For the benefice of everyone who could be interested, I'm going to put this in a top-level comment. I did a little research and I stumbled upon this article by Alain Thomas, which investigates the phenomenon in a pratical way (in French as a Second Language teaching in Canadian universities). However, his literature review offers the informations you were looking for. If you are looking for more, you could look into King et al., 2011, mentionned by Thomas, who offers a more complete overview of the phenomenon, I believe. I am not entirely sure you speak French, so here is a translated version of the part that could be of interest to you (sorry for any error, English is a language I do not use so often):

(from p. 126 to p. 129)

Not so long ago, the use of on for nous was still officially considered as belonging to the non standard popular language. Maurice Grevisse, in his French grammar classic Le bon usage, said that "certain substitutions of nous by on are sometimes only vulgarities of the language" (Grevisse 1969: paragraph 587). But yesterday's popular tendencies often become ordinary French and we must note that now, the use of on to refer to multiple well-determined persons is commonplace, even in educated circles, so much that the use of nous is more and more reserved to written language or to the most formal registers of spoken language. One can ask himself what has caused such a semantic change that just seems, at a glance, to make matters more complicated: singular pronoun with a plural meaning, spelling problems (*Ma mère et moi, on est arrivé[s ?] hier soir), speech style, etc.

To try to answer this question, we'll start off with a brief historical overview to better understand the evolution of the phenomenon. We will also look at the studies that document the modern usage of that new-formula on, be it in France or in Canadian francophony, to better measure the gap separating grammarians such as Grevisse's observations and contemporary linguistic reality. [...]

Definitions

The nous/on opposition examined here is limited to the subject-clitic position and in the restricted meaning of "I + other identified individuals" (Boutet 1986 : 1), i.e. the contexts where the speaker can choose between both pronouns, where English uses the we pronoun. [Other uses of the nous pronoun will be excluded, as well as uses of on as an indefinite pronoun.] [...]

History of the phenomenon

To understand how on has started to concurrence nous for 1PP in spoken language, we have to go back on the origin of the phenomenon, using comedies or grammarian's remarks, that give us useful informations on past language states. That is what King et al. (2011) did in a very detailed analysis, that we partly reproduce here.