The 2009 Green Growth declaration emphasized the synergy between economic growth and environmental sustainability, leading to green growth strategies. Green supply chains (GSC) are central to this, but their development faces significant barriers. Green banking (GB), playing a crucial role in green growth, has been extensively studied, yet the connection between GB and GSC barriers remains under-explored. This study addresses this gap by systematically reviewing empirical research on GB to identify these barriers. The research aims to catalog GB research findings in relation to GSC barriers and analyze the literature based on scientific impact. By mapping these barriers according to scientific impact and linking them to GB research topics, the study identifies research gaps and proposes future research directions. The findings reveal the proactive or passive role of empirical GB research in GSC development, and key differences are identified by analyzing principal vectors in various research dimensions. The study addresses two research questions: (1) Can barriers to GSC development be identified in the empirical literature on GB? and (2) Which barriers to GSC development have received the most attention in research?

The literature review examines the concept of GSC, linking it to environmental impact and encompassing various processes aiming to integrate customer satisfaction, efficiency, quality, and responsiveness. Sustainability is highlighted as a critical component of supply chain management, emphasizing socially and environmentally responsible business practices. Green initiatives require complete responsibility for impacts across the supply chain. The study defines GB in two ways: (1) banks implementing pollution-free banking processes (GBP) and (2) banks engaging in green banking business (GBB) such as green investments or credit. The latter approach focuses on supporting other GSC members, acting as a mediator or driver of green growth. The absence of green financing leads to financial constraints, identified as a major barrier to green growth. Other barriers include the lack of environmental knowledge and awareness, and difficulties in green production due to financial limitations. Three groups of barriers are identified: (1) environmental knowledge, (2) green awareness (linked to Corporate Social Responsibility, CSR), and (3) green production problems due to financial constraints.

The study employs a systematic literature review (SLR) approach, following the guidelines of Booth et al. (2012) and the Cochrane review protocol (Higgins and Green, 2011). The SLR comprises three phases: (1) selection and qualitative assessment of articles; (2) data systematization; and (3) data analysis. Phase 1 involved database searches in ABI/INFORM and Web of Science—Core collection (Thomson Reuters) and Scopus (Elsevier), focusing on English-language articles published between 2011 and mid-2020 (2011 chosen as the starting point due to the OECD's 2011 publication on green growth). A four-step process (identification, screening, suitability, and inclusion) was followed to ensure data quality. The final sample included 30 articles meeting the criteria. Phase 2 involved designing a coding template in Microsoft Excel with 17 fields, including article ID, year, authors, country, research topic, GB approach, methodology, and conclusions. Inter-rater reliability was ensured through a triple-blind review. Phase 3 consisted of qualitative analysis using Atlas.ti software to identify relationships between GB research topics and GSC barriers. Statistical Package for Social Sciences Software (SPSS) and Excel were also used. The study uses a cross-sectional qualitative research design with descriptive outcomes. The study acknowledges limitations such as the focus on GSC, limiting the number of articles included, and the use of English-language publications only. However, the qualitative nature of the analysis and the systematic review protocol mitigate these limitations.

The analysis reveals that GB research is concentrated in Asia, with a peak in 2019. Descriptive methodology is predominantly used. The qualitative analysis identifies the relationships between GB research topics and GSC barriers. In GB disclosure research (primarily focused on GBP), the findings link to barriers of lacking green awareness and green knowledge. The size of the bank is associated with climate change disclosure, but carbon footprint reduction and energy saving are less linked to disclosure. A lack of quantitative data and heterogeneity in disclosure content hinder GB's portrayal as a green GSC member. GB as a driver of economy (primarily focused on GBB) shows a key role in development and sustainability but faces barriers. Financial difficulties hinder green growth due to regulation and financing policies causing financial constraints in eco-industries. Lack of green knowledge is linked to inadequate green regulations and the inability to associate pollution reduction with GB products. Lack of green awareness relates to the disconnect between pollution reduction and GB products, and the focus on ethics and equity over carbon footprint reduction. In GB perception research (GBP approach), findings are linked to the lack of green awareness. The acceptance of GB practices depends on infrastructure, technology, and the green behavior of banking staff. Stakeholder perceptions are essential for sustainable development. In GB practices research (both GBB and GBP), financial difficulties and lack of green awareness are identified. Environmental banking performance is associated with financial performance; however, the green credit index is inversely related to profitability, suggesting a need for active regulation to reduce the cost of capital for green projects. Mapping by scientific impact (using citations from Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus) shows that GB as a driver of economy is the most relevant topic, followed by disclosure, practices, and perceptions. After correcting for the time effect on citations, the order of relevance remains the same. The main vectors are Asia (75.01% of citations), 2019 (45.49% of citations), and regression methodology (52.91% of citations). Lack of green financial resources is the main GSC barrier (52.20% of citations). The analysis shows the most relevant barriers are lack of green financial resources (52.20%), lack of green awareness (33.30%), and lack of green knowledge (14.50%).

The findings address the research questions by demonstrating that barriers to GSC development are indeed present in empirical GB research and that the lack of green financial resources receives the most attention. The concentration of research on GB as a driver of the economy, and the identification of financial difficulties as the primary barrier, highlight the urgent need for GB to actively promote green development. The relatively lower attention given to awareness and knowledge barriers indicates potential areas for future research. The analysis suggests that banks' role in financing green projects is not sufficiently proactive, highlighting the need for improved strategies. The lack of quantitative data and heterogeneity in disclosure indicate a need for more robust environmental reporting frameworks. The study demonstrates that the observed differences in scientific attention towards different barriers are not simply due to publication age, highlighting the consistent importance of the identified barriers.

This study provides a valuable mapping of barriers to GSC development as reflected in empirical GB research. The findings emphasize the critical role of GB in driving green growth, highlighting the need for increased green financing and enhanced green awareness across various stakeholders. Future research should focus on exploring GB's role in promoting GSC, particularly through green banking products and services. It is also important to explore methods for improving the measurement of GB disclosure and developing comprehensive green reporting frameworks. The identified research priorities call for increased attention towards green financing, green awareness, and disclosure, with a focus on the GBB role.

The study's limitations include the focus on English-language publications, the restriction to specific databases, and the concentration on papers linking GB conclusions to GSC barriers. This approach limits the overall sample size and could potentially overlook relevant findings in other research streams. The qualitative nature of some analyses also means the results cannot be generalized statistically. Despite these limitations, the systematic nature of the review strengthens the robustness of the findings within the defined framework.