Sustainable development goal research in accounting: a systematic literature review and direction for future research Open Access

The subject of sustainable development goals (SDGs) has been a key driver for non-financial reporting practices in both corporate and government institutions since the pronouncement in 2015. SDG disclosure is an avenue where organization could disseminates information on all sustainability issues (economic, social, environmental and governance), which is crucial to stakeholders (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; Charnock and Hoskin, 2020; Erin et al., 2022). Therefore, SDG may be one of the most important non-financial reporting practices, which could significantly affect stakeholders. In recent time, several accounting regulations and international standard-setters such as Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) and World Business Council on Sustainable Development have taken steps to regulate the SDG process. The SDG are universal, applying to all nations and people, seeking to tackle inequality and leave no one behind. The implementation of SDG is a wake-up call to governments, firms and stakeholders to double their efforts in fighting poverty, hunger, health, climate change, and other global challenges. Most of the regulations and frameworks on SDG are principle-based and focused on SDG (Hummel and Szekely, 2022; Lau and Wong, 2022; Ben Hassen and El Bilali, 2022, Yadav and Jain, 2023). These regulations highlight the significance of SDG and, hence, the increased focus on the SDG over the last five years by policymakers, researchers, international organizations, regulators and practitioners.

The rationale for conducting a systematic literature review on SDG research in accounting stems from several interrelated factors. First, the SDGs have become a central reference point for sustainability initiatives globally. Businesses are increasingly recognizing the importance of aligning their strategies with the SDGs to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable development and respond to stakeholder demands (Tetteh et al., 2021; Erin and Olojede, 2024). Policymakers are also using the SDGs as a framework to shape regulations and incentives that promote sustainable practices. Consequently, there is a growing need for robust accounting practices that can accurately capture and report on SDG-related activities and outcomes. Second, despite the proliferation of research on sustainability in accounting, there remains a need for a comprehensive understanding of how accounting practices are contributing to the achievement of the SDGs. Previous studies have often focused on specific aspects, such as environmental reporting or social accounting, without providing a holistic view of the field (Niemann and Hoppe, 2018; Adebayo and Ackers, 2024). A systematic literature review can help to collate and analyze existing knowledge, identify patterns and trends and highlight areas that require further investigation (Othman and Ameer, 2024). Finally, by synthesizing existing research, this study aims to provide valuable insights for practitioners and policymakers. For practitioners, understanding the current state of SDG research can inform the development of more effective reporting practices and decision-making processes. For policymakers, the findings can support the creation of regulations, standards that better align with the SDGs and address identified gaps and challenges.

Despite some SDG regulations recognizing the significance of SDG to various stakeholders, existing literature has reported limited evidence regarding the subject of SDG and the degree of compliance in both the public and private sectors (Botchway and Bradley, 2023; Galone et al., 2023). Similarly, despite a rising number of studies on SDG, there are few review papers in this area, particularly in accounting journals (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; Khalique et al., 2021; Erin and Bamigboye, 2022; Cordery et al., 2022). Furthermore, very few studies in the accounting literature have been undertaken.

The main reason for conducting the systematic literature review on SDG research in private sector entities, public sector entities and hybrid entities are the gaps that exist in SDG literature. We believe that private sector entities are key drivers of economic activity, innovation and investment. Consequently, research on these entities provides valuable insights into how companies can align their strategies with the SDGs to mitigate risks, enhance corporate reputation and create long-term value (Alodat et al., 2024). Similarly, public sector entities play a critical role in implementing the SDGs through policy, regulation and public programs. They are essential in shaping the regulatory environment and providing incentives for both businesses and society to adopt sustainable practices. Hybrid entities, such as public-private partnerships or social enterprises, are particularly well-positioned to address complex sustainability challenges by offering collaborative and innovative solutions that bridge the gap between profit-driven objectives and social or environmental goals (Adebayo and Ackers, 2024). As a result, the aim of this research is to undertake a systematic literature of existing SDG research, identify theoretical and empirical gaps, highlight policy and practical implications and identify directions for future studies. A significant advantage of this type of review study is that it assists readers, particularly policymakers, practitioners, regulators, academics and researchers, in gaining and acquiring adequate perspective on the state of SDG studies. On that basis, the primary purpose of this study is to offer readers with a comprehensive assessment of the existing SDG literature and provide guidance for future research.

The study of Bebbington and Unerman (2018), which conducted a review on UN SDG and reiterate the need for accounting scholars to further explore the role of accounting in advancing policy and practice of SDG. To extend the study of Bebbington and Unerman (2018), we examine 70 studies on various areas in SDG studies. This review examines 70 research published in 24 high-ranked journals between 2018 and 2024 in private sector entities, public sector entities and hybrid entities. Also, we classify the sampled studies into seven different themes:

1. SDG practices and characteristics;

2. determinants of SDG;

3. socioeconomic consequences of SDG;

4. SDG compliance with regulations;

5. proposed index or model/disclosure measurement method;

6. disclosure or reporting on SDG; and

7. SDG 1–17.

Using multidisciplinary approach, we identify the emerging theories in this field of study and analyze the growth of a wide range of theoretical viewpoints as opposed to just focusing on a few, like stakeholder and agency theories. This review also discusses potential directions for future research in these domains.

The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature on SDGs from 2018 to 2024. In alignment with the study’s objectives, seven thematic aspects were identified for analysis:

1. practices and characteristics of the SDGs;

2. determinants of SDGs;

3. socioeconomic impacts of SDGs;

4. compliance of SDGs with regulatory frameworks;

5. proposed measurement tools or indices for SDGs;

6. disclosure and reporting practices related to SDGs; and

7. classification of SDGs 1–17.

These thematic areas were derived from an in-depth analysis of 70 studies published in 24 academic journals during the specified period.

We use the guidelines provided by Denyer and Tranfield (2009), with a technique for conducting a systematic review in the management field, to carry out our systematic literature study. Additionally, the study by Beske, Haustein, and Lorson (2020) presents insightful suggestions for conducting a systematic review. We used the method described by Denyer and Tranfield (2009), which outlines three steps to carry out a review study:

• planning a review;

• performing a review; and

• reporting and dissemination.

Following a thorough investigation of the SDG literature, just one review paper with significant shortcomings was identified, highlighting the urgent need for a thorough systematic evaluation of existing literature on the state of SDG research. The first step in development of a review protocol is planning a review. According to Denyer and Tranfield (2009), “the protocol is a plan that helps to protect objectivity by providing explicit descriptions of the steps to be taken.” We created a six-step process as shown in Figure 1.

The second step involved compiling a list of SDG-related keywords relevant to the search process. This list included terms such as “SDG Disclosure,” “SDG Reporting,” “SDG Analysis,” “SDG Information,” “SDG Implementation,” “SDG Index,” “SDG Contribution,” “SDG Dissemination,” and “SDG 1–17,” which are frequently used in SDG literature. Additionally, we reviewed the reference lists of the selected studies to identify any related research. Using the predefined keywords, we conducted searches for similar articles across databases and search engines. We used two leading search engines (https://www.google.com and https://scholar.google.com/) alongside several widely used academic databases, including Emerald, ScienceDirect, IEEE Xplore, JSTOR, SpringerLink, Wiley Online Library and ProQuest. These databases were chosen for their reputation for hosting high-quality scholarly articles. Furthermore, similar review studies, such as those by Erin and Ackers (2024) and Krasodomska et al. (2021), have also used these databases, underscoring their reliability for this type of research.

The last step of the planning process is to choose the studies to include by using the five criteria that have been developed. First, SDG should be the central focus of the study. Second, the study should be published in an online research journal, where e-theses or SSRN studies are excluded. Third, the study should be written by academic researchers (that is., studies published by professional bodies are excluded). Fourth, the study should be written in English. Finally, to ensure the quality of the review studies, we only select studies published in accounting papers on SDG in journals listed in the Journal Quality Guide (AJG) 2021, and all journals should be ranked from 1 to 4*, with 4* being the highest quality; however, both 4 and 4* are given equal weight. These requirements was established to guarantee a thorough review of SDG investigations. We concentrate solely on scholarly journal-published studies. In addition, working and unpublished research papers are excluded. This was consistent with Ibrahim et al. (2022), who believed working papers and unpublished papers were not sufficiently reviewed. Additionally, we do not include research publications from professional organizations because they are not subject to the same rigorous review process as academic papers.

The selection of research papers, the evaluation of the quality of the studies and the extraction of insights are all parts of the second stage of conducting the review. We locate, download and store the complete text of each selected study in a folder. Reporting and dissemination was the last stage of the review process, as depicted in Figure 1.

We examine the systematic review of SDG research on seven different criteria and aspects in the following subsections:

• SDG studies classifications;

• trend of SDG research;

• research impact;

• SDG unit measurement;

• theories employed;

• country of study; and

• SDG category.

Table 1 shows the study classifications, which is divided into two panels with seven different themes. The total number of papers that match the review screening requirements is 70, and published in 24 academic journals between 2018 and 2024. These studies are divided into three categories: those on private sector entities, those on public sector entities and those on hybrid entities. The majority of studies (42.9%) publish SDG studies using a sample of private sector entities (30 out of 70), followed by hybrid organizations (41.4%), which examine SDG (29 out of 70), while the remaining studies (15.7%), examine SDG with a sample of 11 out of 70 for public sector entities. Panel A is classified into three groups (private sector entities, public sector entities and hybrid entities) with six themes. All the groups investigate:

• SDG practices and features;

• SDG determinants;

• SDG socioeconomic effects;

• SDG regulatory compliance;

• proposed index or model for SDG; and

• reporting and disclosure on SDG.

While panel B examines the seventh theme, SDG 1–17, the seventh theme examines two aspects of SDG:

• studies on SDG in general; and

• studies on specific or target SDG.

Figures 2–6 displays all studies in the first chart, private sector studies in the second chart, public sector studies in the third chart, hybrid studies in the fourth chart and SDG 1–17 studies in the fifth chart. The first chart shows that about 48.6% of all studies examine SDG practices and characteristics, followed by 21.4% that examine disclosure and reporting on SDG. Furthermore, 8.6% of studies examine the socioeconomic consequences of SDG, while 12.8% of studies examine the determinants of SDG. The second chart shows the private sector studies: 43% were devoted to theme one (SDG practices and characteristics), while 34% of studies concentrated on theme 6 (disclosure and reporting on SDG). The studies on themes two, three, four and five are less than 10%. The third chart shows studies on the public sector; theme one has the highest number of studies with 37%, followed by theme three (27%) (Socioeconomic consequences of SDG) and theme four (18%) (SDG compliance with regulation), respectively. The fourth chart focuses on hybrid studies, 59% of the study centered on theme one, while themes 2 and 5 have 17% studies respectively. The fifth chart discloses studies on SDG 1–17; 96% of the studies examine general studies on SDG without specific SDG as the main themes, while 4% of the studies examine specific or target SDG.

The above results imply that prior studies have extensively examined SDG practices, SDG disclosure and reporting. As a result, more emphasis should be on less explored subjects such as determinants of SDG, SDG compliance with regulations, socioeconomic consequences of SDG and proposed measurement or index for SDG, especially those in the public sector entities. Furthermore, only three research investigate a proposed disclosure metric/measurement for SDG, namely Nichita et al. (2020), Stefanescu (2022), and Abeysekera (2022). There is need for further research in the area of developing model and framework for measuring SDG. The common motivation for the studies on SDG practices and characteristics, such as Sobkowiak et al. (2020); Martins et al. (2022); Fernández-Pérez and Luque-Vilchez (2022); and Scarpa et al. (2023), raises a research question: what factors contribute to SDG? The rationale and motivation for studies on SDG disclosure and reporting, such as Erin and Bamigboye (2022); Lau and Wong (2022); Erin et al. (2022); and Yadav and Jain (2023), provide the need to extend literature and provide empirical evidence on disclosing higher-quality SDG information that could influence stakeholders to make investment decisions.

Table 2 depicts the historical development of SDG studies published between 2018 and July 2024. The year with the most studies published is 2024, with 22 studies; for example, studies like Cordery et al. (2022); De Silva et al. (2022); Charnock and Hoskin (2020); Lokuwaduge et al. (2022); Erin and Bamigboye (2022); Erin et al. (2022). Then followed by year 2022, 2021 and 2023, with 19, 11 and 11 studies, respectively. In fact, 52 papers representing 74% of all studies were published in three years (2022–2024). Furthermore, the total number of published studies increased from one in 2018 to five in 2020; the number of studies increased to 19 in 2022, and 22 in 2024. This implies that studies on SDG are gradually gaining momentum. This increase in SDG research could be because of more calls for organizations to pay attention to non-financial reporting practices (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018). The study by Bebbington and Unerman (2018) is the foremost study on SDG research in accounting. The study emphasizes the need for accounting researchers to explore various areas of SDG in accounting, especially the need to develop a robust SDG measurement or index for SDG reporting. Table 3 shows the trend of SDG themes during 2018–2024. Most studies conducted during this period fall in 2024; theme one (SDG practices and characteristics) has eight studies conducted in 2022. The same goes for theme 6 (SDG disclosure and reporting), which has seven studies conducted in 2024.

Most studies during the period focused on SDG practices and characteristics, such as those of Marrone et al. (2020); Krasodomska et al. (2021); Khalique et al. (2021); Azmat et al. (2022); and Gamble et al. (2023). The major discourse of these studies examine the role of corporate boards in SDG, how the practices of SDG in corporate organizations could affect investor decisions, the perceptions of stakeholders toward SDG practices, and how SDG practices of organizations could influence the actualization of the UN Agenda 2030. A review of this period shows that most studies on SDG focus more on private sector entities (30) followed by hybrid organizations (28) and public sector entities (12). It is important that future research focus more on public sector entities because the actualization of SDG in any country strongly depends on the role of public sector organizations.

Two methods were used to evaluate the impact of the reviewed studies on SDG research. First, the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) journal quality guide (AJG2021) was used to assess the journal’s quality where the paper is published. Second, Google Scholar citation metrics were selected on a particular point in time for each paper.

Table 4 displays 70 papers published in 24 journals, with rankings ranging from 1* (lowest rank) to 3* (highest rank). According to Table 2, only 13 studies (19%) out of 70 are published in 3* journals, 41 studies (59%) in 2* journals and 14 studies (20%) in 1* journals. These records show that only 19% of the review studies (13 studies) are published in highly-ranked (3*) journals. For example, the Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal has the most articles, with 10 studies, whereas Financial Accountability and Management, Critical Perspectives on Accounting and Accounting Forum has one study each. At 2* level, the Sustainability Accounting, Management, and Policy Journal has the most publications (23), followed by the Journal of Applied Accounting Research and the Australasian Accounting, Business, and Finance Journal.

Table 5 shows the number of citations per study as of July 24, 2024, according to Google Scholar. It also displays the citation years and citations per year (CPY) as determined by the CPY formula. Despite the fact that Google Scholar publishes statistics on article citations, it cannot be used solely to evaluate the scientific impact of review studies. Studies published in different years, with older studies receiving more citations. We apply the calculation CPY=citations/(2024-publication year) to account for the time effect. The computed CPY appears plausible because it demonstrates that later publications have a higher CPY than earlier studies with the same citations. Table 5 displays research in descending order based on CPY.

Panel A of Table 5 shows that the six most cited private sector studies are: Erin et al. (2022), Elalfy et al. (2021), Erin and Bamigboye (2022), Hummel and Szekely (2022), Hamad et al. (2023), and Buallay (2019). The CPYs of these studies with the highest numbers are 66, 45, 41, 35, 33 and 32. These six studies account for 56% of the total CPY of private sector studies and 24% of the overall CPY of all studies. The most cited study, Erin et al. (2022) examines the SDG disclosure of the top 50 firms in Nigeria from 2016 to 2018. While the second most cited study, Elalfy et al. (2021) investigated the integration of SDG using GRI-based reporting of 9,397 organizations for the periods 2016 and 2017. The third most cited article, Erin and Bamigboye (2022) examines the SDG reporting of 80 companies in Sub-Saharan Africa for the period 2016–2018. The fourth most cited article, Hummel and Szekely (2022) examines the SDG disclosure of European firms listed on the STOXX Europe-600 index for the period 2015–2018. Finally, Buallay (2019) investigates the effect of SDG reporting on the performance of European firms.

The CPYs of the public sector studies are shown in Panel B of Table 5. Pizzi et al. (2022), Alsayegh et al. (2023), and Saha et al. (2021) are the most-cited public sector research, with CPYs of 70, 18 and 13, respectively, accounting for 90% of all CPYs in the field. The most cited public sector study, Pizzi et al. (2022), examines the voluntary disclosure of SDG in mandatory non-financial reports of 873 public sector entities in 2019. While the study by Saha et al. (2021) explores the determinants of UN SDG disclosure by UK higher education institutions (HEI).

Bebbington and Unerman (2018), Parfitt (2024), Abeysekera (2022), Hörisch (2021), and de Villiers et al. (2024) are the five most referenced hybrid studies, according to Panel C of Table 5. The CPY of these studies with the highest numbers are 181, 40, 32, 30 and 29. These five studies total CPY account for 67% of the total CPY of the hybrid studies and 30% of the overall CPY. The most cited study, Bebbington and Unerman (2018), explores the role of accounting research in achieving the UN SDG. The second most cited study, Hörisch (2021), investigated the potential effects of COVID-19 on the achievement of SDG implementation around the world.

Figure 7 shows studies on index and measurement of SDG disclosure, such as disclosure scores, survey questionnaires and meaning-oriented qualitative analysis. Seven studies examined disclosure scores; two of such studies use both disclosure scores and survey questions; and one study uses meaning-oriented qualitative analysis. For private sector studies, nine studies use measurement of disclosure score, disclosure score, survey questionnaire and meaning-oriented qualitative analysis, while one study uses disclosure score for hybrid studies. No study in the public sector uses disclosure scores or any other measurement method.

Table 6 shows the frequency distribution of theories from 70 review papers, with 36 theories. According to Hoque (2014), the majority of academic publications will not publish submissions that do not connect their research to a theory. The first four highest theories (stakeholder theory, institutional theory, legitimacy theory and voluntary disclosure theory) account for 67% (106 out of 158) of all the theories.

Table 6 reveals stakeholder theory as the highest theory with 36 studies. There are 18 studies that use the stakeholder theory in SDG literature in private sector entities (for example, Erin et al., 2022; Galone et al., 2023; Khalique et al., 2021). While 10 studies consider this theory in public sector entities (for example, De Silva et al., 2022; Saha et al., 2021; Pizzi et al., 2022), while 8 studies use the stakeholder theory in hybrid entities (Gamble et al., 2023; Charnock and Hoskin, 2020). Erin et al. (2022), for example, used stakeholder theory to illustrate how management uses corporate disclosure as a tool to provide information to various stakeholders, while Galone et al. (2023) used stakeholder theory to show that an organization’s ultimate goal is to live up to the expectations of its diverse stakeholders (employees, shareholders, investors, public authorities and NGOs). Stakeholder theory is seen as a “vehicle for coordinating stakeholder interests” in SDG research. This could be the reason stakeholder theory is more evident and stronger than other theories in SDG studies.

Institutional theory is the second frequently used theory in SDG studies, with 20 studies focusing on the private sector (Zampone et al., 2022; Erin and Bamigboye, 2022; Muhmad et al., 2023; Sierra Garcia et al., 2022; Botchway and Bradley, 2023); 5 studies on the public sector (Tetteh et al., 2021; Hancu-Budui and Zorio-Grimma, 2021; Lauwo et al., 2022); and 3 theories for hybrid studies. Erin and Bamigboye (2022) applied the theory to examine the drivers of SDG and their implications for corporate institutions. The theory argues that SDG practices reflect organization and management practices, which explain organizational behaviors toward the socioeconomic environment (Botchway and Bradley, 2023). Based on this theory, corporate institutions may use SDG to express their support to sustainability issues (Tetteh et al., 2021).

The third most frequently used theory is legitimacy theory, which has appeared 25 times. Legitimacy theory appeared in most sustainability studies to argue that organizations engage in additional disclosure to appear socially responsible and legitimize their actions in response to social contracts within society. Erin and Bamigboye (2022) used this theory to explain the reason for SDG disclosure in private sector entities in emerging countries, while Charnock and Hoskin (2020) used legitimacy theory to explain SDG drivers in hybrid organizations in Italy. There are other studies that used this theory to explain the motivation behind SDG in private, public and hybrid entities, such as Sierra Garcia et al. (2022); Nichita et al. (2020); Hancu-Budui and Zorio-Grimma (2021); Lokuwaduge et al. (2022); and Erin and Bamigboye (2022).

The distribution of SDG research in developed and developing nations is in Table 7. To identify and classify the countries, we use the United Nations World Economic Situation and Prospects published in 2023. SDGs are assessed 154 times in 77 countries, with 95 times (61.7%) distributed in 36 developed countries and 59 times (38.3% in 41 developing countries). Panel A of Table 7 shows that nine countries dominate the developed countries with a percentage of 47% (45 times out of 95): the UK, Germany. Spain and France (6 times each), Finland (5 times), Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden (4 times each). This means that about one-third (47%) of SDG research is concentrated in about nine developed countries, with the remainder spread among 24 developed countries.

The studies that examine SDG using French samples are Khalique et al. (2021), Hancu-Budui and Zorio-Grimma (2021), Pizzi et al. (2024), Buallay (2019), Krasodomska et al. (2021), and Zampone et al. (2022). Examples of studies that examine SDG using UK samples are Hummel and Szekely (2022), Kuo et al. (2023), Zampone et al. (2022), Sobkowiak et al. (2020), Saha et al. (2021), and Botchway and Bradley (2023). Examples of studies that examine SDG using Spanish samples are Krasodomska et al. (2021), Hummel and Szekely (2022), Pizzi et al. (2022), Zampone et al. (2022), and Sierra Garcia et al. (2022).

Panel B of Table 7 shows six countries dominate the developing countries with a percentage of 34% (20 times out of 59): India (5 times), China, Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa and Malaysia (3 times each). This means that one-third (34%) of SDG research is concentrated in around six nations, with the rest spread across 35 developing countries. The five studies examined SDG in India are Tewari et al. (2021), Yadav and Jain (2023; Cordery et al. (2022, Bindu Kota et al. (2021), and Fernández-Pérez and Luque-Vilchez (2022). Muhmad et al. (2023), Hamad et al. (2023), and Lau and Wong (2022) are three research that examined SDG using Malaysian samples. Two studies from Nigeria (Erin et al., 2022; Erin and Bamigboye, 2022) and two studies from Ghana (Tetteh et al., 2021; Erin and Bamigboye, 2022).

Figures 2–6 and Table 1 highlight the thematic analysis of 70 papers, which grouped into seven sub-themes for discussion. We summarize the findings by emphasizing potential areas for further research as well as inherent limitations under each sub-theme.

There are 34 distinct studies analyzing SDG practices and characteristics in private, public and hybrid organizations under this theme.

Table 1 provides the summary of this section. Focusing on private sector entities, the review of studies shows significant variation in the practices of SDG. Botchway and Bradley (2023) examine the diffusion of SDG in the FTSE of 350 firms using a mixed method of content analysis and interviews to understand the level and practices of SDG. The study observed a low level of SDG practices by British firms. On the contrary, using disclosure scores developed through content analysis and interview transcripts, Scarpa et al. (2023) conclude that Italian firms maintain a relatively high disclosure of SDG with specific information relating to SDG targets of observed firms. The study also affirms how governance mechanisms, stakeholder dialogue and organizational strategy contribute to the high quality of SDG practices. Other studies (Khalique et al., 2021; Martins et al., 2022; Kuo et al., 2023) found that firm complexity, firm size, regulations, corporate board and shareholder activism are among other things that shape SDG practices in private sector firms.

We see a significant level of similarity in the sample studies when it comes to SDG practices. The nature of SDG information is qualitative in nature, which is the most common practices and characteristics of SDG (Martins et al., 2022; Erin et al., 2022; Botchway and Bradley, 2023). Despite this, studies highlight inherent challenges in locating SDG-related data in annual reports and other channels of disclosure. For instance, the study of Scarpa et al. (2023) noted that reading SDG information is challenging and suggested that directors make SDG information clearer. Considering the type of information disclosed; Botchway and Bradley (2023) found that SDG information disclosed in the UK is about environmental and social issues without specific information about SDG targets. Furthermore, the study by Cosma et al. (2022) found that the commitment of the board provides a strong engagement toward corporate SDG.

The examination of SDG practices in public sector entities is based on three independent studies that found comparable outcomes based on SDG practices. The study by De Silva et al. (2022) examines SDG implementation among public entities in Sri Lanka. While the study observed a significant improvement in SDG practices, especially on environmental and social dimensions, a lack of governance structure among the actors in the public sector poses a challenge to the full implementation of SDG practices. Another major limitation is the lack of clarity on the regulatory framework for SDG and poor data for measuring SDG activities. Similarly, the study of Fernández-Pérez and Luque-Vilchez (2022) investigates the public accountability and social pillar of SDG reporting by Spanish public entities from 2017 to 2019. The study observed a significant disconnect between accountability mechanisms and SDG practices. The inability to match the “criteria with indicators” in measuring SDG activities accounts for this disconnect between accountability’s role and SDG practices. Finally, the study of Cordery et al. (2022) provides an interconnectedness between integrated democratic accountability and SDG implementation by public sector entities in India. The study posits that societal issues are complex; therefore, there is need for inclusive stakeholders’ engagement to navigate the discourse on SDG policies at all levels.

A large strand of studies focus on SDG practices and characteristics in hybrid-sector entities. We have 17 studies out of 34 studies under this theme that examine the hybrid sector. Ordonez-Ponce et al. (2021) investigate the contribution to SDG practices through the community partnership of 21 hybrid entities in Canada. Using both content analysis and the survey method, the study found that SDG 17 (partnership for the goals) is one of the most important SDG that could accelerate business contribution both at the private and public levels. Similarly, the work of Tewari et al. (2021) performed an empirical analysis of the SDG practices of hybrid entities in India in the year 2019. Using content analysis to measure SDG targets, it shows a low level of SDG practices. The study observed that cost implications, inaccurate measurement of SDG data and a weak regulatory framework are associated with SDG practices in these entities. Another similar study is Charnock and Hoskin (2020), which examines the meta-governance analysis of hybrid entities that incorporate SDG 13 (climate action) into their reporting mechanisms. Using documentary analysis of texts and statement tracking, the study records that measurement tracking is the major challenge in SDG practices and reporting.

The SDG literature addresses a crucial question: Why are some managers and organizations willing to reveal more SDG information while others do not disclose any SDG information at all? Two major studies (Foloque et al., 2022, and Elalfy et al., 2021) focus on the determinants of SDG in private sector entities in the literature. Guided by legitimacy theory, the study of Elalfy et al. (2021) offers insight into why managers prefer to disclose high-quality information about SDG activities to their stakeholders. Based on the legitimacy theory perspective, managers disclosed SDG information due to (i) organizational reputation among their peers, (ii) better market-based perception among regulators and (iii) to boost confidence in potential and existing investors.

Contrary to the research submitted by Elalfy et al. (2021), the study by Foloque et al. (2022) identified corporate characteristics as the most defining factors and determinants of SDG. The study identified both board and firm characteristics as the major determinants of SDG. They argue that firms with effective corporate governance mechanisms (board size, board independence, board diversity and board activism) are associated with a high level of SDG activities. This also aligns with the findings of Erin and Bamigboye (2022), who observed that firms with an effective governance model are associated with a high level of SDG activities. In addition, the work of Elalfy et al. (2021) argues that firm size and firm profitability are two major firms’ attributes that determine the level of SDG activities, especially in private sector organizations.

There are two studies on the determinants of SDG in public sector entities (Saha et al., 2021 and Luhtala et al., 2024). The study of Saha et al. (2021) investigate the determinants of UN SDG in UK HEI. This study draws on institutional theory, which contends that companies primarily comply with institutional norms in response to society’s expectations, and provides an explanation on the rationale for SDG. One of the major determinants of SDG is the need for HEI to meet regulatory requirements on the need to reduce carbon emissions and disclose such information to qualify for funding. The study of Saha et al. (2021) becomes the best practice for other HEIs in non-UK countries to incorporate SDG into their business models and strategies. SDG and other non-financial reporting practices have become major requirements due to expectations from the government, stakeholders and society.

While a variety of corporate governance aspects and firm-level characteristics have been taken into account in the aforementioned literature in relation to the SDG, top executives characteristics like the CEO, who are in charge of carrying out corporate strategies, including those related to the SDG, have received little attention in the SDG literature, especially in accounting journals. Another important determinant that could influence SDG would be the CEO profile, and more importantly, the CEO’s demographic traits such as tenure, experience, salary, age, social orientation, gender and other personal characteristics. Future studies could examine the contribution of CEO profiles to SDG.

The nature and quality of regulation of SDG is another crucial factor and determinant that the literature has not effectively addressed. The extent to which regulations, whether they are mandatory or voluntary, influence SDG is largely uninvestigated. Additionally, no research has explored on how regulation affects the quality of SDGs. For instance, more research should be conducted on the function of oversight bodies like the GRI, the International Integrated Reporting Framework (IIRC) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and how they have influenced SDG disclosure.

There is little empirical research on the economic effects of SDG literature and the factors influencing its economic value. However, the usefulness and economic advantages of SDG are contested in both professional and academic literature streams on the subject (for example, IFAC, 2020; ACCA, 2021; Thi Nguyen et al., 2021; Alodat et al., 2024). Thi Nguyen et al. (2021) acknowledged that the SDG literature provides scant empirical evidence regarding the economic effects of SDG reporting and argues that empirical evidence of the benefits of SDG may encourage directors, managers and regulators to consider the quality of SDG when preparing corporate annual reports and setting accounting standards. The lack of empirical studies in this area justifies the recent call from researchers to consider the socioeconomic consequences of SDG (Thi Nguyen et al., 2021; Pizzi et al., 2022; Hancu-Budui and Zorio-Grimma, 2021; and Buallay, 2019).

Table 1 shows that three studies examine the socioeconomic consequences of SDG in private sector entities (Thi Nguyen et al., 2021; Buallay, 2019; Alodat et al., 2024). The study by Thi Nguyen et al. (2021) considers the socioeconomic influence of SDG on social enterprises in Vietnam using a survey of 352 Vietnamese social entrepreneurs. The study observed that the majority of respondents agree that SDG has a far-reaching effect on business decision, the corporate reputation of the firm, firms’ social responsibility and corporate investment efficiency. Similarly, the study by Buallay (2019) provides cross-country evidence from 352 financial institutions from 20 countries. The study examines the socioeconomic value of the SDG in terms of firm performance. The major insight from the study is that SDG positively affects different perspectives of business performance (financial, operational and market), especially in the long-run.

Similar to the studies in private sector firms, we have three studies that examine the socioeconomic influence of SDG in public sector entities (Pizzi et al., 2022; Hancu-Budui and Zorio-Grimma, 2021; Adebayo and Ackers, 2024). The study of Hancu-Budui and Zorio-Grimma (2021) examines the socioeconomic effect of SDG of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) in 28 countries in Europe. The conclusion from the study shows that SDG in public institutions has a strong influence on sustainability issues in society, such as gender diversity, climate change, environmental pollution and other biodiversity and ecosystems. The study by Pizzi et al. (2022) focused on the economic benefits of voluntary of SDG by 873 public sector entities in Europe. The authors observe that limited firms fully disclosed information about their contribution to the SDG. The study concludes that SDG has far-reaching effects on socioeconomic activities such as responsible business practices, promoting environmental stewardship, attracting responsible investment and positively impacting community development.

As highlighted in this theme, the empirical evidence on the socioeconomic impact of SDG is limited in academic literature. Researchers are encouraged to consider future research in this area, which would add to the robust findings in SDG studies.

Table 1 shows that only one study examines the compliance level of SDG with regulations in private sector entities. The study by Setia et al. (2022) used both content analysis and the survey method to determine the compliance level of 342 firms from 10 countries that disclose SDG in their annual reports, using both the GRI SDG framework and UNGC SDG standards as the basis for compliance. The study observed that about 35% of the firms have complied using these standards as a basis for disclosing SDG-related issues. The study acknowledges limited literature in the area of SDG compliance with regulations, will offer a new direction for future research by accounting scholars. This agrees with the submission of Bebbington and Unerman (2018) on the need for accounting researchers to refocus their research agenda on various aspects of SDG, including the issue of compliance and regulation. This also resonates with the need for accounting scholars to have a deeper understanding of how corporate organizations contribute to SDG within their corporate domain through reporting mechanisms and regulations.

Thus far, we have found only two studies that examine SDG compliance with regulations in public sector entities. The study by Lauwo et al. (2022) examines how governance, accountability and regulation influenced SDG in Tanzania. The study documents a low level of compliance with SDG regulations and frameworks, especially the GRI and UNGC frameworks. However, SDG in public sector entities in Tanzania is dominated by national legislation in localizing SDG governance. Similarly, the study of Tetteh et al. (2021) investigates SDG compliance with the regulations and frameworks of Supreme Audit Institutions (SAI) in Ghana. It is observed that SDG is largely due to institutional pressures to hold politicians accountable. There is practically no compliance with applicable SDG frameworks like the GRI and UNGC frameworks.

The scarcity of literature investigating compliance with SDG legislation and frameworks is one of the theme’s significant weaknesses. Despite the broad scope available to understand the extent to which firms comply with SDG regulations designed to improve the quality of SDG, only a few empirical studies have been conducted to date one on private sector entities and two on public sector entities.

As noted in Table 1, only one study proposes and develops a new measure for SDG. The study of Nichita et al. (2020) proposed and used an index to assess the quality of SDG for 10 largest companies from five central European countries for the periods of 2015–2019. The authors used both quantitative and qualitative methods to propose and develop an index to assess the quality of SDG information. One major argument of the study is that rather than focusing on the level of information published, attention should be directed to the quantitative mechanisms behind disclosed information. The authors suggested using their proposed index to assess how much external regulations will affect SDG quality as well as to rate organizations in terms of SDG quality. One of the major setbacks of the study is that the index developed by Nichita et al. (2020) captured just 11 SDG out of the 17 SDG. Despite these efforts, the literature on establishing SDG measurement and indexing is still in its early stages, and more research to broaden and expand this area of research is necessary.

There are two studies that attempt to propose a model and measurement for SDG in hybrid entities (Stefanescu, 2022, and Abeysekera, 2022). The study by Abeysekera (2022) proposed a model using the GRI framework that divides SDG into three perspectives (social, environmental and economic). The proposed index captures all 17 SDG, which offers more quality than the study of Nichita et al. (2020), which captures 11 SDG. The study anchored the proposed index on two theoretical grounds: Gaia theory and the theory of distributive justice. Gaia theory is about protecting the environment and nature, while the theory of distributive justice posits that organizations should be socially responsible to those within their ecosystem. The index incorporates both qualitative and quantitative mechanisms to measure SDG information. The second study on the proposed model/index for SDG is the work of Stefanescu (2022). Similar to the study of Abeysekera (2022), Stefanescu used GRI to construct an index by separating the 17 SDG into the 5P’s: people, planet, peace, prosperity and partnership. The methodology and measurement follow a qualitative approach that combines content and benchmarking analysis of the relevant SDG information.

The scarcity of studies assessing the proposed model or measurement for SDG is one of the theme’s major shortcomings. Despite its importance and scope in understanding how organizations can measure SDG activities within their business value chain process and how this index could improve the quality of SDG information, only a few empirical studies are examined to date, one study on the private sector entities and two studies on hybrid sector entities.

We have 10 studies that focused on disclosure and reporting on SDG in private sector entities. These studies represent 14% of the total studies of SDG in accounting journals (10 studies out of 70 studies). Three studies are from Europe, four from Asia and three from Africa. Starting with the study of Hummel and Szekely (2022), which examines SDG disclosure in Europe. The study examines 600 firms from 10 countries in Europe for the period of 2016–2019. Using content analysis, which is based on 11 reporting items, it observed a steady growth in SDG disclosure over the period. However, the study lacks quantitative disclosure, which makes firms unable to attach performance to their SDG activities. Similarly, the study by Zampone et al. (2022) investigated the SDG disclosure of 526 firms from 39 countries for the period of 2017–2020. The results show that firms with a sustainability committee tend to have higher SDG disclosures than those without a sustainability committee.

From an African perspective, Erin and Bamigboye (2022) examine the SDG reporting of 80 firms from eight African countries for the period of 2016–2018. The study adopted both content analysis and the survey method to determine the level of SDG disclosure. Overall, the level of SDG disclosure was low, and lack of support from the executive management, cost implications and a weak regulatory environment accounted for such a level. This finding is in consonance with the study of Erin et al. (2022), which examines the SDG disclosure of the top 50 firms in Nigeria. The studies of Hamad et al. (2023), Lau and Wong (2022), and Yadav and Jain (2023) examine SDG disclosure in Malaysia and India. The study by Hamad et al. (2023) looks at the SDG disclosure of Malaysia’s top-100 market-leading companies from 2016 to 2020. The study reveals that SDG disclosure increased from 14% in 2016–78% in 2020. The authors argue that the adoption of integrated reporting in 2017 contributed to the increase.

We noticed there are no studies on public sector entities, which provides an agenda for future studies. Few research on SDG disclosure in public sector organizations have been done, but from non-accounting literature (Niemann and Hoppe, 2018). This provides an avenue for future research on SDG disclosure in public sector entities.

Table 1 Panel B focuses on theme 7, which is categorized into two Sub-groups (studies that examine SDG in general and studies that focus on specific or target SDG). Sixty-seven (67) studies investigate general SDG without a specific focus on a particular SDG. One of the foremost studies on SDG in accounting is the work of Bebbington and Unerman (2018). The work provides a general overview of all SDG 1–17 and what needs to be learned by accounting researchers. To corroborate the study of Bebbington and Unerman (2018), Hummel and Szekely (2022) gave a general disclosure of SDG 1–17 of 600 European firms. The study posits that disclosure of more than one specific SDG shows firms commitment to sustainability issues. Similar to the work of Hummel and Szekely (2022), the study of Erin and Bamigboye (2022) examines the SDG disclosure of 80 firms from 10 African countries. The study elucidates that disclosure of more than one SDG reflects an organization’s desire to pursue and drive SDG and other sustainability activities within and outside its environment. There are other studies that focus on general SDG 1–17 (Hamad et al., 2023; Erin et al., 2022; Tetteh et al., 2021; Zampone et al., 2022; Pizzi et al., 2022). All these studies examine how organizations disclose and report on all the SDG 1–17. One of the major limitations of studying general SDG, as highlighted by Erin and Bamigboye (2022) and Hamad et al. (2023), is that most organizations fail to measure the performance of those SDG disclosed in their corporate annual reports.

There are three studies that examine specific studies on SDG (Khalique et al., 2021; Charnock and Hoskin, 2020; Sobkowiak et al., 2020). The study by Sobkowiak et al. (2020) examines the in-depth analysis of SDG 15 (Life on Land) of construction firms in the UK. The study described how these firms disclosed issues relating to SDG 15 vis-à-vis the performance indicators. The study was able to diffuse the disclosure of SDG 15 activities in relation to performance indicators agreed upon by different stakeholders. Similarly, the study of Charnock and Hoskin (2020) provides an archaeological-genealogical analysis of SDG 13 (climate change). The study argues that organizations should go beyond mere impression management to action-based policy on SDG activities. Finally, in this section is the study of Khalique et al. (2021), which investigates how multinational organizations in India incorporate SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) into their reporting mechanisms.

While these studies are crucial and important, there are limited studies on targeted SDG in the literature. There are no studies that explore other important SDG like SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG 4 (quality education), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG 17 (partnership for the goals) in accounting literature. Based on these findings, it is pertinent that future and potential research could explore specific SDG by corporate organizations. This would further extend studies on targeted SDG as observed by prior studies (Khalique et al., 2021; Charnock and Hoskin, 2020; Sobkowiak et al., 2020).

This study provides a comprehensive review of SDG studies, which has a range of implications for various interested parties. First, it presents opportunities for accounting and non-accounting researchers to contribute to SDG in different contexts. Only few studies on SDG in private, public and hybrid entities have been done, based on these reviewed studies. There are not enough studies on SDG practices in public sector organizations in developed and developing nations. Future studies could develop a credible measurement for SDG reporting. There is a need for further studies to examine what determines the quality of SDG disclosure; this underscores the need for organizations to measure their SDG activities against specific targets. Since organizations may decide to focus on selected SDG, it is also imperative to measure these SDG against a target.

Second, our review has implications for regulators and accounting standard setters. According to our findings, regulators and standard setters must take considerable measures toward issuing a new accounting standard that addresses the majority of sustainability and SDG issues. More precisely, by extending the corporate governance laws and codes to include mandatory requirements for SDG-related activities. Regulators of corporate governance codes, particularly in developing countries, should develop and issue SDG requirements, especially for listed companies. The sustainability committee’s responsibilities for monitoring SDG in the narrative portions of corporate annual reports should be emphasized by these codes. A high-quality SDG reports that could aid stakeholders in making informed decisions would undoubtedly result from this. In general, enhancing SDG quality requires participation from all interested parties. Managers must understand the benefit of reporting high-quality SDG information, and those who establish accounting standards must enhance current sustainability requirements or issue new ones that could enhance SDG disclosure.

Third, our review offers corporate managers some pertinent information. Managers should be aware that producing high-quality SDG information would bring to their organizations. They would be seen as being accountable and socially responsible business to the public, especially to their stakeholders. In addition, managers should use SDG reports to inform stakeholders about sustainability-risk-related activities their companies face and how they manage these risks within their corporate agenda. Informing stakeholders on sustainability-risk-related activities will reduce information asymmetry between corporate managers and stakeholders, and this may result in beneficial economic consequences. More importantly, managers should know that commitment to SDG-related activities helps solve societal challenges. Since the government alone may not be able to translate all 17 SDG into action, the help of the private sector becomes crucial.

Finally, the credibility of the information disclosed in SDG reports should be given critical consideration. Since assurance is not fully provided on SDG information, the reliability and creditability of these reports become doubtful. In this regard, literature has emphasized the need for assurance by external parties like consultants or auditors to verify the authenticity and reliability of those reports. In 2016, the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) supported the need for external assurance on sustainability reporting practices. IFAC emphasized that to ensure accountability, transparency and probity of the information; the need for external assurance of the sustainability information becomes critical. To support the IFAC assertion, Erin and Ackers (2024) suggested that in countries where the institutional framework is weak, there is a need to have their SDG reports assured by an external consultant. What this implies is that where disclosure is voluntary and not assured by an independent party, the content of those disclosures may not be relied upon. This paper is useful for policymakers and international standard-setting institutions to have a rethink on the need to canvass for external assurance of SDG information.

The SDG literature is reviewed in-depth and summarized in this study. Our study examines 70 review studies from 2018 to 2024. We find research gaps in the SDG literature and suggest directions for future studies. First, studies on the proposed model or index for measuring SDG are limited in literature. Only three studies out of 70 examined the proposed index or model for SDG. Further studies could examine and propose a framework or model for SDG. In this situation, qualitative research techniques (such qualitative interviews and surveys) could be applied to investigate and get first-hand information from standard setters, regulators, professional accounting organizations, corporate executives, analysts and stock market participants in the proposed model or index for SDG, which should covers all aspects of SDG 1–17. Second, another area in which our review suggests future direction is the compliance of SDG with regulations. Based on our review, only three studies examined SDG compliance with regulations. This demonstrates the paucity of research on SDG compliance, and the degree to which corporate entities comply with the SDG standards remain a major research question. A notable contribution to the literature on SDG would be an empirical comparison study of SDG practices in private, public and hybrid sector firms to elucidate on the efficacy of various SDG policies in these sectors.

Third, there is limited empirical evidence on the socioeconomic consequences of SDG. Our review shows that only six studies investigated the socioeconomic consequences of SDG in literature to date. Furthermore, three of these studies were done in Europe (Thi Nguyen et al., 2021; Pizzi et al., 2022; Buallay, 2019), while one study was carried out in Vietnam (Hancu-Budui and Zorio-Grimma, 2021). The studies of Thi Nguyen et al. (2021) and Buallay (2019) suggest that future research could consider the socioeconomic effect of SDG on corporate rating, firm value, share valuation, investment decisions and efficiency, analyst forecasts and cash holding. To fully understand the socioeconomic value of SDG in all entities (private, public and hybrid), it is vital to note that more research is required. In addition, future research might look into the significance and advantages of SDG for analysts and investors. Future studies could examine the channels through which SDG information is disseminated (such as annual reports, corporate websites, corporate social media and press releases) which can affects the information value in terms of decision-making.

Fourth, based on theme six, studies on SDG disclosure and reporting remains scanty. Future academics are encouraged to investigate this topic because there are limited literature on SDG reporting, particularly from public and hybrid entities. There are several research opportunities in this area. Future research could examine the role of board governance on SDG disclosure by investigating the effect of CEO traits including tenure, gender, power, salary and risk orientation. In addition, future studies could examine the level and quality of SDG disclosure; it would be enthralling for future researchers to examine the quality of SDG disclosure.

Fifth, this review study reveals that developed nations account for 53% of SDG research. About 22% of SDG research globally is conducted in four developed nations, France, Germany, Spain and the UK. With the growing concerns on social and environmental issues such as hunger, poverty, climate change activities, environmental pollution and greenhouse emissions in developing countries (Erin and Bamigboye, 2022), the issue of the SDG should be given critical and urgent attention. If due attention is given to the SDG, it could play a critical role in reversing these environmental and social issues in developing countries. Thus, it appears that more study of SDG in developing nations is required, particularly in those with weak governance and accountability systems.

Sixth, another major area that calls for further studies is the application of the theoretical framework that underpins SDG literature. Despite the fact that we found 36 theories that have been used to justify why organizations to disclose SDG information, we found that the development of SDG studies has not taken into account other pertinent theories, such as sustainable development theory, benefit theory and stewardship theory. We recommend that future researchers look into the theories that have not been used in SDG studies, like stewardship theory, benefit theory and sustainable development theory, this could provide new insights and theoretical improvements.

Finally, the literature on SDG has focused mainly on general SDG 1–17 without much study on specific SDG. There are 67 studies on general SDG out of 70, while only 3 studies examine specific SDG 13, 15 and 8. Though studies on SDG in general are important, it would be interesting if future research could examine how organizations contribute to specific SDG. This will definitely improve the quality of SDG disclosure. Some studies argue that general disclosure of SDG is mere impression management to gain legitimacy from stakeholders (Saha et al., 2021; Cosma et al., 2022; Setia et al., 2022). These authors contend that future research should examine how organizations contribute to specific SDG within their environments. This provides a research avenue that could improve the quality of SDG disclosure, which has been under-researched based on our review.

This study presents a comprehensive review of the existing body of research on the SDGs. The review encompasses a broad spectrum of topics, including both theoretical and empirical studies focused on private, public and hybrid entities. In line with the study’s objectives, seven thematic aspects were analyzed:

1. practices and characteristics of the SDGs;

2. determinants of SDGs;

3. socioeconomic impacts of SDGs;

4. compliance of SDGs with regulatory frameworks;

5. proposed SDG measurement tools or indices;

6. disclosure and reporting practices related to SDGs; and

7. classification of SDGs 1–17.

These thematic themes were derived from an analysis of 70 studies published across 24 academic journals between 2018 and 2024.

The research objective of this review study is to examine thematic areas of SDG research, identify research gaps and contribute to the development of the SDG research agenda by identifying potential areas for further investigation. We were able to identify 70 studies by using five screening criteria. Only SDG research that have been published in the Journal Quality Guide (AJG) 2021 are selected; according to this guide, all journals are ranked from 1 (lowest quality) to 4* (highest quality), with 4 and 4* receiving equal weight. Furthermore, no research is published in 4* rated journals, and 18% of the 70 studies are published in top-tier journals (3*-rated journals). Forty-seven percent of the samples was conducted in 41 developing countries versus 53% in 36 developed countries. Countries like France, Germany, Spain and the UK contribute about 22% of the SDG research globally. There are 36 theories used by the review studies examined. Stakeholder theory, institutional theory, voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory dominate with 65%, despite the fact that sustainable development theory is important for SDG research, it is rarely used. Taking into account the historical development of SDG research, we have 74% of the studies published between 2022 and mid-2024.

This study makes three significant contributions to the SDG literature. First, the SDGs have emerged as a cornerstone for global sustainability initiatives. Businesses increasingly recognize the importance of aligning their strategies with the SDGs to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable development and address stakeholder expectations. Policymakers are similarly leveraging the SDGs as a framework for shaping regulations and incentives that encourage sustainable practices. Second, while sustainability research in accounting has grown substantially, a comprehensive understanding of how accounting practices contribute to the achievement of the SDGs remains limited. Much of the existing research focuses on specific aspects, such as environmental reporting or social accounting, without offering a holistic perspective. A systematic literature review can consolidate and analyze existing knowledge, uncover patterns and trends and identify areas requiring further exploration. Finally, this study provides valuable insights for practitioners and policymakers. For practitioners, it highlights the current state of SDG research, offering guidance for developing more effective reporting practices and decision-making processes. For policymakers, the findings support the creation of regulations and standards that better align with the SDGs, addressing existing gaps and challenges in the field.

Our findings suggest avenues for further studies. First, further research is required to investigate the determinants, and socioeconomic effects of SDG in private sector entities and in relation to those of public sector entities. Second, to understand how organizations support specific SDG, more research is required. This provides a research avenue that could improve the quality of SDG report, which has been under-researched based on our review. Third, future research needs to examine other relevant SDG theories (for example, sustainable development theory, benefit theory and stewardship theory) in the development of SDG-related studies. Fourth, future research should investigate the role of governance (board governance and CEO attributes) in SDG. More importantly, how governance has influenced the quality of SDG reports in developed and developing countries. Fifth, as mentioned under the “literature gap” section, SDG reporting in developing nations, particularly those with weak governance and accountability frameworks, has to be examined. Finally, future studies might examine how assurance affects the level of SDG information. It is important that the credibility of the information disclosed on SDG be given critical consideration.

We observed a few limitations in our review. First, our review period is limited to the 2018–mid-2024 period. Second, only articles from ABS-ranked journals are reviewed. Despite the considerable variance in the quality of the journals, all articles are assigned the same weight. We decided to use all the articles listed in ABS-ranked journals for comprehensiveness since there are few papers published on SDG-related research. Finally, from the screening procedures, certain SDG publications are excluded from the review sample. For example, we exclude SDG research published on SSRN or presented at conferences.