Few texts focus on the economic dimension of the triple bottom line (Figure 2, left). Instead, the ecological dimension is discussed most frequently, followed by the social dimension. The right side of Figure 2 shows that conflicts between the social and ecological dimension seem to be less important, as conflicts between economic and ecological decisions and economic and social decisions dominate.

In the material, the departments most frequently discussed to be responsible for integrating sustainability into practice were sales and marketing, finance and the sustainability department (Figure 3). Less frequently, procurement and HR were mentioned.

The sustainability department was mentioned as a possible point of interaction with controlling/accounting because they aggregate corporate information from different areas of the business, generating an overview of environmental, social, and economic sustainability progress (Isensee and Michel, 2011). However, the degree of cooperation between the interfaces varies. While not all businesses have a sustainability department, those that do usually are the main locus of sustainability information for all other business areas (Michel et al., 2014). In contrast, employees in controlling and accounting do not see themselves as relevant stakeholders of the sustainability department and rarely keep up with their developments, unless they have a personal interest in the topic (Kämmler-Burrak and Bauer, 2022; Stehle and Stelkens, 2018).

In procurement, the sustainability efforts that are connected to controlling and accounting usually focus on the corporate supply chain’s emissions and resource consumption (Ferreira et al., 2010; Glanze, 2022; Krause, 2016). However, some publications mention progress in the sense of design for sustainability, procurement for sustainability or the development of more efficient and environmentally friendly means of production (Greiling and Ther, 2010; Isensee and Michel, 2011; Schaltegger, 2020; Schaltegger and Zvezdov, 2011).

Sustainability in HR mostly focuses on the social dimension through employee development and training, as well as the controlling of employee KPIs (Greiling and Ther, 2010; Weber et al., 2010). They are a stakeholder of the sustainability department because for an increasing number of potential employees, a company’s sustainability efforts are relevant in the application process. HR needs sustainability information to market the roles to applicants (Braun, 2019). It is also in the company’s interest that employees act in line with corporate strategy. This extends to sustainability-specific aspects. It is therefore necessary for HR to also offer further training in this area in cooperation with the sustainability department (Lacy et al., 2009). Regarding controlling, HR also records data relevant to the social dimension of sustainability, such as absence and sickness rates, workplace incidents and personal development hours, amongst others (Schwarzmaier, 2015).

The development of an “honest” marketing mix dominates the codings in the field of sales and marketing (Gebauer, 2013; Schaltegger and Zvezdov, 2011; Schwarzmaier, 2013). Braun (2019) even calls some CSR reports a mere marketing tool that is used strategically as a means of corporate communications. These reports provide little value to stakeholders as they lack substance (Gaggl, 2021). To enforce truly sustainable marketing efforts, reporting should be seen as an opportunity to realize the corporate sustainability strategy, i.e., by commenting on internal sustainability efforts and failures (Schwarzmaier, 2013; Weigand, 2020).

In the finance department, most codings relate to the area of controlling (Figure 4). These were coded whenever the area was mentioned in a sustainability context. The other areas like external and internal accounting (the latter represented by the different areas of cost accounting and investment accounting) were mentioned far less frequently, although explicitly included in the search terms (Table 1).

Most texts did not discuss new sustainability-oriented instruments for controlling but rather applied traditional tools to the new context (Wellbrock et al., 2020). Some traditional tools that are mentioned are ecology-oriented SWOT analysis, portfolio analysis, ABC-scoring, eco-efficiency indicators or ecological life cycle assessments (Greiling and Ther, 2010). Some publications specify controlling tools that are unique to the issue of sustainability, for example the “sustainable value” or the “sustainability balanced scorecard” (Figge and Hahn, 2004; Gaggl, 2021; Heimel and Momberg, 2021; Hubbard, 2009; Wellbrock et al., 2020). Fischer et al. (2010) and Michel et al. (2014) highlight the need of new KPIs that include the triple bottom line approach. Thus, new KPI systems need to be developed to ensure number-based reporting (Lühn et al., 2022). According to Aras and Crowther (2009) and Rönz and Ryba (2012) however, companies need guidance to develop these KPIs, as many sustainability aspects are difficult to quantify for accounting purposes.

Some publications discuss the connection between controlling and CSR departments, as both collect relevant data that requires profound sustainability expertise (Rönz and Ryba, 2012). Since most controlling employees are not sustainability experts, cooperation is needed to successfully develop and control the corporate sustainability strategy (Endenich and Trapp, 2019).

In both external and internal accounting, sustainability aspects were mostly discussed as supplemental to the regulations companies already follow (Günther and Stechemesser, 2011; Sulaiman and Mokhtar, 2012). In external accounting, most codings related to hardships that sustainable companies face when it comes to financial accounting and reporting. Sulaiman and Mokhtar (2012) specify that professional accounting bodies should require monetary information to be reported in the CSR reports, because only this will motivate companies to be serious about the integration of environmental issues into their accounting and control systems. Schwarzmaier (2015) adds that companies that report in Germany can use accounting instruments such as social balance sheets in addition to the traditional management reports. In cost accounting, it is an option to internalize costs, e.g., CO2 compensation. Some companies go a step further and prepare an ecology-oriented profit and loss statement that internalizes effects on ecology and values them at an internal cost rate (Michel et al., 2014).

In addition to sustainability efforts on a departmental level, some aspects affect some or all parts of a business’ supply chain. The results for this category are presented in Figure 5. Most frequently, management and control processes as well as the entire supply chain were coded. Key and support processes were not coded as often.

Publications that discuss sustainability in management processes suggest that the topic can be integrated in multiple directions (Lacy et al., 2009; Olbert-Bock et al., 2015; Stehle and Stelkens, 2018). Sustainability should be integrated both top-down and bottom-up by engaging in continuous stakeholder dialogue. However, a significant amount of data is needed for adequate sustainability performance management within these processes. Another option is to incentivize sustainable decision-making (Schäffer, 2022). Additionally, non-financial information should be as relevant in management decisions as financial information and thus discussed as such in corresponding contexts (Sulaiman and Mokhtar, 2012). Some publications also discuss key processes such as production, logistics and procurement as appropriate options to promote sustainability (Ferreira et al., 2010; Fischer et al., 2010; Weber et al., 2010). This could be the reduction of scrap products and materials, resource and energy consumption, as well as the extension of product life. In support processes, sustainability takes on the form of employee habit change and the sustainability of the company itself (Krause, 2016; Weigand, 2020). This extends to aspects such as using recycled printing paper (or not printing at all), being conscious of cloud data and server energy usage, recycling in-house, using regenerative energy to power production sites and offices and donating to charity. Publications discussing a company’s entire supply chain mostly focus on the social dimension of sustainability by describing the impact on local labor laws and even environmental protection laws at production sites (Gaggl, 2021; Hubbard, 2009; Klute-Wenig and Refflinghaus, 2015; Rodriguez-Olalla and Aviles-Palacios, 2017; Schulz, 2014).

Additionally, most texts discuss a strategic integration of sustainability (n = 81 codings). Operative and tactical timeframes are mentioned less often (Figure 6).

Regarding the non-financial data that companies reported on, a few trends can be identified in the publications (Figure 7). Most publications mention that companies use the GRI standards and focus on emissions, the exploitation of resources and work conditions (Gawenko et al., 2020; Pandit and Rubenfield, 2016; Rönz and Ryba, 2012; Weber et al., 2010). Less emphasis is put on creating equal opportunities, keeping human rights or fighting lobbyism and corruption (Schier and Bonnländer, 2018; Schmitz, 2021).

The tools that are mentioned in controlling and accounting codings go beyond more general calculations like KPIs with (n = 19) and without a sustainability focus (SKPI, n = 16) to more specific ones, such as eco efficiency analysis (n = 3), social return on investment (SROI, n = 2), sustainability balanced scorecard (SBSC, n = 19) and sustainable value (n = 9). The SBSC was frequently discussed from a goal-setting perspective, thus more useful as a starting point.

The general KPIs mentioned were rather specific control systems like economic value added (EVA) and total return on investment (Lux and Olbert-Bock, 2016; Schulze and Thomas, 2012; Schwarzmaier, 2013). Newer publications suggested SKPIs such as the recording of CO2 emissions, circular transition indicators or sustainable value added (Gaggl, 2021; Kämmler-Burrak and Bauer, 2022; Lühn et al., 2022). Additionally, newer publications also stressed the issue of data availability and standardization (Kämmler-Burrak and Bauer, 2022). In recent years, there has been an influx of KPIs and tools in sustainability controlling and accounting, most of which companies have developed themselves through benchmarking (Heimel and Momberg, 2021; Rönz and Ryba, 2012).

The competences discussed in the texts were presented in a general manner or with a focus on sustainability, since some competences are easily adaptable for different contexts (e.g., researching alternatives for products or developing new strategies), whereas others are only needed in specific sustainability-focused situations (e.g., the calculation of CO2 emissions or the corporate carbon footprint). In the n = 79 publications, professional and methodological competences were discussed the most frequently (Figure 8, left), social competences the least.

Roughly 83% of the codings for professional and methodological competences are connected to sustainability in some way. In contrast, only 56% of personal competences and 66% of social competences can be connected to sustainability (Figure 8, right) (Hoekstra, 2020; Kämmler-Burrak and Bauer, 2022; Sneidere and Bumane, 2019; Tsiligiris and Bowyer, 2021).

Results from the professional and methodological dimension can be clustered into three key aspects: (1) sustainability knowledge, (2) knowledge about tools and KPIs, and (3) data and interface management. The first aspect touches on the development of professional knowledge about sustainability. Employees in controlling and accounting need to identify intersections between their area of expertise and potential sustainability aspects to analyze information potentially relevant for sustainability controlling processes (Gaggl, 2021). It is not required for them to become sustainability experts, but there is nuance: employees in controlling and accounting should be open to include sustainability-oriented tools and processes into their repertoire and be available to take on learning opportunities (Lühn et al., 2022; Schulz, 2014; Stehle and Stelkens, 2018). Especially the methodological skill can be developed to include the transformation of ecological and social effects into financial units (Weber et al., 2010). To aid this, companies need to train controllers as additional “sustainability managers” by developing their general skill of preparing management information (Schulz, 2014; Schulze and Thomas, 2012). Lastly, these employees need to be able to communicate the performance of management accounting reports or other regular external reporting and realize their value for controlling processes (Weber et al., 2010).

Regarding the second aspect, publications mention three relevant perspectives. Those concepts that are currently used need to be reevaluated for their suitability regarding a sustainable transformation. Thus, employees need to be able to measure, analyze, report, and evaluate financial data to quantify non-financial information, i.e., by adapting existing KPIs and/or tools (Clarke and O’Neill, 2005). In doing so, they need to apply legal frameworks and keep up with industry standards and best practices. When adaptation is not an option, new concepts need to be developed by defining new relevant KPIs that gather the corporate environmental and social impacts (Stehle and Stelkens, 2018). Necessary competences include benchmarking, risk analysis, stakeholder surveys and external ratings (Kämmler-Burrak and Bauer, 2022). When finally, all tools are up to date, they need to be competent in the use of the new tools, thus broadening their competences in measuring sustainability-relevant information (Hartmann et al., 2016). Then, employees should consider the fit with the corporate sustainability strategy and control accordingly. This might require new workflows (Schulze and Thomas, 2012).

The last aspect, data and interface management, considers the support of other potentially relevant departments and processes. Not all information relevant to sustainability is aggregated in a single department. Thus, departmental cooperation is required. Some publications suggest collaboration between the sustainability experts and those employees who now need to include sustainability in their activities (Fischer et al., 2010; Isensee and Michel, 2011). This can be done through an additional or integrated sustainability department. This reduces specialized technical knowledge that employees in controlling and accounting need to develop (Schaltegger, 2020).

Regarding social competences, publications primarily focus on cooperation, collaboration and communication. Employees are required to use high-quality data as a basis and keep it up to date by collaborating with other departments through empathy and initiative (Gebauer, 2013; Schubert and Gerhardt, 2021). This extends to the collection of relevant data from other departments, including the sustainability department (Fischer et al., 2010).

The personal competences can be divided into ethical guidelines and respecting values as well as identifying complexities and being willing to learn. Regardless of their personal opinion on sustainability, employees need to respect company values and guidelines in their recommendations (Walinska and Dobroszek, 2021) and produce comparable, reliable and consistent data and reports (Arora et al., 2022). Additionally, they need to put problems into larger contexts and derive implications for their actions (D’Amato et al., 2009).

The competence requirements clearly show that controllers need to expand their existing competences: a certain level of sustainability knowledge is required as well as the ability to navigate sustainability-oriented tools and key figures by adapting them or developing new ones. Data management is also important, as non-financial data may need to be transformed or communicated. Since sustainability data occurs everywhere in the company, controllers also have to manage interfaces. Overall, controllers do not need to be experts, but they do need to cooperate.