(1), e70051. https://doi.org/10.1049/CIM2.70051;PAGE:STRING:ARTICLE/CHAPTER
Sikandar, H., Khan, N., Falahat, M., & Qureshi, M. I. (2026b). Green Technology Adoption in Resource-Constrained SMEs: A Bibliometric and Thematic Evolution Analysis. Circular Economy and Sustainability 2026 6:3, 6(3), 225-. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43615-026-00869-4
Sun, Y., Lu, Y., Wu, Y., Xu, C., & Davey, H. (2026). Synergizing ESG and Digital Transformation for Corporate Decarbonization. Business Strategy and the Environment, 35(2), 2581–2599. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70262
Tan, Y., & Zhu, Z. (2022). The effect of ESG rating events on corporate green innovation in China: The mediating role of financial constraints and managers' environmental awareness. Technology in Society, 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101906
Thomas, A. S., Jayachandran, A., & Biju, A. V. N. (2024). Strategic mapping of the environmental social governance landscape in finance – A bibliometric exploration through concepts and themes. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(5), 4428–4453. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2805
Vezeteu, C.-D., Stănciulescu, R.-I., & Ungureanu, C. (2025). The Relationship between ESG and Cost of Capital: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting, 28(3), 44–67.
Wang, X., Elahi, E., & Khalid, Z. (2022). Do Green Finance Policies Foster Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance of Corporate?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214920
Wang, J., Ma, M., Dong, T., & Zhang, Z. (2023). Do ESG ratings promote corporate green innovation? A quasi-natural experiment based on SynTao Green Finance's ESG ratings. International Review of Financial Analysis, 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102623
Xue, Y., & Geng, J. (2026). Leading or misleading? The role of firms' ESG performance in banks' green credit granting decisions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.148101
Zhang, D., Zhao, Z., & Lau, C. K. M. (2022). Sovereign ESG and corporate investment: New insights from the United Kingdom. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121899
Zhang, D. (2024). The pathway to curb greenwashing in sustainable growth: The role of artificial intelligence. Energy Economics, 133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2024.107562
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
This Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivers 4.0 International license.
1.The author (s) authorize the publication of the article in the journal;
2.The author (s) warrant that the contribution is original and unpublished and is not in the process of being evaluated in other journal (s);
3. The journal is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts emitted in the texts, as they are the sole responsibility of its author (s);
4. The editors are entitled to make textual adjustments and to adapt the articles to the standards of publication.
