In the research on sustainability, Elkington introduced the “Triple Bottom Line (TBL)” theory, encompassing economic, environmental, and society aspects within corporate operations research. This theory forms the basis for building a sustainable supplier evaluation system [12].

Early studies in related fields primarily focused on environmental aspects when evaluating suppliers, giving rise to the concept of “green suppliers”. Noci conducted a pioneering study in 1997, identifying four key evaluation priorities: “Green” competencies, current environmental efficiency, the supplier’s “green” image, and the net life cycle cost, supported by 13 secondary indicators [13]. Subsequent research has expanded the criteria, considering pollution output [14], resource consumption [14], ecological design [14,15], environmental management systems [14,15], green products [15], and green warehousing [15], green transportation [15], green technology [15], and other primary items, and further refining 21 secondary indicators. Additionally, taking into account customer needs, green supplier selection evaluated factors related to financial stability, environmental management systems, waste treatment plans, management commitments, quality control systems, manufacturing facilities, and reverse logistics, totaling eight key aspects [16].

As sustainability has gained attention, scholars have explored suppliers’ social performance alongside environmental concerns. Zimmer highlighted ten key aspects within the TBL framework studied by previous scholars [17]. However, some researchers noted the need for more in-depth discussions on social sustainability evaluation, compared to the environmental dimension [18]. Thus, some scholars employed the best–worst method to optimize the 16 social indicators to 8 based on prior research [19]. Following researchers further discussed the application of the criteria above in supplier selection. At the same time, Ghadimi and others utilized the nominal group method to propose four environmental criteria (environmental performance, green image, pollution control, and green competencies) and two social criteria (health and safety and employment practices) [20]. Some scholars combined a literature analysis and the Delphi method to expand on Ghadimi’s work, introducing three additional social criteria (information sharing, stakeholder relations, and social activities) [21]. Furthermore, studies delved into specific industries like automobile manufacturing [22], petrochemicals [23], clothing and textiles [24], and various scenarios such as supplier switching [25] and multi-level global procurement [26].

Since the ESG concept was introduced later than TBL, there is a relative lack of maturity in related research. As a result, few papers integrate ESG matters into sustainable supplier evaluation nowadays. For instance, Dai and Tang examined supply chain issues emerging in the post-pandemic era, highlighting three key challenges that underscore the need to incorporate supply chain activities into ESG management [27]. Zeng combined ESG and financial indicators to assess green supply chain performance, focusing on 10 indicators from profitability, environmental performance, and operational performance 3 aspects [28], but did not encompass content of social aspects and governance.

The concept of ESG was initially proposed by the United Nations Global Compact in the 2004 “Who Cares Wins” report [29]. Its goal was to provide guidance on integrating ESG factors into asset management and securities transactions. Since then, various entities, including governments, non-governmental organizations, and enterprises, have increasingly focused on ESG-related matters. ESG has emerged as a pivotal indicator for assessing economic sustainability [30].

Recent scholarly achievements have encompassed several areas, including the following: (1) exploring the relationship between ESG and corporate performance [31,32,33], (2) investigating the regulatory impact of ESG investors on financial performance [11], (3) analyzing the connection between ESG investment risk and returns [34], and (4) assessing the influence of ESG ratings on measuring corporate sustainable development performance [35]. However, discussions about ESG regulatory requirements remain limited. In a comparative analysis of ESG disclosure systems in developed and developing countries, researchers discovered that adopting mandatory norms alone does not significantly improve ESG scores. Instead, practical measures, such as sustainable development reports and carbon emission commitments, contribute to better ESG performance [36]. Bruno studied ESG policies in the European banking industry [37]. Alamilos found that the EU has played a prominent role in shaping ESG regulations, resulting in the “Brussels Effect”, which impacts exposure, revenue, trade, and investment [38].