Engagement with UN SDGs in accounting scholarship: an accounting framework for the shift into overdrive towards 2030 agenda Open Access

“We face a global development emergency”.

– António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations.

The above, urgent message is declared in The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025, ten years after all United Nations (UN) Member States adopted the Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda) at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015. The 2030 Agenda depicts a blueprint for global actions with, so far, the highest level of humanity’s aspirations for people, planet and prosperity. Pledging to leave no one behind, the 2030 Agenda established 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with 169 targets which came into effect on 1 January 2016 and are to be accomplished globally by 2030. These universal goals and targets address critically important economic, social and environmental areas. Among these goals, eradicating poverty in all its forms (SDG 1 No Poverty) is recognised as the greatest global challenge (United Nations, 2015). Implementing the goals and targets requires the involvement of global-scale actors including international and regional organisations, national governments, the private sector, civil society and individuals, to mobilise all types of resources and build relevant capabilities.

Two-thirds into the 15-year global effort, at the tenth annual stocktake of global progress towards the 2030 Agenda, The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2025, presents a “stark reality” (United Nations, 2025, p. 4) with the “confronting hard truth” (p. 3) that progress is, unfortunately, insufficient to meet the 2030 deadline. Although there have been some favourable outcomes, only 35% of SDG targets show adequate progress, whereas 48% of targets show inadequate progress. Most concerning one is that 18% of targets regressed below 2015 baseline levels. Similarly, according to the UN quadrennial report, Global Sustainable Development Report 2023 (Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, 2023), the current trajectory indicates that the SDGs will not be achieved by 2030 or even 2050. Apart from disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic, rising inflation, regional and national unrest and conflicts, disasters and planetary, environmental and economic distress, common impediments to progress include deficits in “governance, institutional capacities, financing and infrastructure” (Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, 2023, p. XXIII). The UN urgently called for a rescue plan and political declaration at its SDG Summit 2023 to shift the business-as-usual approach towards reaching the goals, with five important “levers” for such transformation being identified in the Summit report (Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, 2023): governance; economy and finance; science and technology; individual and collective action; and capacity-building. The report emphasises that this transformation should be rooted in all aspects of science, and further points out the issue of a global imbalance in research and development which is typically concentrated in high-income countries.

Arguably, accounting practitioners and scholars are well situated at the cross-sections of these five enabling levers and thus well-positioned to contribute to the needed transformations towards globally sustainable pathways. The International Federation of Accountants (IFAC, 2016) advocates the accounting profession’s role and skills in enabling the SDGs:

However, how accountants can facilitate this increase in demand remains unclear. Notwithstanding the roles and capabilities of accounting, the accounting profession has been slow to engage in the sustainability agenda (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020). Three decades after the Brundtland Report (UNWCED, 1987) coined the notion of sustainable development, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) issued its inaugural standards, IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, only in June 2023, with arguably a narrow financial focus on sustainability-related disclosures in capital markets to meet the investors’ needs ^[1]. This slow and narrow response from the accounting profession raises important questions about the research community’s role in driving change. If accounting practice has been hesitant to embrace sustainability despite the clear opportunities and need, what role have accounting scholars played in advancing this agenda? Understanding the extent and nature of accounting scholar’s engagement with SDGs thus becomes crucial, as scholarly work typically precedes and informs professional practice. Furthermore, the quality and depth of such research matters, as superficial or generative approaches are unlikely to generate the insights needed to guide the profession towards meaningful engagement with SDGs.

This paper is thus motivated by two key considerations. Firstly, while SDGs provide an “opportunity and need” (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018, p. 12) for accounting scholars to engage with society and to contribute to the well-being of the future world, there is “a surprising absence” (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020, p. 1659) of SDG research engagement from accounting scholars. Environmental accounting research published in accounting journals is found to be “in a general fashion” (Marrone et al., 2020, p. 2188) compared to that published in non-accounting journals, thus calling into question the value of insights from such studies. Bebbington and Unerman (2020) further identify two significant implications resulting from a lack of engagement by accounting scholars in SDGs-motivated research:

However, to what extent and how accounting scholars engage with SDGs has yet to be examined. Only by identifying and understanding these issues, as well as the gaps, will accounting scholars and the accounting profession in general be able to map out how to address them more adequately and thus further facilitate the achievement of SDGs and the post-2030 Agenda.

The second key motivation stems from the call made by Bebbington and Unerman (2018) to re-examine the conceptual underpinning of social and environmental sustainability accounting, and from the timely redefinition of accounting, proposed by Carnegie et al., (2021), featuring its technical, social and moral dimensions:

Carnegie et al. (2021) highlight a deficit in traditional accounting definitions that position accounting as a technical practice without adequately recognising the social and moral aspects of accounting. Considering the risks of a delimited and restricted potential for accounting as a profession, these authors call for accounting scholarship to contribute to “a better world with a more balanced perspective on planet, people and profit” (Carnegie et al., 2021, p. 72). This view is in line with the vision, presented by the 2030 Agenda, of building a better future for all people, and the call by António Guterres, Secretary-General of the UN, for the significant shifts needed to achieve the SDGs, “not only in energy sources, consumption patterns and supply chains, but also in values, hearts and minds” (Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, 2023, p. XIII). It is argued in the present study that research that considers and applies the social, moral and technical aspects of accounting will enable a greater potential for the accounting profession to actively contribute towards attaining the SDGs. However, to what extent and how accounting scholars have applied technical, social and moral dimensions of accounting, explicitly or implicitly, in engaging with SDGs are yet to be examined.

Building on the multidimensional definition of accounting (Carnegie et al., 2021), Carnegie et al., (2023) construct their Framework of the Multidimensional Nature of Accounting to guide accounting practice. However, while this framework offers important potential to enable accounting’s contribution towards shaping a better world, there is a need for a framework that directs accounting research.

The key research objective of this study, therefore, is to identify issues with, and provide recommendations on, accounting scholars’ research on SDGs, based on the multidimensional definition of and approach to accounting proposed by Carnegie et al. (2021) and Carnegie, Parker, et al. (2023). In doing so, this study constructs a Framework for the Multidimensional Nature of Accounting Research which aims to direct accounting scholars in their research towards fulfilling the technical, social and moral dimensions of accounting. This framework is then applied to develop the more specific, Framework for the Multidimensional Nature of SDG-focussed Accounting Research. Using this second framework as a lens, research articles on SDGs published in eight high-profile accounting journals between 2016 and 2024 are collected and analysed.

The results indicate a generally scarce presence of SDG-focused research by accounting scholars, which is alarming given that nine years have already passed of the 15-year span allocated for the SDGs to be achieved globally. This lack of accounting research may indicate that accounting professionals and scholars are unaware, unwilling or struggling to engage their respective professional and academic communities in this essential worldwide initiative of the UN. Further data analysis reveals that the SDG studies explored in this investigation proceed from a “research-as-usual” and “just-another-sustainability-initiative-in-the-pool” approach. Overall, the social considerations and implications of existing SDG-focused accounting research are either not considered or described in a generic manner by accounting scholars. Furthermore, what is most lacking is consideration of the implications of the moral dimension.

Therefore, accounting scholars need to increase their response to the call for more contributions to SDG research, and to address issues such as where we stand as a profession, what we have done well, what is missing, and how to move forward. The solutions remain relatively unclear; and input from the entire accounting scholar community is needed. This study thus represents a step on the transformative journey towards a greater focus on SDG in the accounting discipline.

This study makes four contributions as follows. Firstly, empirically, it reveals that accounting scholarship’s engagement with SDGs remains alarmingly sparse, with only 24 SDG-focused articles across eight leading journals over nine years. When engagement does occur, such research exhibits issues that limit its impact: concentration on corporate disclosure studies; geographically focused on developed countries; and neglecting the broader range of all the SDGs and their interconnectedness. Secondly, conceptually, by applying Carnegie et al. (2023) multidimensional accounting framework to research evaluation, as subsequentially modified and extended by Carnegie et al. (2024), the study demonstrates that current SDG scholarship disproportionately emphasises technical dimensions (such as reporting) while largely failing to address social implications (how research findings inform policy and practice) and moral dimensions (serving broader stakeholders and planetary interests). This imbalance further reveals a critical issue: accounting scholars approaching SDGs as “just another sustainability initiative” in a “business as usual” manner instead of embracing the transformative agenda that SDGs represent.

Thirdly, theoretically, this study constructs and operationalise frameworks for the multidimensional nature of accounting research and SDG research, providing analytical tools that future scholars can apply to evaluate and guide research agendas. Fourthly, practically, this study identifies specific research opportunities including interdisciplinary approaches, under-represented SDGs, developing country contexts, national-level governance, management accounting applications, SDG education, and collaboration with industry partners and communities. Accounting journals also play important role in embracing SDGs into mainstream publication, both within and outside of SDG-focussed special issues. Collectively, these opportunities offer pathways for accounting scholarship to fulfil its potential in contributing to sustainable development and the post-2030 Agenda.

This paper is organised as follows. Existing SDG research engagement, and the important role accounting scholars can play, are discussed in Section 2. This is followed, in Section 3, by constructing theoretical frameworks for the accounting research agenda. Section 4 describes research methods, including data collection and analysis. Research findings are then presented, in Section 5, in terms of accounting’s technical, social and moral dimensions, followed by further discussion in Section 6. Section 7 concludes the paper, outlining future research opportunities and addressing research limitations.

This section focuses on accounting scholars’ engagement with SDG-related research and the important role accounting scholars can play in advancing the SDG agenda. Social and environmental accounting (SEA) research before the advent of the SDGs has been characterised as lacking adequate progress in addressing sustainable development (Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014). Such research often focused on analysing the content of listed companies’ annual reports, which is not “fully in line with the demands that sustainability development places on the academy” (Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014, p. 409). Attending to social and ecological concerns, as well as contextual matters and sustainability science, has thus been suggested as a key means of moving forward (Bebbington and Larrinaga, 2014). Reflecting on SEA’s achievements and challenges, Bebbington et al. (2017, p. 28) contend that SDGs “have considerable potential as a framework for SEA and accountability”. Similarly, Bebbington and Unerman (2018, p. 2) claim, “SDGs provide a context for (re)invigorating accounting’s contribution to sustainable development debates”. To advance engagement with the SDGs, SEA scholars are suggested to focus on the “substantive social, environmental and economic issues” that are captured in SDGs, towards a focus on greater accountability and broader engagement (Bebbington et al., 2017, p. 31). Bebbington and Unerman (2018) further identify relevant SDG topics that existing SEA research has addressed and outline a future research agenda for the SDGs. They advocate that SDG-related research needs to extend beyond the entity-level boundary held in conventional accounting practice, bringing eco-centric and social considerations and embracing an interdisciplinary approach (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018, 2020).

Extending the boundary to national governments, and building on Adams’ (2017) conceptualisation of value creation by organisations, Abhayawansa et al. (2021) develop a conceptualisation of how national governments create value through transparency, accountability, multi-stakeholder involvement and central coordination. In addition, aiming to create long-term value for organisations and society, Adams et al. (2020) drafted the Sustainable Development Goals Disclosure (SDGD) Recommendations for organisations managing and communicating their impact regarding the SDGs. Meanwhile, Hopper (2019) emphasises the need to focus on global issues and policies, and that contributing to SDGs has important social implications in the interests of the planet and society, including developing countries. He proposes six important accounting areas to address these needs: human rights; climate change; decent work; increasing accountability (especially through civil society and democratic participation); partnership with stakeholders; and developing country contexts.

The global adoption of SDGs in 2015 heralded a significant increase in sustainability publications (Owusu and Ofori-Owusu, 2024). However, despite the renewed opportunities provided by the SDGs, the potential capability of SEA research and the leadership demonstrated by some accounting scholars in the SDG field, a limited number of literature search studies have revealed a lack of engagement by accounting scholarship. A structured review of SDG-inspired or SDG-relevant scholarship published in accounting journals from 2015 to 2020 shows unfavourable results (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020): accounting scholars published only two papers in nine accounting journals, and four in journals outside accounting. This raises the serious question of whether the field of accounting research “is ready and able to embrace SDGs-focussed work” (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020, p. 1660).

Focusing on environmental accounting research, and not specifically on SDGs, Marrone et al. (2020) use a machine learning review of 2,502 records published from 1972 to 2019. They find that articles published in accounting journals are less specific in topic and more oriented to theory building than those in non-accounting journals. A more recent structured literature review focusing on SDG corporate reporting collected 65 empirical papers from accounting and non-accounting journals (Awuah et al., 2024). Overall, it is found that the most cited papers on corporate SDG disclosure are not published in any of the top accounting journals, with the top seven most cited journals being non-accounting journals. It should be noted that SDG corporate reporting is one of the “traditional” topics, among other fruitful areas such as those suggested by Bebbington and Unerman (2018, 2020), that accounting scholars can engage with.

However, none of the above-mentioned studies provides an updated, comprehensive picture of accounting scholars’ engagement with the SDGs agenda. Arguably, such understanding is needed as a first step towards advancing the SDGs agenda. Nevertheless, the limited available literature indicates that both SDG-related accounting research and accounting journals may be at the periphery of the global SDG research community. One of the implications of an overall lower engagement with sustainability in the accounting profession is that this void provides opportunities for other communities to occupy and address the demand for accounting for sustainability. For example, Australia’s National Science Agency CSIRO produced The Natural Capital Handbook (Smith et al., 2023) which links nature with corporate reporting including the ISSB, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Integrated Reporting (IR), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). It provides practical guidance on preparing five disclosure statements including the natural capital balance sheet, natural capital income statement, natural capital impact statement, natural capital dependency statement and natural capital risk/opportunity statement. Another implication of an overall lack of SDG engagement in accounting journals is that other non-accounting journals dominate the global platform that the accounting discipline is indeed capable of, such as the case with SDGs in corporate reporting, as shown by Awuah et al. (2024).

Bebbington and Unerman (2020, p. 1659) point out that accounting scholars lack awareness of the SDGs and their significance to accounting practices and policy, and that “accounting scholars are yet to fully embrace the many opportunities”. They also note that existing SDG research adopts a traditional and narrow approach with general and broad findings without providing explicit insights into how their research could advance the SDG agenda. Accounting scholars have thus been called to extend consideration beyond a narrow, economic-centric approach to broader social, ecological and moral perspectives (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020; Hopper, 2019). Accounting professionals and academics, that is, have a moral responsibility and must therefore broaden their vision of accounting and accountability, addressing needs beyond corporations and capital markets, and contributing to planetary health, global policies and institutions (Hopper, 2019). As such, a “wholesale redesign” (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020, p. 1668) of the SDGs-related research approach is much needed.

Applying Carnegie et al., (2021) definition of accounting and associated framework (Carnegie et al., 2023) as the theoretical lens, this study proposes a framework of the multidimensional nature of accounting research. This framework is then applied as an analytical framework more specifically to investigate the accounting research practices of SDG-focused research over a nine-year period, from 2016 (the starting year of the 2030 Agenda) to 2024. Pointing out limitations of the technicist, mono-dimensionality of the conventional definition of accounting, “delimiting and restricting accounting’s interpretive potential and future standing as a profession”, Carnegie et al. (2021, p. 67) propose that, for completeness, accounting’s definition should include technical, social and moral dimensions of accounting, to enhance our understanding of the role of accounting in society and the natural world and, in turn, leading to greater contributions of accounting towards a better future. Extending on this multidimensional view of accounting (Carnegie, 2022; Carnegie et al., 2023; Carnegie et al., 2021; Carnegie et al., 2024), a Framework of the Multidimensional Nature of Accounting Research is thus developed in this study, depicted in summary terms in Figure 1. Just as accounting has a multidimensional nature, this study proposes that accounting research too should encompass technical, social and moral dimensions of accounting. Key questions and elements are then proposed for each dimension.

Under the proposed Framework, the key questions relating to the technical dimension of accounting research are: What is studied, and how do accounting scholars undertake such research? As a technical practice, accounting research is concerned with the following three elements: the topics of interest of the study, for example provisions for contaminated sites in financial reports; technical issues associated with the study topics, for example investigating whether current accounting standards provide sufficient guidance in the process of preparing a financial report regarding provisions for contaminated sites; and the epistemological and methodological approach, for example a constructive worldview (Creswell, 2009; Denzin and Lincoln, 2018), with qualitative research methodology and semi-structured interview method considered suitable to investigate the reasons regarding companies reporting or not reporting their provisions for contaminated sites. Thus accounting scholars may use different worldviews, paradigms, theoretical frameworks and methods to approach these topics and issues.

Just as the social dimension of accounting practices can ‘order our lives by means such as key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics’ (Carnegie, Parker, et al., 2023, p. 1), the social dimension of accounting research points to the enabling or disabling function of research studies. Accounting researchers aim their “spotlight”, equipped with their worldview and paradigm-infused lens and methods, to draw attention to the subject and findings of their studies. While making their research subject and findings visible, such a focus may also render invisible other subjects not under the spotlight employed. Inevitably, accounting research has profound social impacts that direct society’s attention, thinking and actions. The “so what” question often raised in accounting research is a typical example of seeking the social dimensions of accounting research. Therefore, the key question for the social dimension of accounting research is: What do the findings of accounting research direct to practices, policy and future research? Derived from this question, the social impacts of accounting research include three elements: its impact on organisational and social functioning and development; the impact on practices and policies; and the implications for future research.

Extending the notion that “morality is at accounting’s core” (Carnegie, 2022, p. 618; Carnegie et al., 2023, p. 12; Carnegie et al., 2021, p. 68), the moral dimension of accounting research in the proposed Framework illuminates the accountability of accounting scholars in contributing to the well-being of society and the planet. This dimension transcends the traditional focus on narrow, financially driven, shareholder-focused research which often disengages from broader stakeholders, towards an engaging and inclusive, morality-infused and multi-stakeholder-focused “holy grail” aim of a better world for all. The key question for the moral dimension of accounting research is: What do the findings of accounting research mean for communities and societies in shaping a better world? This dimension includes three elements, in terms of how accounting research serves: broader stakeholders than just shareholders; the public interest; and planetary interests. Extending the proposed definition of accounting (Carnegie et al., 2021), in the present study, academics are thus deemed moral agents and need to be accountable for their research. This requires accounting scholars to explicitly discuss the moral implications of their research and how their research serves and supports the public interest in human society and planetary interests more broadly.

Embracing the technical, social and moral dimensions of accounting research thus requires us, as accounting scholars, to broaden our mindsets, bring care and compassion into what we do, and to appreciate and understand the impact, intended or unintended, of what we do. In this respect, the SDGs provide fertile opportunities for accounting scholars to “revisit, redefine and refine topics and issues” and “re-examine the conceptual underpinnings” (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018, p. 12) within sustainability-focussed accounting research.

Applying the proposed framework of the multidimensional nature of accounting research to SDG-focused accounting research in particular, this study further develops a theoretical framework that promotes an SDG-focused research agenda and assesses current SDG-focused accounting research conducted by accounting scholars. This framework is shown in Figure 2.

The application of the multidimensional Framework to the SDG context exhibits unique characteristics that distinguish SDG-related research from conventional scholarship. The technical dimension of SDG research extends beyond traditional financial reporting competencies to encompass interdisciplinary knowledge requirements. For instance, addressing SDG 13 Climate Action demands understanding of climate science, carbon accounting methodologies, and international climate governance frameworks (Charnock and Hoskin, 2020), alongside working with localised internal governance and technical systems. Similarly, SDG 15 Life on Land requires expertise in biodiversity measurement, ecosystem valuation, and natural capital accounting (Horner and Davidson, 2021; Sobkowiak et al., 2020). The interconnectedness of the 17 SDGs also requires in-depth understandings of, and operationalisation of the inter-play of, the 17 goals in terms of economic, social and environmental considerations. Given that SDG achievements are aimed ultimately at the society level, studies need to go beyond entity-level boundary studies and, at the least, link entity-level studies to the national as well as the society levels. These interdisciplinary and broader, entity-national-society scope and linkage requirements thus challenge accounting’s traditional, mono-disciplinary, economic-driven, entity-level approach, and necessitate collaborations with a wide range of natural and social sciences.

To understand the status of the SDG-focused accounting research landscape, the first research question thus relates to the technical dimension of SDG-focused accounting research:

Addressing RQ1 involves investigating SDG-focused accounting research in terms of the research topics and particular SDGs that are relevant to those topics. Possible research interests include SDG reporting, SDG accountability and governance, the connections between SDGs and other sustainability frameworks (for example, IR), specific SDGs (for example, SDG 13 Climate Action) within the set, and SDG education.

The social dimension takes on particular significance in the SDG context due to the SDGs’ explicit focus on social transformation and “leaving no one behind”. Unlike conventional accounting research which primarily addresses organisational efficiency or investor decision-making, SDG research must explicitly articulate how findings advance the SDGs’ societal objectives. For example, research on SDG disclosure practices should not merely describe reporting patterns but must examine whether and how such disclosure enables accountability to affected communities, informs policy interventions or catalyses organisational and national change towards sustainable development. The social dimension in SDG research thus requires scholars to bridge the gap between academic findings and real-world implementation challenges, making explicit the pathways through which research contributes to achieving specific SDG targets.

As such, the second research question thus investigates the social dimension of SDG-focused research:

Research findings indicate “where to next, what next and how to next”, which potentially directs future actions and areas of attention. Addressing RQ2 requires investigating the findings and recommendations of research in terms of their implications for organisational and social functioning and development, their impact on practice and policy, and their implications for future research.

The moral dimension assumes heightened importance in SDG research because the SDGs themselves embody moral commitments to intergenerational equity, social justice and planetary stewardship. While conventional accounting research may implicitly serve shareholder interest and capital market efficiency, SDG research must explicitly consider whose interests are served, and whether and how research advances or impedes sustainable development. For example, research examining corporate SDG reporting must consider not only disclosure quality from the investors’ perspective but also whether reporting practices enable or obscure accountability to vulnerable stakeholders, developing countries, future generations and planetary duties. This moral dimension requires accounting scholars to move beyond technical neutrality to intentionally acknowledge their roles as moral agents whose research choices – whose interests to serve, and which SDGs to prioritise – carry ethical implications for sustainable development outcomes.

The moral dimension of SDG-focused research is thus examined by means of the third research question:

Addressing RQ3 requires SDG-focused research to explicitly include and address the moral implications in terms of how research findings contribute to the public interest, representing a broader range of stakeholders in the human world and the planet’s interest in terms of the natural world. Only when there is alignment and harmony, between the SDGs and SDG-focused accounting research, of economic, social, environmental and moral aspects can accounting scholars responsibly claim accountability in their research towards the SDGs and post-2030 Agenda.

Applying these three dimensions together to SDG research thus provides a critical lens: the SDGs demand holistic and transformative research that integrates technical rigour with social relevance and moral commitment; yet the present study’s analysis reveals that existing accounting scholarship has largely been confined to technical matters, without social and moral depth. This gap between what SDG research requires and what accounting scholarship currently delivers represents a core insight emerging from the proposed Framework’s application.

To address the research questions, this study has adopted a qualitative approach to content analysis (De Villiers et al., 2019; Gibbs, 2007; Krippendorff, 2018; Lodhia et al., 2023; Patton, 2015; Schreier, 2012, 2014; Schreier et al., 2019). The “heart” (Schreier, 2014, p. 170) of the content analysis method is a coding frame through which rich, in-depth data are categorised and further interpreted. Data analysis is directed by the underlying theoretical lens and methodological frameworks of the corresponding qualitative studies (Forman and Damschroder, 2007; Schreier, 2012). Appropriate conceptual lenses and analytical frameworks that coherently address research objectives and research questions provide methodological purposiveness and congruence (Marshall and Rossman, 2016; Richards and Morse, 2013). Undertaking a qualitative content analysis method, Lodhia et al. (2023) apply legitimacy theory as their theoretical lens to investigate Australian companies’ disclosure practices. Their study uses a KPMG (2018) report as an analytical framework to analyse and interpret the data.

The present study adopts the theoretical lens of multidimensional accounting (Carnegie et al., 2023; Carnegie et al., 2021; Carnegie, Parker, et al., 2024). The coding frame is guided by applying the above Framework of the Multidimensional Nature of SDG-focused Accounting Research (Section 3.2, also see Figure 2) developed in this study. This coding frame, built during the coding process, not only provides a conceptual lens to capture the comprehensiveness of the rich data but also serves as an analytical tool to interpret and assess data under the chosen theoretical lens (Lodhia et al., 2023), as presented in Table 1. This three-dimensional coding frame follows Schreier’s (2012, 2014) principles of mutual exclusiveness of subcategories (i.e. codes), exhaustiveness and saturation through coding cycles. Details regarding coding and data analysis are discussed in Section 4.3 and Section 4.4.

Academic articles are collected from eight leading accounting journals: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ), Accounting Forum (AF), Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS), Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA), Journal of Accounting and organisational Change (JAOC), Journal of Management Accounting Research (JMAR), Management Accounting Research (MAR) and Meditari Accountancy Research (Meditari). The selection of these eight journals is based on three key considerations. Firstly, these journals’ aims and scopes promote the sociological, critical and interpretive tradition or an interdisciplinary research approach, and go beyond the technical aspects of accounting. Secondly, consideration is based on the journals’ publication profiles, as identified by accounting scholars in the literature, as having a sustainability-related focus. For example, AAAJ, AF, AOS and CPA, among other journals, were selected by Bebbington and Unerman (2020, p. 1660) as they “might be expected to publish SDG-relevant work”. Similarly, AAAJ, CPA and AOS are commonly identified as the top interdisciplinary journals in accounting on a broad range of topics and issues (Carnegie, Gomes et al., 2024; de Villiers and Dumay, 2013; Guthrie and D. Parker, 2014; Hopper, 2023; Xu et al., 2021), and as top journals publishing SEA papers in developing country contexts (Qian et al., 2021). Thirdly, appreciating that social and environmental management accounting largely consists of one major field in the broad-based management accounting discipline – for example, JMAR dedicated a special issue on sustainability and management accounting research in 2023 (Volume 35, Issue 3) – two leading management accounting journals, JMAR and MAR, are selected to investigate how the management accounting arena approaches SDG-relevant research.

While the present study shares some characteristics with systematic literature reviews (SLRs), such as by using published scholarly articles as data, a structured search protocol and transparent selection criteria and data analysis, it diverges from the SLR approach in both purpose and methods. SLRs aim to comprehensively aggregate and synthesise findings across a broad body of literature, to answer specific questions, often employing meta-analytical techniques and predefined methods (Harari et al., 2020; Hardies et al., 2024; Mio et al., 2020; Page et al., 2021; Pizzi et al., 2020; Tranfield et al., 2003). By contrast, the present study employs a qualitative content analysis to examine the nature and characteristics of SDG-related accounting research within a purposively selected set of leading accounting journals. The focus is thus not on synthesising what prior studies have found about SDGs, but rather on mapping and critically analysing how accounting scholarly community is engaging with SDG research as a phenomenon and its alignment with Carnegie et al., (2023) multidimensional framework.

Qualitative content analysis is particularly appropriate for this interpretative purpose, as it enables rich and in-depth examination of both manifest and latent content within texts to identify patterns and generate insights about research trajectories (Forman and Damschroder, 2007; Hsieh and Shannon, 2005; Schreier, 2012). This methodological choice aligns with the research objectives to understand how accounting scholars approach SDG-related research, building on but going beyond what the published contents are. This choice enables the identification of opportunities for and generation of insights into future research development, rather than producing an exhaustive synthesis of substantive findings across all available SDG-related literature.

The study’s focussed, qualitative analysis of eight prominent accounting journals thus allows for rich and detailed examination of SDG research within influential scholarly venues, prioritising analytical depth and theoretical insights over comprehensive coverage. While a broader scope encompassing all journals publishing accounting-related research would offer greater breadth, it would likely sacrifice nuanced understanding of how influential accounting scholarship is engaging with SDGs through the lens of Carnegie et al. (2023) multidimensional framework. The journals selected represent key sites where accounting knowledge is produced, legitimised and disseminated, making them particularly valuable for understanding the discipline’s evolving relationship with SDGs. Nevertheless, this study acknowledges the limitation that important SDG-related contributions may appear in outlets beyond the selected journals, and that future studies could adopt an SLR or research profiling (Porter et al., 2002; Xu et al., 2021) approach to explore how engagement patterns differ across journals and disciplines.

After the selection of targeted journals, articles published in each issue of these eight journals from 2016 to 2024 are selected to capture the period from the start of the SDGs to the most recent available year. Due to the research focus of this study, short articles classified by these journals as poems, viewpoints, editorial articles and literature reviews are further excluded. Data collection was first conducted manually, involving the review of each issue of the journals and screening of each published full-text article. Three separate processes were involved. Firstly, three sections of the article – the title, keywords provided by authors, and abstract sections – were manually screened to identify whether they contained SDG-related information. These selection and screening practices align with the approach taken by Bebbington and Unerman (2020) and research profiling literature in general (see, for example, De Villiers and Hsiao, 2018; Porter et al., 2002; Xu et al., 2021). Secondly, to enhance the quality of data collection, the “Search” function within the PDF documents was utilised with the input of search words “SDG” or “Sustainable Development Goal”, scanning the entire article. As a result, 251 articles containing any SDG-related words are identified. Thirdly, after this manual selection process, to enhance the reliability of data, a Google Scholar search was conducted as a checking mechanism for accuracy. The search results confirm that no articles were missed during the manual screening.

It was soon realised during the data collection process that the collected articles contain, or report upon, various degrees of SDG relevance. Some articles only specifically refer to SDGs within their reference lists, offering minimal insight into this study. Full-text articles are thus analysed to determine the degree of SDG-related contributions by the data. The analysis includes three steps. In the first step, the locations of the searched words “SDG” and “sustainable development goal” were identified. The search function was used to locate the keywords among the collected articles. In line with Bebbington and Unerman (2020), a higher degree of relevance is considered if these search words appear in the title, abstract and keyword sections, or are included in discussions of future research, research implications and recommendations. A lower degree of relevance is awarded if the search words appear in the reference list or author profile only. The second step entailed reading the article title, abstract and text of the main body, using the search terms, to understand the articles’ relevance to SDGs. Building on these first two steps, the third and final step involved reading the entire article, interpreting it and forming an assessment of the article’s relevance level.

The classification process is thus an iterative one that has involved interpreting and judging the relevance of the paper to the SDGs. Where articles sit on the boundaries of neighbouring categories, articles were read multiple times and considered against the classification criteria before final decisions were made. As a result, four categories are generated: SDG-focused (Category 1); SDG-related (Category 2); SDG-mentioned (Category 3); and SDG-mentioned but only outside the main body of the article (Category 4). Classification criteria and examples for each category are provided in Table 2.

Category 1 SDG-focused articles depict a strong focus on SDGs and generate the most relevant insights into SDGs. This category is considered the most relevant by the present study and thus subjected to further data analysis. This approach is similar to that taken by Bebbington and Unerman (2020) who consider only SDG-focused papers. In their study, only papers with “SDGs” in their title were included, as this signalled “a greater emphasis on the Goals” (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020, p. 1660). However, considering that some SDG-focused articles may also include SDGs in their keywords and that SDGs are thus the primary focus of their study, these are also classified as SDG-focused in the present study. After multiple rounds of reading, 24 (24) articles are identified as situated in this category. These articles are primarily research papers (21 articles), with the balance made up of conceptual papers (3). The list of Category 1 articles is provided in  Appendix.

Category 2 SDG-related articles are either partially motivated by, and/or partially relevant to, SDGs. Forty-two (42) articles are in this category. Some Category 2 articles (for example, Kumar and Singh, 2023) only have a few mentions of SDGs in the article: while relevant to SDGs, they offer less concentrated SDG-related findings, future research suggestions or implications. The gap between Category 1 and 2 articles, in terms of their relevance to the SDGs and the research objectives of the present study, is significant. After the initial, large-scale, intensive attempt by the researcher to combine Category 2 data with Category 1 data in the data analysis process, it was found not only that the increased insights generated by Category 2 are marginal but also that this non-focused approach may dilute or divert the overall insights generated by Category 1 data alone. Category 1 articles provide extensive, rich and diverse data, allowing the generation of in-depth insights from the data. Considering these two reasons, it was thus subsequently decided that only Category 1 data would be selected for further examination in the present study. Articles belonging to Category 3 (SDG-mentioned, 115 articles) and Category 4 (SDG-mentioned falling outside the main body of the article, such as within the reference items, 70 articles), were also excluded from further analysis due to a lack of in-depth emphasis upon and insights into SDGs-related research. An overview of the number of SDG-related research articles published in the eight journals for each category is summarised in Table 3.

The analytical aim of this study is to investigate how accounting scholars approach the SDGs by addressing the technical, social and moral dimensions of accounting. Qualitative content analysis (Gibbs, 2007; Krippendorff, 2018; Lodhia et al., 2023; Patton, 2015; Schreier, 2012, 2014; Schreier et al., 2019), and an interpretive approach directed from the theoretical framework presented in this study (see Section 3.2), were thus employed in building the coding frame and conducting the analysis. Data analysis was assisted by NVivo 15 software.

The first phase, the pilot phase, was conducted with ten (10) articles, including two (2) conceptual papers, to cover all types of data (Schreier, 2014). At the start of the trial coding, the researcher read the full-text articles multiple times to become more intimate with the data and enhance coding reliability. Special attention was paid to the articles’ text surrounding the SDG-related keywords. Applying two-cycle analysis (Saldaña, 2021), the first cycle includes descriptive coding and structural coding. Descriptive codes, also called topic codes, are data-generated codes and are particularly useful when the primary goal of coding is to categorise or summarise the data’s content (Saldaña, 2021). Examples of descriptive codes generated from the data include: SDGs reporting; SDG-related accountability and governance; and SDGs education. These represent the research topics of the articles. New codes were added to the coding list when a new topic or theme emerged. For example, after analysing a few articles, the author discovered that some studies focused on organisations while others focused on a broader level of social actors such as national governments, industries or regions. As such, a new code, “Actors other than organisations”, was generated from this data-driven approach.

After conducting this data-generated coding, structural coding was performed. Structural codes are research-generated codes complying with the Framework of the Multidimensional Nature of SDG-related Accounting Research for analysis. This type of theoretical and analytical framework generates a topic of enquiry from research questions, and thus offers advantages when analysing multiple articles (Saldaña, 2021). The codes serve as an index and analytical tool which allows the researcher to quickly access the contents of the codes and compare different articles on the same research questions.

Through the structural codes, the author has investigated the corpus of text through the lens of the multidimensional nature of accounting, and thus has been able to capture the technical, social and moral themes that emerge from the data. Applying structure codes has assisted the author in keeping the focus on SDG-related data, as the source articles provide rich text and dense meanings. These structural codes have also helped with the interpretation of the data through the theoretical lens and analytical frameworks. An example of a structural code relating to RQ1 is the “Technical dimension of SDG-focused research”. This code guided the author in addressing the question, “What is studied in the article relating to SDGs” when analysing the data. Furthermore, the use of both data-generated (bottom-up) coding, such as descriptive coding, and theory-derived (top-down) coding, such as structural coding, not only generates new insights (Schreier, 2014) but also enhances the trustworthiness of the analysis (Elo et al., 2014).

Pattern coding (Saldaña, 2021) was employed in the second cycle of the coding process. Pattern coding is a mega-coding method that generates emerging themes from data and codes that are analysed in the first cycle (Gioia et al., 2013; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2015; Richards and Morse, 2013). Pattern codes generated from the present study include themes that were found to emerge; for example, emerging themes within the moral dimension were analysed within the code, “Moral dimension major themes”.

During the trial round of the two-cycle coding, data were recoded and reinterpreted, resulting in a few, but important changes during the second round of coding. For example, data originally coded in “Implications for organisational and social functions” were further analysed and separated into two codes, “Implications for accounting practices and organisational functions” and “Implications for policy and society”. This change highlights the different areas of research implications to explicitly underscore the societal implications, beyond the boundaries of organisations, of accounting research.

After the Pilot phase, the researcher began a full round of coding of all the data, which resulted in some minor code name changes and reclassifications. This second phase was followed by a third phase in which all data were analysed again. The third coding round generated no changes, thus, the coding list was finalised. The final version of the coding list, together with the coding frame, is presented in Table 1 above.

A relatively low number of SDG-related articles were published during the period from 2016 to 2024. These nine years represent a period of nearly two-thirds of the 15-year lifespan of the SDGs. As indicated in Table 3, during this period, among the eight selected journals, only 24 articles (Category 1) focused on SDGs. The average rate of publication is 0.33 articles per journal per year. This overall low level of engagement is concerning. On a relatively positive note, the article numbers are increasing, compared with early results found by Bebbington and Unerman (2020, p. 1660) in which only two “SDG-inspired” or “SDG-focussed” articles were identified. A partial reason for the larger number in the present study may be attributed to its more relaxed selection criterion compared to that of Bebbington and Unerman (2020) which only selected articles with titles including SDG.

This increased number of articles published may also indicate a growing interest in the SDGs among accounting scholars and accounting journals. Another observation is that, among these 24 SDG-focused articles, 10 articles were published in the 2024. This indicates that, on one hand, there were only a total of 14 articles published in the first eight years by the eight journals, a very low level of engagement by accounting scholars; on the other hand, a relatively significant increase (10 articles) occurred in 2024. This increase was largely contributed by a single journal, Meditari Accountancy Research, within which nine SDG-focused articles were published in the year. Among these nine articles, five articles were contributed by a Special Issue themed, “Accounting as technical, social and moral practice for shaping a better world”. In a similar fashion, AAAJ published four SDG-focused articles in a Special Section on SDGs in 2020, which contributed 50% of its total publications in the nine-year period. This demonstrates that individual journals committing to SDG-focused special issues or sections can play an important leadership role in contributing to the SDG-related research agenda.

Given that a special issue requires dedicated editorial initiative, it is important to recognise that editorial initiatives play a significant role in providing publication opportunities. The notable pattern emerged regarding the role of special issues in SDG research publication also raises an important question about whether SDG research is being integrated into mainstream accounting scholarship or remains positioned as a specialised, niche concern. This pattern warrants careful consideration regarding the normalisation of SDG research within the broader accounting discipline.

Among the 24 SDGs-focused articles, as indicated in Table 3, Meditari Accountancy Research (Meditari) published the highest number of these articles (13 articles), followed by Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ) (8 articles) and Journal of Accounting and organisational Change (JAOC) (3 articles). The rest of the five journals, Critical Perspectives on Accounting (CPA), Accounting Forum (AF), Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS), Journal of Management Accounting Research (JMAR) and Management Accounting Research (MAR), did not publish any SDG-focused articles. This leaves Meditari, AAAJ and JAOC as the major contributing journals for SDG-focused accounting research, with Meditari leading the charge, followed by AAAJ and JAOC. Regarding SDG-related (Category 2) articles, two journals, Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) and Management Accounting Research (MAR), still have not published any article in this category.

A significant number of articles collected (70 articles, or 28%) are classified as Category 4 because SDGs were mentioned outside of the main body of the articles, commonly in the References. The ratios of Category 4 to the Total (Categories 1–4) for each journal range from 20% to 50% (presented in the last row of Table 3). This may indicate that scholars are aware of SDGs but choose not to bring them into their research’s focus, for unknown reasons.

RQ1 is set to investigate the technical practice dimension of SDG-focused accounting research. This dimension addresses the question, “What is studied?”, representing how accounting scholars choose to approach SDG-related research; that is, which aspects of SDGs draw the attention of accounting scholars. There are nine areas of interest that emerge from the data analysis. These study areas, presented in the order of emphasis of topic of research interest (measured by number of articles involved) are: SDGs or sustainability reporting; SDGs’ link to other frameworks; SDGs, sustainability or accounting research; accountability and governance; actors other than organisations; contexts of SDG study; individual SDGs; SDG education; and SDG management accounting.

Accounting scholars demonstrate a strong interest in SDG reporting. Most of the studies (Abhayawansa and Adams, 2022; Ahmed, 2023; Erin and Bamigboye, 2022; Erin and Olojede, 2024; Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2024; Lodhia et al., 2023; Perkiss et al., 2021; Rizzato et al., 2024; Zampone and Guidi, 2024) focus on corporate-level SDG reporting. A common theme revealed in terms of the findings of SDG disclosure is poor quality of disclosure practices, being symbolic rather than substantive, regardless of whether these corporations are situated in a developed or developing country or region, even if they are the largest corporations (Abhayawansa and Adams, 2022) or a sustainability leader (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2024) in the industry. The quality of SDG disclosure is measured in various ways, including the level of disclosure and whether and how information regarding materiality, SDG targets and indicators is reported. The poor quality of SDG disclosure is associated with a lack of management understanding and interest in SDGs, a lack of commitment to SDGs, and poor uniformity resulting in poor comparability among data. Poor disclosure may indicate impression management, green-washing or rainbow-washing deployed by corporations.

Departing from the aforementioned, relatively traditional way of investigating corporate disclosure prepared by corporations themselves, Perkiss et al. (2021) apply a hybrid forum – Spotlight Accounting and WikiRate – as an alternative way to research external accounts, prepared by stakeholders, to assess whether the forum can evaluate the accountability of corporations. Beyond the level of organisational SDG disclosure, and rather than standing as an outsider looking in, Sobkowiak et al. (2020) take an inside-out approach to investigate the report preparer’s internal process regarding how the UK government constructs its annual biodiversity report through the process of framing a space to render its biodiversity performance calculable. It is found that SDGs have limited impacts on the extraction work by the report preparer. Furthermore, the capacity building called for by the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development only addresses the second stage, the transformation stage of calculation, within a framed space: excluding two other important stages, the first stage, the detachment stage and the last stage, the extraction stage, poses difficulties in making SDG challenges calculable.

Accounting scholars have explored SDGs’ (inter)connections with other sustainability frameworks, such as IR)and the associated integrated thinking, and the GRI. Quantitative studies suggest that the SDGs and IR are interconnected: while one study finds that IR plays an important role in achieving SDGs via integrated thinking and integration of capitals (Ahmed, 2023), another study finds that SDG disclosure is a determinant of IR and integrated thinking (Rizzato et al., 2024). Acknowledging the existence of multiple sustainability frameworks, including SDGs, Abhayawansa and Adams (2022) propose an umbrella conceptual framework for non-financial reporting, by using the existing IR framework with a new definition of materiality. The concept of materiality is redefined by the researchers as “relevance to long-term value creation for the organisation, society and environment” (p. 713). This new definition encompasses society and the environment within the scope of organisations, incorporating long-term considerations. From an interdisciplinary perspective, Barrett et al. (2020) propose bringing the Earth Jurisprudence philosophy of law, which articulates the Rights of Nature, into integrated thinking and sustainable development.

The adoption of the GRI by corporations is found to improve SDG disclosure in terms of the number of goals mentioned in their reports, but this does not improve the disclosure in terms of the number of actions taken by those organisations (Zampone and Guidi, 2024). The GRI framework is used to form criteria to assess the level of SDG disclosures by African companies (Erin and Bamigboye, 2022; Erin and Olojede, 2024).

Some accounting scholars have played an important role in reviewing, critiquing and, more importantly, proposing research agendas regarding SDGs, sustainability and accounting research. Bebbington and Unerman (2018, p. 3) argue that accounting scholars “can and should play a substantive role” in contributing to SDGs. They further provide a synthesis of intersecting current SEA research and interdisciplinary perspectives to propose potential areas for future research. Three years later, in 2020, anticipating accounting scholars’ SDG-related publications, Bebbington and Unerman (2020) are instead puzzled by the absence of accounting scholars’ involvement in the SDGs. Following a structured review of publications in accounting journals in the previous five years, it is found that accounting SDG research is still “in an early stage of development” (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020, p. 1657).

To further advance research in accounting and contribute to the SDGs, Bebbington and Unerman (2020) highlight new avenues for future research in terms of accounting scholars’ engagement with SDGs. Hopper (2019) calls for accounting practice and research to contribute to SDGs by going beyond the current approach which is characterised as corporation-centric, market-centric, short-term-driven, financially only accountable and short-sighted. Building on their previous, multidimensional accounting framework for research (Carnegie et al., 2023), Carnegie, Gomes et al. (2024) develop a Public Interest Framework for Multidimensional Accounting. They further outline strategies and opportunities that can enable accounting to reach its full potential in shaping a better world, particularly in contributing to the achievement of the SDGs.

SDGs are seen as providing new sites and interests at the interface of meta-governance at both global and national levels. Research interest is cast on the suitability of the traditional top-down mode of governance (Charnock and Hoskin, 2020; Lauwo et al., 2022). At a global level, accounting for climate change (SDG 13 Climate Action) encounters challenges in operationalising, measuring and reporting goals-based governance. These challenges are found to be the outcome of tensions between the ‘truth claim’ (Charnock and Hoskin, 2020, p. 1733) enshrined in the Paris Agreement and the implementation of specific targets and indicators within SDG 13. At a national level, it is argued that SDG governance cannot be directly transferred to a national level due to the differences in governance structures, actors and accountability processes (Abhayawansa et al., 2021). Abhayawansa et al. (2021) extend the conceptualisation of value creation by corporations (Adams, 2017) to conceptualise the value creation by national governments through SDG governance and accountability.

Accounting scholars link their meta-governance studies to actors beyond those entity-level actors or for-profit organisations. At the supernational level, tensions between the meta-governance frameworks of two global actors are studied for: the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Statistics Division enshrining technical and statistical matters in SDG 13; and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change enshrining ideational manifestation of flexible interpretation in the Paris Agreement (Charnock and Hoskin, 2020). At a national level, scholars have investigated national governments’ accountability processes, governance structures and multi-stakeholder engagements, as well as the socio-technical arrangements of governmental and non-governmental actors, in the contexts of Australia (Abhayawansa et al., 2021), the UK (Sobkowiak et al., 2020) and Tanzania (Lauwo et al., 2022). Taking an action research approach, Horner and Davidson (2021) explore, from an NGO perspective, the feasibility of implementing a biodiversity model to contribute to SDG 15 Life on Land. The research practices beyond single, for-profit, entity-level studies align with the call by Bebbington and Unerman (2018, 2020) for studies that extend the conventional accounting concept of entity boundaries.

Four individual SDGs are singled out by accounting scholars. Biodiversity, as addressed in SDG 15, Life on Land, is approached from an insider’s perspective in two studies. The first study takes an NGO’s perspective (Horner and Davidson, 2021) on implementation. The second study takes a national government’s perspective on the reporting process. SDG 13 Climate Action is studied in its initial construction of global goals, targets and indicators, and how these measurements are constrained by other conflicting meta-governance frameworks. Addressing SDG 6 Clean Water and Sanitation, Saraiva et al. (2024) propose a novel balanced scorecard for SDG 6 in the water utility sector, which links organisational-level internal activities to the societal goal of SDG 6. Using SDG 8.7 Ending modern slavery as an example, Christ, Dijkstra-Silva et al. (2024) conceptualise how the proposed sustainable management accounting plays a transformative role towards sustainability.

Addressing SDG 4 Quality Education, Othman and Ameer (2024) set out to investigate accounting graduates’ perspectives on accounting education. It is found that students generally lack awareness of sustainability-related considerations, which may stem from the technical focus in accounting education. Challenging the technical focus of accounting through an autoethnography approach, Twyford et al. (2024) propose purposefully incorporating SDGs into accounting education to reach the transformative potential of accounting.

From a management accounting perspective, and through engagement with professionals in practice, Saraiva et al. (2024) construct a balanced scorecard for SDGs for the water utility sector in linking technical indicators to social and environmental performance. Taking on the broader role of sustainability management accounting, Christ, Burritt et al. (2024) distinguish the role of sustainability management accounting in reducing unsustainability and transforming accounting towards sustainability. The transformative power of the proposed sustainability management accounting can facilitate proactive management of SDG-related issues.

In summary, among the nine areas which accounting scholars have been studying, SDG reporting and its connections to other sustainability frameworks, remain a major area of interest. There is an increasing interest in meta-governance studies at the national level. Some scholars advocate for setting an agenda for SDG-related accounting research. Four SDGs attract the attention of accounting research: two studies on SDG accounting education and two studies on SDG management accounting emerged in 2024. It is encouraging to see research interest start to broaden beyond organisational boundaries, traditional accounting approaches, and a focus on the developed world.

Data analysis focused on the social practice dimension (RQ2) which addresses the question, “Where to next, what next and how to next?”. Consideration is given to how accounting scholars use their findings to address three key areas: the implications for organisations and accounting (including accounting practices, the accounting profession, accounting education and accounting scholars); implications for social functions, policies and regulations; and implications and opportunities for future research. Overall, all three areas of the social practice dimension of SDGs-focused accounting research are largely under-represented in accounting scholarship, particularly regarding the implications of research findings relating to society-level policies, functions and development. Most discussions regarding the implications of research findings tend to be generic or lack depth, and some articles do not explicitly discuss any society-related implications of their research findings. However, as is noted in the following discussion, there are a few exceptions (see Bebbington and Unerman, 2018, 2020; Carnegie, Gomes et al., 2024; Hopper, 2019) to this overall lack of consideration of the social dimension of accounting research relating to SDGs.

Given that corporations are found to be employing symbolic legitimation, substantive SDG management and disclosure are called for (Lodhia et al., 2023). More accessible and relevant corporate information can assist Spotlight Accounting to enable the accountability of corporations (Perkiss et al., 2021). SDG disclosure improves the risk management practices of corporations (Zampone and Guidi, 2024), as well as more integrated thinking and reporting (Rizzato et al., 2024). Organisations that strategically integrate SDGs may improve their economic performance (Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2024). Strategically integrating SDGs requires including SDGs in materiality considerations and integrated thinking (Abhayawansa and Adams, 2022; Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2024), as well as building organisational capacities, processes and infrastructure (Erin and Bamigboye, 2022). To achieve calculability of accounting, organisations need to engage with their socio-technical arrangements and framing work (Sobkowiak et al., 2020). Furthermore, the SDGs can serve as a framework for sustainability risk management and strategic decision-making (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020).

Building on their earlier work (Carnegie, 2022; Carnegie et al., 2023; Carnegie, Parker, et al., 2023), Carnegie, Gomes et al. (2024) further develop a Public Interest Framework for Multidimensional Accounting. Accounting practices are viewed as having a transformative impact on society and the planet. Addressing the “predominant inattention of accounting and accountants” (Carnegie, Gomes et al., 2024, p. 1529), combined with the urgency of deteriorating environmental and social issues, means that immediate responses from accounting is needed. The accounting profession must understand and accept greater responsibility for its role and the vast impacts to shape a better world. To do this, their Framework proposes four strategies:

Regarding accounting practices, Hopper (2019) outlines human rights and sustainability areas that accounting could address. To achieve SDGs, accounting practices need to extend the conventional accounting entity concept beyond the organisational boundary, such as to environmental space or social systems (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018). Both accountants and accounting scholars need to “broaden their vision of accounting and accountability beyond the financial accountability of organisations” (Hopper, 2019, p. 87).

Accounting education is identified as an important strategy to transform accounting for a better world tomorrow (Carnegie, Gomes et al., 2024). To achieve this, Twyford et al. (2024) put forward a roadmap for incorporating an interdisciplinary approach. Proposed measures include developing a curriculum that integrates interdisciplinary science and theoretical lenses, collaborating with other disciplines and professions, engaging students in real-world learning, and connecting students with professionals from diverse disciplines. Actively adopting an interdisciplinary approach through real-world learning with professional bodies is also advocated by Othman and Ameer (2024). In addition, to enable the transformative power of accounting to achieve the macro-level SDGs, a proactive position, as opposed to a reactive sustainability management accounting, has been proposed (Christ, Dijkstra-Silva et al., 2024). Innovative management accounting tools, such as the sustainability balanced scorecard, can be created to link organisational actions to societal goals (Saraiva et al., 2024).

Accounting scholars, in general, are found to fall short in SDG-related research. The implications of this under-achievement include the low profile and limited contributions to SDG-related knowledge by accounting scholars, as well as a lack of development in SDG-related accounting scholarship (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020). To advance the SDGs’ agenda, accounting scholars need to connect to other disciplines such as social sciences, natural sciences and humanities, and to keep updated with SDG development (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020).

Implications for social functions have been explored regarding the meta-governance nature of SDGs (Charnock and Hoskin, 2020), and government functions and capabilities (Abhayawansa et al., 2021; Horner and Davidson, 2021; Sobkowiak et al., 2020). Achieving SDGs requires “accountability and transparency in policymaking” (Erin and Bamigboye, 2022, p. 390), explicit policy (Lauwo et al., 2022) and guidance on SDG disclosure (Lodhia et al., 2023). Hopper (2019) calls for policy reforms advocated by accounting scholars. Regulation-related implications are made by calling for mandatory disclosure of non-financial information (Erin and Bamigboye, 2022; Lodhia et al., 2023). Notably, however, these calls for mandatory disclosures of non-financial information do not specifically call for SDGs to be mandatory.

Accounting scholars appear to generally locate future SDG-related accounting research opportunities as being in social and environmental research, SDG governance, measurement, disclosure and education. These identified research opportunities generally extend existing studies or address gaps identified in their findings. However, most of the discussions are brief and technical, failing to take the opportunity to articulate why the suggested research agenda can help to build a better future for the world. However, Bebbington and Unerman (2018, 2020) dedicate their entire articles to discussing how to advance the SDG-related accounting research agenda. Strong advocacy on SDG-related research is also voiced by Hopper (2019), Abhayawansa et al. (2021) and Carnegie, Gomes et al. (2024).

Regarding SEA research, Bebbington and Unerman (2018) suggest that some of the existing topic areas that overlap with some SDGs can be further transformed. Accounting technologies can be used in the meta-governance architecture of SDGS, and accounting scholars are encouraged to collaborate with governance researchers and major governance bodies (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018, 2020). Apart from redefining the entity boundary and bringing existing work on ecological responsibility, accountability and justice back to the centre of attention, disciplines outside accounting, such as natural sciences, offer new topics and concepts in SDG-related research (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018, 2020).

Only a few articles are found to have called for more comprehensive studies on the accountability of national governments and governance systems related to the SDGs. Research opportunities include: applying a value creation framework for national governments in different contexts; stakeholder engagement and empowerment; potential tensions between national governments and global governance (Abhayawansa et al., 2021); obstacles to SDG implementation (Lauwo et al., 2022); calculative infrastructure to frame performance (Sobkowiak et al., 2020); and developing alternative measurement, monitoring and management practices when SDGs have potential conflicts with other global initiatives (Charnock and Hoskin, 2020).

At the organisational level, further research is called for to investigate corporate accountability regarding SDGs (Adams and Abhayawansa, 2022). New concepts, such as Spotlight Accounting, offer the potential to critique sustainability disclosures (Perkiss et al., 2021). SDGs bring new investigative opportunities into the strategic and performance alignment of business contributions, particularly in integrating and interacting with other sustainability frameworks, materiality analysis, SDG prioritisation, KPIs and disclosure (Erin and Bamigboye, 2022; Ferrero-Ferrero et al., 2024; Lodhia et al., 2023).

Some individual SDGs are identified as offering greater research opportunities. These promising SDGs include SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth (Bebbington et al., 2020; Hopper, 2019), SDG 9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (Bebbington et al., 2020), SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020), SDG 13 Climate Action (Hopper, 2019), SDG 15 Life on Land (Horner and Davidson, 2021; Sobkowiak et al., 2020), SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; Hopper, 2019) and SDG 17 Partnership for the Goals (Bebbington and Unerman, 2018; Hopper, 2019).

Only a few articles, which are nevertheless regarded as important in view of their emphasis, explicitly relate to the moral dimension of accounting research (RQ3) to SDGs. This dimension examines the moral implications in terms of how the research findings contribute to the public interest, representing a broader range of stakeholders in the human world and the planetary interest in terms of the natural world. Carnegie, Gomes et al. (2024) emphasise that the redefinition of the technical, social and moral dimensions of accounting (Carnegie, 2022; Carnegie et al., 2023; Carnegie, Parker, et al., 2023) is closely aligned with the mission of accounting: to serve the public interest. This mission is also in line with the SDGs. Their proposed Public Interest Framework for Multidimensional Accounting depicts a coherent flow that starts with understanding and applying multidimensional accounting, engaging with interdisciplinary approaches, aspiring to shape a better world, and adopting strategies to achieve the mission of serving the public interest.

The moral dimension of accounting also needs to be considered in accounting education (Twyford et al., 2024) and management accounting (Saraiva et al., 2024). In addition, Hopper (2019, p. 88), reflecting on the moral role of the accounting profession and academics, puts forward the notion of “creating accounting with a global moral compass” and calls for “accounting and accountability beyond the financial accountability of organisations” (p. 87) to contribute to SDGs. This involves serving broader stakeholder groups through inclusive and participatory stakeholder engagement and empowerment, rather than focusing solely on the narrow interests of shareholders and the capital market (Hopper, 2019; Lauwo et al., 2022). Corporate information should offer effective accountability to broader stakeholders (Perkiss et al., 2021). In terms of accounting as a moral practice, Adams and Abhayawansa (2022) argue that the current disclosure approach, which focuses on financial materiality and metrics, does not align with the public interest. Businesses must incorporate SDGs into their strategy and management approach and be accountable for their impacts on SDGs. Barrett et al. (2020) also emphasise the relevance of indigenous philosophy to sustainable and equitable development.

Apart from focusing on stakeholders and the public’s interests, some scholars revisit the notion of the planet’s interests. People and planet are at the heart of multidimensional accounting (Carnegie, Gomes et al., 2024). Bebbington and Unerman (2020) propose that accounting can contribute to the SDGs through eco-centric thinking. This re-thinking can be prompted by changes in other disciplines, such as environmental laws that recognise the Rights of Nature (Barrett et al., 2020).

To summarise, SDG-focused accounting research has progressed yet has so far missed the opportunity to contribute to a full-scale, rich and in-depth understanding of SDG research. Along the technical, social and moral dimensions, accounting scholars are found to have focussed more on the technical dimension of the SDGs using traditional accounting research approaches such as the rule-making technical aspect of reporting and managing the SDGs. Much less attention has been given to the social practice dimension in SDG-focused accounting research, particularly in articulating the implications of research findings for societal-level matters. Most articles provide generic or limited guidance on directions or pathways for practitioners, policymakers and future research. Furthermore, the dimension least articulated is the moral practice dimension of accounting. Overall, this raises the question of whether accounting scholars have fully embraced the multidimensional nature of SDG-focused accounting research or have fulfilled their research potential in contributing to the SDGs. There are, however, a few articles as significant exceptions (Abhayawansa et al., 2021; Bebbington and Unerman, 2018, 2020; Carnegie, Gomes et al., 2024; Hopper, 2019) which have played a leadership role in strongly advocating the importance of the social and moral dimensions of accounting.

Given the high-profile global scale and multi-stakeholder commitment to and engagements with the SDGs, the overall lack of traction of accounting research, and the absence of SDG-focused research published in some high-profile journals such as AOS, CPA, MAR, AF and JMAR, are deeply concerning. The under-representation of the two leading management accounting journals also warrants further consideration. Meditari published the greatest number of articles, followed by AAAJ and JAOC. The dedication to SDG-focused scholarship by Meditari and AAAJ is evident through their SDG-focused special issues or sections. This highlights the important leadership role of accounting journals in driving the field towards helping in the attainment of SDGs.

However, the concentration of SDG research in special issues reveals a paradox in how the accounting discipline engages with sustainable development. On one hand, special issues demonstrate journal leadership and editorial commitment to advancing SDG scholarship. Without the dedicated spaces created by Meditari and AAAJ, the SDG research presence would be even more sparse. These initiatives thus serve crucial incubating functions, creating focused platforms where scholars can engage deeply with SDG themes, establish research communities, and develop methodological and theoretical approaches specific to sustainability challenges.

On the other hand, the reliance on special issues may inadvertently marginalise SDG research as a peripheral rather than central concern for accounting scholarship, especially if such special issue momentum does not manifest further into mainstream research as a core accounting matter. When research requires dedicated editorial initiative rather than appearing in regular issues, this may signal that the discipline has not fully embraced the topic as core to its mission (Gendron and Rodrigue, 2021). This may inadvertently discourage scholarly engagement and reinforce external perceptions that accounting treats sustainable development as optional rather than fundamental. Moving forward, apart from special issues, journals could therefore signal SDG legitimacy by actively publishing more SDG-focused work in regular issues, and as a part of regular accounting research more broadly, demonstrating that sustainable development intersects with all accounting research areas rather than constituting a specialised subfield.

It has been nearly five years since the five-year check-up, revealing SDG-related accounting research’s “surprising absence” (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020, p. 1659). The level of research engagement remains low today. This low profile of accounting scholars in the global SDG community may lead to the impression that SDGs appear to be considered unimportant or even a non-accounting matter by accounting scholars. Are we effectively, even unintentionally, isolating ourselves as recluses from wider society? The 2030 Agenda has passed its two-third phase: time is ticking away, and the opportunity window is closing.

In addition, the regions or countries of scholarship are concentrated predominantly in developed countries, and articles are largely globally or developed country-focussed. Hopper and Moses (Hopper, 2019; Moses and Hopper, 2022) specifically advocate for research into developing countries, especially those that are poorer and smaller. The Global Sustainable Development Report 2023 points out that the imbalance in research produced in and focusing on high-income countries can ‘severely curtail the capacity of many low- and middle-income countries to attain the Goals by generating context-specific solutions in their region’ (Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General, 2023, p. XXVII). In light of this, more consideration should be given to research produced in and focused on less-advanced countries and regions.

In the present study, in applying the Framework of Multidimensional SDG-focused Accounting Research based on the multidimensional nature of accounting (Carnegie, 2022; Carnegie et al., 2023; Carnegie et al., 2021), the results fell short in all three dimensions. Regarding the technical dimension, the inertia of conventional social and environmental research on corporate disclosure extends to SDGs. Listed companies’ SDGs disclosures still attract strong research attention, but SDG education and management accounting research did not. Since sustainability reporting is traditionally one of the major interests in social and environmental research, a strong interest in SDG reporting is perhaps unsurprising. This result is consistent with results based on accounting and non-accounting research (Awuah et al., 2024). Carnegie et al., (2024, p. 1531) observe that, at present, “accounting and accountants seem stuck in a narrow, technicist mindset”; while Carnegie (2025, p. 510) states that, in our “continuous teaching of technicist definitions of accounting, and in emphasising ‘how do we do accounting?’ in accounting education, we are rather misleading our students”.

Hopper questions the “fixation” (2019, p. 94) in SEA literature on treating SDG reporting as a purely technical matter, by ignorantly assuming that “disclosure will make everything come right”. Meanwhile, some published articles are still empirical and descriptive in nature, focusing on the contents of external reporting of organisations. It is the present author’s view that, while descriptive efforts are necessary as they draw attention by making matters visible as a reality, this is merely a starting point and not the end point of accounting research in its underpinning role in constructing and transforming the reality of the field (Carnegie, 2025; Carnegie, Gomes et al., 2024; Hines, 1988).

The “non-traditional new avenue” technical contributions that embrace natural science and social science, proposed by Bebbington and Unerman (2018), is mainly absent in existing literature. The “traditional critical mass” of existing SEA topics, such as water (relating to SDG 6), human rights and equalities (SDGs 5, 10 and 16), climate change (SDG 13) and life below water and on land (SDGs 14 and 15), are yet to be further framed and advanced. If we compare the four individual SDGs (SDG 6, 8, 13 and 15) addressed by accounting scholars, plus SDG 4 linked to the SDG education articles, with the three SDGs (SDG 8, 9 and 12) promoted by Bebbington and Unerman (2020, p. 1666) that “provide greater promise for organisational disciplines”, as well as the four “interlinked” SDGs (SDG 8, 13, 16 and 17) proposed by Hopper (2019), existing research presents some hits but more misses. Overall, many other SDGs that are equally important are yet to be studied by accounting scholars. Given the nature of interconnectedness among the SDGs, it is also surprising that there is a lack of studies on interconnection.

To enable accounting research’s technical practice dimension to contribute to SDG research, apart from going deeper – investigating specific core sustainability issues – research contexts need to go wider, beyond organisational boundaries to national and regional levels and to poorer and less developed countries, and to address more the interconnections of nature and the human world. The 2030 Agenda declares that implementing the agenda, which is “a plan of action for the people, planet and prosperity” (United Nations, 2015, p. 5), needs the “participation of all countries, all stakeholders and all people” (p. 6). Arguably, apart from listed companies, studies that focus on supernational organisations, national governments, public sectors, civil societies and hybrid organisations would yield fruitful insights. While study themes are shifting towards these areas, the results in the present research indicate a relatively slow growth.

The ultimate objective of research is to inform current practice and help instigate positive change towards shaping a better world. However, analysing the reviewed articles’ discussion, findings and conclusion sections reveals that most articles fail to explicitly embrace, or even address, the social practice dimension of SDG-focused research. The implications of their findings for practice and policy have been mainly addressed in a non-specific way, so that scholars and practitioners may find it is not a straightforward exercise to apply them to real-world practice.

The findings of the present study thus reinforce the message that accounting research still contributes marginally to practice (Awuah et al., 2024; Dumay et al., 2016). Enabling contributions to the SDGs requires researchers to embrace the moral dimensions of their research and explicitly consider how it benefits stakeholders, the public and the planet.

The findings also confirm the tension identified in the theoretical framework: while SDG research demands interdisciplinary technical knowledge, explicit social relevance and moral commitment, current scholarship remains predominantly technical and discipline-bound. For instance, studies examining SDG 13 Climate Change and SDG 15 Life on Land demonstrate some engagement with natural science concepts, yet even these studies often fail to explicitly address the social implications for policy implementation or the moral dimensions regarding whose interests are served. This pattern suggests that accounting scholars approach SDGs through a conventional research lens rather than adapting their approach to the unique demands of sustainable development scholarship.

Twelve years ago, Bebbington and Larrinaga (2014, p. 396) alerted that “attempts to account for sustainable development have drawn too closely on accounting and too little on sustainable development thinking” that links to social and ecological concerns and “morally infused problems that need to be addressed” (p. 395). Today, we see some positive signs: there is an increasing number of articles that explicitly apply or effectively adopt the multidimensional practices of accounting research. Accounting scholars have started exploring the SDGs framework within developing country contexts and national governments, going beyond a focus on the organisational level and short-term financial performance. However, this arguably more “SDG-meaningful” or “SDG-mindful” research has yet to form into a critical mass.

Discerning the exact or likely reasons for this lack of engagement is outside the scope of the present study. However, with some exceptions, this study reveals a narrow technical focus on SDG-related research and a lack of strong demonstration of moral and social considerations. The results thus suggest a tendency to treat SDG-related research in the conventional accounting research approach as “just another study”. The notion of compassion (Powell and McGuigan, 2024) and care is largely missing. The issues raised by Bebbington and Unerman (2020), such as unawareness of the importance of the SDGs, lack of understanding of sustainability sciences, and limitations of conventional accounting’s mono-disciplinary research approach, are shown to remain. Undoubtedly, accounting academics face challenges in engaging in interdisciplinary research (Christ, Burritt et al., 2024); however, this is essential for contributing to the 2030 Agenda (Bebbington and Unerman, 2020; Carnegie et al., 2023) and post-2030 Agenda. Furthermore, corporatisation in the higher education sector may pose threats to the sustainability of accounting academia, and accounting may thus risk becoming a technical-only discipline (Gebreiter, 2022), thereby not allowing accounting to reach its full potential in these respects.

This study has aimed to examine accounting scholarship’s engagement with SDG-focused research. It constructs a theoretical lens based on the multidimensional nature of accounting research (Carnegie, 2022; Carnegie et al., 2023; Carnegie et al., 2021) which is then applied to analyse research articles published in eight high-profile accounting journals during a nine-year period from 2016 to 2024. While SDGs provide opportunities for accounting scholars to re-examine and re-invigorate SEA, a stocktake of accounting scholarship’s SDG engagement reveals an overall low level of engagement and under-utilisation of accounting research’s technical, social and moral dimensions, with the social and moral dimensions being the least addressed. The gap identified by Bebbington and Unerman (2020) thus remains unfulfilled. Amid some positive signs, current SDG-focused research is found to have restricted itself to the conventional accounting research trajectory, in an organisation level focus and economic-centric thinking. This raises the question of how accounting research can enable and contribute to the SDG agenda which represents a leading, high-profile global effort and ambition.

The first and foremost recommendation for advancing the SDG-focused accounting research agenda is for accounting scholars to fully embrace the technical, social and moral dimensions of accounting research (Carnegie, 2022, 2025; Carnegie et al., 2023; Carnegie et al., 2021; Carnegie, Parker, et al., 2024). The harmonious connections between these three dimensions of accounting and the spirit of SDGs provide strong enabling capabilities to fulfil accounting’s potential. Technically, sustainability issues involve interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary boundary-expanding and purposeful intermingling. Adopting interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches will thus yield more meaningful insights. Expanding accounting entity boundaries to the country and regional levels (Bebbington et al., 2017; Bebbington and Unerman, 2018, 2020) will also expand accounting’s technical capability.

The second recommendation relates to research interest areas: contexts, actors and topics. To address the imbalance in scientific activities concentrated on developed countries, accounting scholars need to study and generate context-specific solutions for underdeveloped regions, making the production of accounting research for the SDGs more inclusive and geographically diverse. Broadening the range of actors will also yield fruitful insights and new ways of scholarly investigation. These actors include supernational organisations, national governments, public sectors, civil societies, hybrid organisations and stakeholder groups. Focusing on a broader range of individual SDGs, particularly those that are not directly linked to business-centric ones, and studying the interconnections among SDGs, would also enrich our understanding and facilitate further accounting contributions to the SDGs. Investigating SDG-related management accounting and facilitating SDG-related education would further enhance accounting scholarship’s relevance to the 2030 Agenda. Linked to reporting, investigating the assurance process on SDG-related information would also generate valuable insights to enrich accounting scholarship’s contributions towards SDGs.

Thirdly, interdisciplinary accounting research and SDG research also require acceptance and support from accounting boundary gatekeepers: editors and reviewers of accounting journals (Gendron and Rodrigue, 2021; Xu et al., 2021). While special issues have played a crucial leadership role in advancing SDG research – this study commends journals such as Meditari and AAAJ for their initiatives – the field now requires a transition strategy. Journals should actively solicit and normalise SDG-related submissions in regular issues across all their focus areas (financial accounting, management accounting, auditing, governance, accountability and education). Editorial policy could explicitly recognise sustainable development as a cross-cutting theme relevant to all accounting research rather than a specialised topic. This normalisation would signal to the scholarly community that SDG research has moved from incubation to integration, demonstrating commitment to addressing humanity’s most pressing challenges.

Fourthly, to enable the social dimension of accounting research, accounting scholars need to make explicit discussions on the implications of their findings for accounting practice, organisations, policy, social functions and future research. Explicit discussions can help readers to understand and implement key findings and recommendations made by scholars and thus bring about future social impacts. Furthermore, enabling the moral dimension requires applying moral considerations throughout the research, including the interests of a broader range of stakeholders, nature and the planet with care and compassion.

Finally, achieving the technical, social and moral dimensions of SDG research requires moving beyond academic-only investigations and embracing collaborative partnerships with all different levels of actors from all fields. The findings of this study indicate limited engagement by researchers with practitioners or stakeholders. Partnership with policy makers, practitioners, industries and communities can co-create knowledge, collectively help to implement real-world measures, and ensure the production of academic work that addresses stakeholder needs to advance the SDG agenda. Equally importantly, accounting education represent a critical lever for integrating SDG accounting for future generations, embracing education’s cultivating role in social and moral consciousness. Accounting curricula must integrate sustainable development beyond being a specialised elective, instead representing sustainability as a fundamental theme and lens across all courses.

This study has several limitations. Firstly, it is limited to examining the research of accounting academics publishing in selected major accounting journals. The research objective focuses on how accounting scholars engage with the accounting profession, assuming that accountants are more likely to read accounting journals than those outside the accounting discipline. This study focused on eight leading accounting journals to provide an in-depth examination of how SDG research is emerging within the core of accounting scholarship. This boundary was deliberately drawn to provide a foundation for understanding how the discipline’s intellectual centre is responding to the SDG agenda. However, while this purposive selection enables detailed analysis of research published in high-impact outlets that significantly shape the accounting discipline, it necessarily excludes SDG research appearing in interdisciplinary journals, regional publications and emerging outlets. It is noted that accounting scholars publish SDGs-motivated research outside of accounting journals or the eight selected journals studied in this project.

Secondly, due to the objectives of the study, it is limited to research papers, excluding editorial articles, literature reviews, poems and conceptual papers. Arguably, any contributions from accounting scholars regarding SDGs will contribute to the overall agenda of SDGs. A third limitation relates to the author’s well-intentioned and careful interpretation of the selected articles to help reflect “the state of play”, which are thus interpreted within the framework of the multidimensional nature of SDG-focused research. Although care has been taken by the author during the data collection and analysis processes, the authors of the selected articles may disagree with the author’s interpretation.

There are several potentially fruitful future research opportunities. To advance and enable accounting research, the frameworks of multidimensional accounting research and SDG-focused research provide powerful analytical lenses that can be applied to other accounting research fields or sustainability research fields. Future research can include non-accounting journal publications contributed by accounting scholars and/or comparing accounting and non-accounting journal publications to understand the issues in accounting scholarship further. Future research can also extend to journals that are universally recognised as specialist journals such as the Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal (SAMP), other interdisciplinary journals such as those in ethics and development studies, regional accounting journals that reflect context-specific SDG priorities, and practitioner-oriented publications, to more comprehensively capture SDG engagement.

Future SDG-focused research could also involve directly approaching the scholars who published articles in this study’s sample, asking why they chose to conduct their research in the manner they did, and for the identification of the issues they encountered. Equally, scholars who have yet to publish in this field could be asked about their perceptions and possible obstacles to what may be considered as “broad-scope” SDG-related research. This would facilitate an understanding of the inner thoughts of scholars as a first step towards moving forward. In addition, the SDGs provide opportunities for management accounting scholars to explore issues associated with collecting, analysing and communicating SDGs to inform and support decision-makers in contributing to the achievement of the SDGs. Future research should also actively partner with industries, communities, NGOs and government agencies to develop SDG accounting and reporting practices that are not only technically robust in real-world settings but also socially and morally legitimate. Furthermore, given the important educational role of accounting scholars, education research on SDGs and the social and moral dimensions of accounting, along the lines of ethical reasoning to serve stakeholders’ interests and planetary stewardship, will benefit society and the planet by producing accounting graduates equipped with eco-centric and socially conscious thinking. António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations, made an urgent call: “With just five years to reach the Sustainable Development Goals, we need to shift into overdrive” [United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), 2025]. Moreover, for us accounting scholars, it is the time not only for reactively closing this SDG-related accounting research gap but also for proactively shifting further into an SDG accounting research “overdrive”, by making use of the multidimensional approach to accounting, adopted throughout this study, as technical, social and moral practice.

The author gratefully acknowledges Professor Garry Carnegie for his valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper. The author also thanks Dr. Warren Maroun (Guest Editor) and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback that significantly improved this manuscript. Any remaining errors or omissions are the author’s own.

Abhayawansa, S. and Adams, C. (2022), “Towards a conceptual framework for non-financial reporting inclusive of pandemic and climate risk reporting”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 710-738, doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-11-2020-1097.

Abhayawansa, S., Adams, C. A. and Neesham, C. (2021), “Accountability and governance in pursuit of Sustainable Development Goals: conceptualising how governments create value”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 923-945, doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-07-2020-4667.

Ahmed, M.M.A. (2023), “The relationship between corporate governance mechanisms and integrated reporting practices and their impact on sustainable development goals: evidence from South Africa”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1919-1965, doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-06-2022-1706.

Barrett, M., Watene, K. and McNicholas, P. (2020), “Legal personality in Aotearoa New Zealand: an example of integrated thinking on sustainable development”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1705-1730, doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-01-2019-3819.

Bebbington, J. and Unerman, J. (2018), “Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: an enabling role for accounting research”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24.

Bebbington, J. and Unerman, J. (2020), “Advancing research into accounting and the UN sustainable development goals”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1657-1670.

Carnegie, G.D., Gomes, D., Parker, L.D., McBride, K. and Tsahuridu, E. (2024), “How accounting can shape a better world: framework, analysis and research agenda”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1529-1555.

Castaldo, F., Porretta, P. and Zanda, S. (2024), “Recovering the dormant values of accounting to navigate the challenges of the 2030 agenda and beyond”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1662-1681.

Charnock, R. and Hoskin, K. (2020), “SDG 13 and the entwining of climate and sustainability metagovernance: an archaeological-genealogical analysis of goals-based climate governance”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1731-1759, doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-12-2018-3790.

Christ, K.L., Dijkstra-Silva, S., Burritt, R.L. and Schaltegger, S. (2024), “Sustainability management accounting-enabling macro-level sustainability transformation towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 923-944.

Erin, O.A. and Bamigboye, O.A. (2022), “Evaluation and analysis of SDG reporting: evidence from Africa”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 369-396, doi: 10.1108/JAOC-02-2020-0025.

Erin, O.A. and Olojede, P. (2024), “Do nonfinancial reporting practices matter in SDG disclosure? An exploratory study”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1398-1422.

Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Muñoz-Torres, M.J., Rivera-Lirio, J.M., Escrig-Olmedo, E. and Fernández-Izquierdo, M.Á. (2024), “Sustainable development goals in the hospitality industry: a dream or reality?”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 773-796, doi: 10.1108/JAOC-09-2022-0146.

Hopper, T. (2019), “Stop accounting myopia:-think globally: a polemic”, Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 87-99.

Horner, C. and Davidson, N. (2021), “Accounting for biodiverse wildlife corridor plantations”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 502-523, doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-08-2019-0548.

Lauwo, S.G., Azure, J.D.-C. and Hopper, T. (2022), “Accountability and governance in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals in a developing country context: evidence from Tanzania”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1431-1461, doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-10-2019-4220.

Lodhia, S., Kaur, A. and Kuruppu, S.C. (2023), “The disclosure of sustainable development goals (SDGs) by the top 50 Australian companies: substantive or symbolic legitimation?”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1578-1605, doi: 10.1108/MEDAR-05-2021-1297.

Othman, R. and Ameer, R. (2024), “Rethinking accounting education for a sustainable future: charting a course for sustainable development goals 2030”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1809-1836.

Perkiss, S., Bayerlein, L. and Dean, B.A. (2021), “Facilitating accountability in corporate sustainability reporting through Spotlight Accounting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 397-420, doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-08-2019-4142.

Rizzato, F., Tonelli, A., Fiandrino, S. and Devalle, A. (2024), “Analysing SDG disclosure and its impact on integrated thinking and reporting”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 803-831.

Saraiva, H.I., Alves, M.d.C., Gabriel, V.M. and Chinthana Kuruppu, S. (2024), “A proposal for a balanced scorecard for the water utilities sector to address the United Nations sustainable development goals”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1894-1930.

Sobkowiak, M., Cuckston, T. and Thomson, I. (2020), “Framing sustainable development challenges: accounting for SDG-15 in the UK”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1671-1703, doi: 10.1108/AAAJ-01-2019-3810.

Twyford, E.J., Musundwa, S., Tanima, F.A. and George, S. (2024), “Bridging the gap: sustainable development goals as catalysts for change in accounting education and society”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1758-1786.

Zampone, G. and Guidi, M. (2024), “Sustainability reporting and assurance practices contribution to SDG disclosure: evidence from communication on progress (CoP)”, Meditari Accountancy Research, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 236-265.