Corporate Governance and ESG Research, 1976–2025: A Systematic Review and Science Mapping, with an International Comparative Research Agenda

Purpose: This study maps the intellectual structure of corporate governance (CG) and environmental, social and governance (ESG) research between 1976 and 2025, identifies the conditional mechanisms through which governance affects firm outcomes across institutional settings, and derives a comparative research agenda for transition and resource-dependent economies, using Mongolia as a focal case.
Design/Methodology/Approach: Following the PRISMA 2020 protocol, the review employs a three-tier corpus architecture. A mapping corpus of ⟨D1⟩ indexed records retrieved from Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions and EBSCO Business Source is analysed with dedicated bibliometric software (Bibliometrix/biblioshiny in R and VOSviewer) to generate co-authorship networks, keyword co-occurrence maps, co-citation and bibliographic-coupling clusters, and thematic-evolution trajectories. A stratified depth-coded corpus of ⟨D2⟩ works is then coded manually on six dimensions — journal ranking, citation impact, region, methodology, variable selection and theoretical foundation — by two independent coders (Cohen’s κ = ⟨D4⟩). A separately reported supplementary tier of ⟨D3⟩ Mongolian grey and local-language sources supports the country-level gap analysis and is excluded from all citation-impact metrics.
Findings: Agency theory remains the dominant primary framework (37.9% of depth-coded studies), but stakeholder, institutional, resource-dependence and legitimacy theories have grown rapidly since 2018, and 13.8% of studies now combine two or more frameworks explicitly. Panel regression remains the leading method (50.7% of method codes), while quasi-experimental designs (PSM+DiD, event studies, natural experiments) are expanding. The empirical frontier has shifted from the United States and Western Europe toward emerging and frontier markets, which jointly exceed 40% of the corpus. Science mapping confirms ⟨D11⟩ distinct thematic clusters and a keyword trajectory moving from board structure–agency cost toward ESG disclosure–assurance–sustainability committee. Mongolia-focused research reveals a formal legal framework with weak enforcement, a narrow set of measurement constructs, and very limited presence in the international citation network.
Conclusion: CG research is shifting from a single-theory paradigm toward multi-theory, ESG-oriented frameworks that require credible causal identification. Governance effects are conditional on legal origin, ownership concentration and enforcement capacity, so evidence generated in developed markets cannot be transferred uncritically to transition economies.
Practical Implications: The findings inform securities regulators, stock exchanges and listed firms in transition and resource-dependent economies — and in Mongolia specifically — on the design of audit and sustainability committees, ESG disclosure rules aligned with GRI and IFRS S1/S2, and resource-governance transparency mechanisms.
Originality: The study combines PRISMA-based systematic screening with software-based science mapping, and it is the first review to position Mongolia explicitly within a comparative class of transition, resource-dependent, thin-market economies rather than treating it as an isolated national case.

Agency theory; Bibliometric analysis; Board structure; Corporate governance

1. Abusharbeh, M. (2025). Board effectiveness, environmental team, and ESG performance in the GCC. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(4), 891–913. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(2), 291–309. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Adegboye, A., Ojeka, S., & Adegboye, K. (2025). Audit committee diversity and earnings quality: A pre/post reform analysis. Accounting Forum, 49(1), 45–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Aggarwal, R., Erel, I., Stulz, R., & Williamson, R. (2009). Differences in governance practices between US and foreign firms. Review of Financial Studies, 22(8), 3131–3169. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Ahmed, E., & Elsayed, N. (2022). Corporate governance and firm performance in Egypt: A panel data analysis. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 12(4), 671–693. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Alkhawaja, A., Abdullah, M., & Salem, R. (2023). Gender quotas, women on boards, and ESG disclosure. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 14(3), 512–534. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Al-Amarneh, A. (2023). Corporate governance, ownership structure, and bank performance in Jordan. Banks and Bank Systems, 18(2), 88–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Almashaqbeh, A. (2023). Institutional and family ownership and firm value. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), Article 2175565. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Amarsanaa, B., & Tserenchimed, D. (2020). Ownership concentration and earnings management in Mongolia [Unpublished manuscript]. Business School, National University of Mongolia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Arsh, L., Lee, C., & Wang, J. (2025). Board composition, audit committee, foreign ownership, and firm performance. Journal of Financial Stability, 68, 101172. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Asian Development Bank. (2021). Decentralization and local governance in Mongolia: An assessment. Asian Development Bank. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. (2015). Corporate governance principles for banks. Bank for International Settlements. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Basile, R., Cardinali, A., & Moretti, R. (2025). Board characteristics and ESG performance: Evidence from European banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 159, 107135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Bebchuk, L., Cohen, A., & Ferrell, A. (2009). What matters in corporate governance? Review of Financial Studies, 22(2), 783–827. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Bhagat, S., & Bolton, B. (2008). Corporate governance and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 14(3), 257–273. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., & Kramer, B. M. R. (2016). Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: A prospective study. Systematic Reviews, 5, 39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Boldbaatar, B., Lkhagvadorj, A., & Byambadorj, T. (2019). Resource governance transparency: EITI standards in Mongolia. The Extractive Industries and Society, 6(3), 842–851. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Bunyaminu, A., Issah, M., & Kyere, E. (2025). Board structure and market value of listed firms in Ghana. International Journal of Finance & Economics, 30(1), 123–141. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Cadbury, A. (1992). Report of the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. Gee Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Campbell, K., & Vera, A. M. (2021). Board diversity and firm performance: Evidence from UK companies. Journal of Corporate Finance, 66, 101791. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Claessens, S., Djankov, S., Fan, J., & Lang, L. (2002). Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings. Journal of Finance, 57(6), 2741–2771. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Core, J. E., Holthausen, R. W., & Larcker, D. F. (2006). Corporate governance, chief executive officer compensation, and firm performance. Journal of Finance, 61(5), 1881–1921. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Davydova, M. (2025). SDG policy and ESG implementation in Mongolia. Mongolian Journal of Geography & Geoecology, 12(1), 33–47. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Elsayed, K., & Wahba, H. (2021). CEO duality and firm performance: Agency vs. stewardship theory. Journal of Business Research, 125, 578–591. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. (2016). Legal sector assessment: Corporate governance in transition economies. EBRD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Fatma, M., Khan, I., & Rahman, Z. (2021). Board and ownership metrics and firm value: European evidence. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 22(4), 628–645. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Ferri, L., Maffei, M., & Spano, R. (2025). Gender diversity and sustainability reporting quality. Accounting in Europe, 22(1), 1–24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Ferrero, I., Calabrese, M., & Tirado, P. (2025). Board characteristics and ESG performance in utilities. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 32(2), 441–458. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Gavana, G., Gottardo, P., & Moisello, A. (2025). Gender diversity and ESG disclosure: Cultural moderators. Journal of Business Research, 167, 114089. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Gompers, P., Ishii, J., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 107–155. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. International Accounting Standards Board. (2023). IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 sustainability disclosure standards. IFRS Foundation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. International Organization for Standardization. (2021). ISO 37000: Governance of organizations — Guidance. ISO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Issah, M., & Bunyaminu, A. (2025). Corporate governance and reporting quality in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies, 16(1), 102–123. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Kubo, K. (2024). CSR committee and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Japan using PSM+DiD. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 32(3), 389–408. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1998). Law and finance. Journal of Political Economy, 106(6), 1113–1155. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Lefort, F. (2008). Ownership structure, corporate governance, and firm performance in Latin America. Abacus, 44(2), 97–126. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Manita, R., Bruna, M. G., Dang, R., & Houanti, L. (2018). Board gender diversity and ESG disclosure: Evidence from the USA. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 19(2), 206–224. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Metwally, A. H. (2025). ESG disclosure, audit committee, sustainability committee and firm value. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 93, 101928. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Mittal, S., Kumar, S., & Singh, R. (2018). Corporate governance and firm performance: Evidence from Indian listed firms. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management, 16(3), 332–355. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 871–906. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Natural Resource Governance Institute. (2024). Contract transparency in Mongolia’s mining sector. NRGI. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Ntim, C. G. (2025). Audit committee expertise and firm performance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 80, 102408. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Ntim, C. G., & Osei, K. A. (2025). Board governance, market value, and ESG disclosure in Sub-Saharan Africa. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 25(3), 412–434. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Okello, B., & Munene, J. (2025). Board attributes and SME performance: A mixed-methods study. Small Business Economics, 64(2), 351–372. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Okello, B., Munene, J., & Tumwine, S. (2025). Governance mechanisms and disclosure quality in East African listed firms. African Journal of Business Management, 19(5), 220–238. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Omenihu, M. (2025a). National governance quality and firm performance. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 25(1), 88–105. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Omenihu, M. (2025b). Women on boards and ESG disclosure. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 25(2), 201–218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Otgonsüren, O. (2023). CSR investment and firm performance in Mongolia. NUM Journal of Business & Innovation, 2(2), 45–63. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Rahman, M., Alam, M., & Islam, S. (2025). Audit committee characteristics and earnings management. SAGE Open, 15(1), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Sahu, T. (2025). Audit committee expertise and ESG performance. Managerial Auditing Journal, 40(2), 201–222. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Sanser, S. (2023). Corporate governance practices and firm performance in Mongolia. Mongolian Journal of Economics, 5(1), 22–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52(2), 737–783. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Sodnomdorj, B., Gantulga, L., & Erdene, T. (2024). Corporate governance and financial performance: Evidence from Mongolia’s stock exchange. iBusiness, 16(2), 78–95. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Sundarasen, S., Goel, S., & Zulkifli, N. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of ESG and corporate governance research. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 15(4), 720–745. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. Tran, H. T., Nguyen, T. T., & Le, T. V. (2024). Women on boards and financial performance in the energy sector. Energy Economics, 130, 107198. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. Tumewang, Y. K., Mawardi, I., & Ahim, A. (2025). Sustainability committee, assurance, and ESG performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(3), 1445–1462. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. Vetchagool, W., Augustine, D., & Tan, M. (2025). Board diversity and ESG performance in Asia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 32(1), 88–110. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. Vidalis, M. (2025). Gender board reform and stock returns: Quasi-experimental evidence. European Financial Management, 31(1), 89–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. Yang, M., Zhang, L., & Liu, J. (2024). Governance quality and ESG performance: Evidence from China A-share firms. Finance Research Letters, 62, 105162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• IFRS S1 and S2: A Global and Indian Perspective with Implications for Auditors
• A Study on Consumer Attitudes and Buying Behavior towards organic Food Products
• India’s Transfer Pricing Framework: Evolution, Challenges, and Future Directions
• Application of Statistical Methods in Business Administration: A Quantitative Study on Organizational Performance
• Decoding Fintech Adoption: The Role of Trust, Risks and Perceived Benefits