Revisiting Company Performance Research: A Critical Review of Determinants, Measures and Theoretical Perspectives

Abstract

This study critically examines the existing literature on company performance, interrogating the dominant determinants, measurement approaches, and theoretical perspectives applied in contemporary empirical and review scholarship. The review aims to surface epistemological tensions, methodological weaknesses, and definitional inconsistencies that constrain cumulative knowledge-building in this field. A Scopus-based critical literature review (CLR) was conducted, covering 104 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2020 and 2025. Systematic inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied across subject areas, document types, languages, and publication stage filters. Critical appraisal was guided by the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) framework to evaluate the quality of the research design, construct validity, and contextual transferability. Thematic synthesis was employed to organize findings across five inductively derived determinant categories. Five dominant determinant categories are identified: corporate governance, strategic and entrepreneurial orientation, innovation and digital capabilities, human capital management, and ESG integration. The review exposes pervasive measurement pluralism, a “measurement convenience bias,” theoretical fragmentation across competing paradigms, and significant context-dependence in performance outcomes. A “lock-in effect” in ESG research and endogeneity problems in governance studies are identified as critical methodological failures. An integrative multi-theoretic conceptual framework comprising five independent variables, three mediators, three moderators, and four control variables is proposed. The restriction to Scopus-indexed, English-language articles and the 2020–2025 window introduces publication and language biases. The review offers theoretical recalibration for performance scholarship and actionable guidance for strategists, policymakers, and governance practitioners seeking evidence-based pathways to sustainable performance improvement. Unlike prior narrative or systematic reviews, this study adopts an explicitly critical appraisal stance, challenging dominant assumptions, surfacing epistemological silences, and proposing an integrative framework that bridges fragmented perspectives on company performance. The identification of measurement convenience bias and the lock-in effect in ESG research constitutes a novel contribution to the methodological critique of performance scholarship.