term paper on sustainable development

Essay On Sustainable Development

500 words essay on  sustainable development.

Sustainable development is basically an action plan which helps us to achieve sustainability in any activity which makes use of the resource. Moreover, it also demands immediate and intergenerational replication. Through essay on sustainable development, we will help you understand the concept and its advantages.

Through sustainable development, we formulate organising principles which help to sustain the limited resources essential to provide for the needs of our future generations. As a result, they will be able to lead a content life on the planet .

What is Sustainable Development?

The World Commission on Environment and Development popularized this concept in 1987. Their report defines the idea as a “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

In other words, they aimed to prevent the stripping the natural world of resources which the future generations will require. As we all know that usually, one particular need drives development. Consequently, the wider future impacts are not considered.

As a result, a lot of damage happens due to this type of approach. Thus, the longer we continue to pursue unsustainable development, the more severe will the consequences be. One of the most common is climate change which is being debated widely worldwide.

In fact, climate change is already wreaking havoc on our surroundings. So, the need of the hour is sustainable development. We must ask ourselves, must we leave a scorched planet with an ailing environment for our future generations?

In order to undo the mess created by us, we must follow sustainable development. This will help us promote a more social, environmental and economical thinking. Most importantly, it is not that difficult to attain this.

We must see that world as a system which connects space, and time. Basically, it helps you understand that water pollution in South Africa will ultimately impact water quality in India. Similarly, it is the case for other things as well.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Measures to Practice Sustainable Development

There are many measures to take up for practising sustainable development. To begin with, it is important to ensure clean and hygienic living and working conditions for the people.

Next, sponsoring research on environmental issues which pertains to regions. Further, ensuring safety against known and proven industrial hazards. It is also important to find economical methods to salvage dangerous industrial wastes.

Most importantly, we must encourage afforestation . Including environmental education as part of the school and college curriculum will also help. Similarly, it is essential to socialize and humanize all environmental issues.

Further, we must encourage uses of non-conventional sources of energy, especially solar energy. Looking for substitutes for proven dangerous materials on the basis of local resources and needs will help. Likewise, we must produce environment-friendly products.

It is also essential to popularize the use of organic fertilizers and other biotechniques. Finally, the key is environmental management which must be monitored and ensure accountability.

Conclusion of Essay on Sustainable Development

To sum it up, sustainable development continuously seeks to achieve social and economic progress in ways which will not exhaust the Earth’s finite natural resources. Thus, we must all develop ways to meet these needs so that our future generations can inherit a healthier and greener planet.

FAQ on Essay on Sustainable Development

Question 1: State two measures we can take for sustainable development.

Answer 1: The first measure we can take is by finding economical methods for salvaging hazardous industrial wastes. Next, we must encourage afforestation.

Question 2: What is the aim of sustainable development?

Answer 2 : The aim of sustainable development is to maximise human well-being or quality of life without having to risk the life support system.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

• Open supplemental data
• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, unveiling the research landscape of sustainable development goals and their inclusion in higher education institutions and research centers: major trends in 2000–2017.

• 1 Department of Industrial Management, Industrial Design and Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden
• 2 Department of Biology, Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
• 3 Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal
• 4 Life Quality Research Centre, Polytechnic Institute of Santarém, Santarém, Portugal
• 5 Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands
• 6 Department of Science and Innovation-National Research Foundation of South Africa Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and STI Policy (SciSTP), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) have become the international framework for sustainability policy. Its legacy is linked with the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), established in 2000. In this paper a scientometric analysis was conducted to: (1) Present a new methodological approach to identify the research output related to both SDGs and MDGs (M&SDGs) from 2000 to 2017, with the aim of mapping the global research related to M&SDGs; (2) Describe the thematic specialization based on keyword co-occurrence analysis and citation bursts; and (3) Classify the scientific output into individual SDGs (based on an ad-hoc glossary) and assess SDGs interconnections. Publications conceptually related to M&SDGs (defined by the set of M&SDG core publications and a scientometric expansion based on direct citations) were identified in the in-house CWTS Web of Science database. A total of 25,299 publications were analyzed, of which 21,653 (85.59%) were authored by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) or academic research centers (RCs). The findings reveal the increasing participation of these organizations in this research (660 institutions in 2000–2005 to 1,744 institutions involved in 2012–2017). Some institutions present both a high production and specialization on M&SDG topics (e.g., London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and World Health Organization); and others with a very high specialization although lower production levels (e.g., Stockholm Environment Institute). Regarding the specific topics of research, health (especially in developing countries), women , and socio-economic issues are the most salient. Moreover, it has been observed an important interlinkage in the research outputs of some SDGs (e.g., SDG11 “Sustainable Cities and Communities” and SDG3 “Good Health and Well-Being”). This study provides first evidence of such interconnections, and the results of this study could be useful for policymakers in order to promote a more evidenced-based setting for their research agendas on SDGs.

Introduction

Increasing awareness-building in sustainable development goals.

Sustainability goals have emerged as a global strategy to solve critical world problems, as a result of the global environmental concerns that started in the 1970s. The origin of the notion of sustainable development can be traced back to its most-recognized milestone in 1987; the definition of Sustainable Development in the Brundtland Report 1 . Afterwards, different summits and conferences were held in which sustainability and sustainable development were the core discussions (e.g., Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992). During these early years, sustainable development was a guiding principle to bridge the North-South division ( Siegel and Bastos Lima, 2020 ). However, what was meant by development was replete with competing ideas about its essential aims, together with various theories about its achievement ( Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2019 ). In this context, development goals became an unprecedented effort to bridge those divides and find common ground “with a set of ideas as the consensus global norm concerning both the ends and the means of development” ( Fukuda-Parr, 2019 ). These development goals (MDGs and SDGs) are designed with the same principles: (1) Statement of a social political priority ( goal ); (2) Time-bound quantitative aspect to be achieved ( target ); and (3) Measurement tools to monitor progress ( indicator ) ( Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2019 ). The goals represent international agreements that create narratives and frame debates about the conceptualization of development challenges ( Fukuda-Parr, 2019 ). It can be argued that the influence of these goals on policy, governments, and other societal stakeholders is mainly driven by their compelling discourse.

The First Development Goals: Millennium Development Goals

In 2000 eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were created at the Millennium Summit, with the ambition of their being achieved by 2015. These MDGs tackled topics such as extreme poverty and hunger, child mortality, and maternal health 2 . They represented an unprecedented effort to tackle the needs of the world's poorest countries. However, MDGs were criticized for: (1) Not being adequately aligned “with human rights standards and principles;” (2) Being formulated in a top-down process, only driven by international organizations and developing country governments; (3) Lacking accountability mechanisms; and (4) Omission of important priorities, i.e., inequality ( International Human Rights Instruments, 2008 ; Fukuda-Parr, 2016 , 2019 ). Another criticism of the MDGs was that they had unsuccessful effects in some important regions, such as Africa ( Easterly, 2009 ). Despite these criticisms, although indeed not all goals were achieved by 2015, some progress was acknowledged ( United Nations, 2015a ). For instance, “the number of people living in extreme poverty has declined by more than half since 1990 and the literacy rate among youth aged 15–24 has increased globally, from 83% in 1990 to 91% in 2015” ( Ki-Moon, 2015 ).

The Present: The Sustainable Development Goals

In 2012, the Conference Rio+20 adopted a 15-year plan called Agenda 2030 (2015–2030), targeting sustainable economic growth, social development, and environmental protection ( United Nations, 2015b ). As a result, Agenda 2030 established 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a deadline in 2030. This agenda was settled as a normative shift ( Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2019 ) and has even been institutionalized as a policy paradigm ( Siegel and Bastos Lima, 2020 ). The agenda has 169 targets and various indicators for monitoring their achievement. The topics of these goals cover five critical areas (the so-called 5 P's); People, Planet, Prosperity, Peace, and Partnership ( United Nations, 2015b ). While MDGs encompassed the notion of development as the North-South project to meet basic needs to end poverty, SDGs reconceptualised development as the “universal aspiration for human progress that is inclusive and sustainable” ( Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2019 ). Different from the MDGs, the SDGs pay an increased attention to the interlinkages among different sustainability dimensions and give great attention to inclusiveness ; clearly captured in their motto “No one left behind” ( Siegel and Bastos Lima, 2020 ). In practical terms, SDGs expand with respect to MDGs in: (1) Scope (e.g., there are new goals); (2) Reach (involving developed and developing countries); and (3) Engagement of a larger set of societal actors (e.g., citizen councils) in both their creation and implementation ( Fisher and Fukuda-Parr, 2019 ). However, no specific mechanisms to ensure their applicability across different countries have been settled. One of the main concerns is that SDGs rely on individual countries and the goodwill of their governments on how to pursue and implement each of the goals. In this regard, Siegel and Bastos Lima (2020) pointed out that actual SDG-driven transformations depend on the political context of each country, particularly on how these goals are interpreted and prioritized at the national level. These authors even remarked that despite the very concrete formulation of SDGs, their conceptualization (and we could add, their operationalization ) still leaves room for interpretation. Thus, the pursuing of some specific goals over others by some countries is known as “cherry-picking,” although quite often interpreted as conformity with the whole agenda ( Forestier and Kim, 2020 ). However, the aim of Agenda 2030 and its accomplishment is fundamentally based on the integrative and indivisible nature of the goals ( United Nations, 2015b ), therefore “cherry-picking” should not be an acceptable approach, bringing attention to the relevance of monitoring the engagement and consecution of all SDGs by all countries.

The Role of Monitoring the Achievement of SDGs

In contrast to MDGs, monitoring became a key issue for SDGs. Since the launch of SDGs, an SDG Index 3 has been developed, aiming to evaluate the achievement of each goal across all countries. The SDG index allows identifying priorities for action, support discussions, and debates to identify gaps in the development of the goals. A preliminary set of 330 indicators was introduced in March 2015 ( Hák et al., 2016 ), but only 232 indicators were adopted. This is different from MDGs, in which indicators were only decided on an internal basis 4 . The development of indicators to monitor the achievement of SDGs was based on two parallel processes: (1) Multi-stakeholder public consultation led by the UN General Assembly Open Working Group on SDGs (established in 2013); and (2) Intergovernmental negotiations. Moreover, the indicators developed “come from a mix of official and non-official data sources” (e.g., the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, among others), all subjected to an extensive and rigorous data validation process [ Sachs et al., 2018 , 2019 ]. However, it has been argued that the translation of goals into quantitative indicators can “distort” their meaning, since indicators can be reinterpreted or used to create perverse discourses or incentives ( Fukuda-Parr and McNeill, 2019 ).

Interlinkages Among SDGs

Another distinctive aspect of SDGs in contrast to MDGs is the role of the relationships and interlinkages among the different goals. Several studies already analyzed the interlinkages and interdependencies between pairs of SDGs, both across or within SDGs, particularly regarding the effects that achieving one goal may have on the ability to achieve others. Pradhan et al. (2017) analyzed the synergies (i.e., progress in one goal favors progress in another) and trade-offs (progress in one goal hinders progress in another) within and across SDGs. They found that SDG1 “No poverty,” or SDG3 “Good health and Well-being” have synergetic relationships with many goals, while SDG12 “Responsible consumption and production” is associated with trade-offs as it has negative correlations with 10 other goals based on the data pair analysis. Later, Lusseau and Mancini (2019) analyzed how key synergies and trade-offs between SDG goals and targets, based on the World Bank categories data, vary with respect to a country's gross national income (GNI) per capita. They highlighted that SDG10 “Reduce Inequalities,” SDG12 “Responsible Consumption and Production,” and SDG13 “Climate Action” are the most central ones, interacting negatively (according to the negative strength value calculated in their study) with many other SDGs (for example in high-income countries SDG12 and SDG13 are antagonistic, based on the Laplacian graph and the eigenvalue centrality value). These kinds of conflicting relationships between SDGs suggest a need for differentiated policy priorities between countries as they progress toward the 2030 Agenda. Kroll et al. (2019) also analyzed trade-offs and synergies between goals and future trends until 2030 based on the SDG index data. They found positive developments with notable synergies in some goals (i.e., SDGs 1, 3, 7, 8, 9), despite others presenting trade-offs (i.e., SDGs 11, 13). There are also other studies that analyzed these interlinkages from a qualitative perspective ( Singh et al., 2018 ; Fuso Nerini et al., 2019 ; Vinuesa et al., 2020 ). Particularly relevant for this study is that to date, there are no global studies on the interrelations among SDGs related to the research output of Higher Education Institutions to the best of our knowledge, a gap that this study intends to fill.

Development Goals and Their Relationship With Higher Education Institutions and Research Centers

As discussed above, MDGs and SDGs appeared as a result of the interest and commitment of governments of countries from all over the world toward sustainable development. As Caiado et al. (2018) stated, “The SDG agenda calls for a global partnership—at all levels—between all countries and stakeholders who need to work together to achieve the goals and targets, including a broad spectrum of actions such as multinational businesses, local governments, regional and international bodies, and civil societal organizations.” In this regard, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and Research Centers (RCs) should play an active and central role in promoting and participating in these new goals.

In the past, HEIs played a role in “transforming societies and serving the greater public good, so there is a societal need for universities to assume responsibility for contributing to sustainable development” ( Waas et al., 2010 ), and HEIs “should be leaders in the search for solutions and alternatives to current environmental problems and agents of change” ( Hesselbarth and Schaltegger, 2014 ). For Bizerril et al. (2018) , the knowledge of sustainability in HEIs should be encouraged worldwide and especially those located in regions with serious social and environmental challenges. In this sense, researchers must discuss how to cooperate and to share knowledge for a sustainable society, and HEIs could respond to sustainability through cooperation. According to Lozano et al. (2015) , HEIs (and in extension, RCs) could tackle sustainable development from the following initiatives: (1) Institutional frameworks (i.e., HEIs commitment with vision, missions, SD office…); (2) Campus operations related to the physical built environment (e.g., energy use and energy efficiency, waste, water and water management); (3) Education (e.g., courses on sustainable development); (4) Research (e.g., research centers, publications, research funding); (5) Outreach and collaboration (e.g., exchange programmes for students in the field of sustainable development); (6) Sustainable development through on-campus experiences; and (7) Assessment and reporting. Despite all these aspects, as Caeiro et al. (2013) study stated, only a few institutions follow a holistic implementation, in which sustainable development is applied in all traditional sustainability dimensions via its inclusion in social, economic, and environmental pillars.

The Role of Scientific Research in the Achievement of SDGs

Scientific research is one of the most relevant dimensions in the effective achievement of SDGs and Agenda 2030. According to Tatalović and Antony (2010) science did not factor strongly in the discussions on how to achieve MDGs goals. However, Leal Filho et al. (2017) see SDGs as an opportunity for scientific research to contribute to the achievement of the goals. For Leal Filho et al. (2018) , development goals are an opportunity to encourage sustainability research through interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. Several authors also support the important role of scientific research to achieve SDGs ( Wuelser and Pohl, 2016 ), namely as a way to solve concrete social problems, while sustainability science 5 could support the transition for sustainability. Yet, to our knowledge, no large-scale study has sought to investigate which SDGs are prioritized in the research by HEIs at a global level. The ambition of this study is precisely to fill this gap by providing a global mapping of research topics related to SDGs, identifying who the main contributing HEIs to this research are.

Scientometric Analyses of SDGs-Related Research Outputs From HEIs

Scientometrics is a research area focused on studying research activities (e.g., production, evolution, collaboration, impact, etc.) in order to understand the scientific dynamics across subject areas, institutions, or countries. Scientometric studies offer a powerful tool to generate global pictures of the research activities in a given area. There are different scientometric studies that previously analyzed sustainability, sustainable development or sustainability science based on a keyword search ( Nučič, 2012 ; Schoolman et al., 2012 ; Hassan et al., 2014 ; Kajikawa et al., 2014 ; Pulgarin et al., 2015 ; Ramírez Ríos et al., 2016 ; Olawumi and Chan, 2018 ). Some studies focused on analyzing the output of sustainability in higher education ( Bizerril et al., 2018 ; Veiga Ávila et al., 2018 ; Alejandro-Cruz et al., 2019 ; Hallinger and Chatpinyakoop, 2019 ). However, few studies have specifically analyzed scientific output on SDGs, probably due to the intrinsic difficulty in determining the contributions of science to SDGs ( Armitage et al., 2020 ).

Despite these difficulties, some studies have already tried to analyze the interrelations among SDGs ( Le Blanc, 2015 ; Griggs et al., 2017 ). Körfgen et al. (2018) analyzed the contribution of Austrian universities toward SDGs. Sweileh (2020) analyzed 18,696 publications from Scopus by searching the term “sustainable development goal.” Another study ( Nakamura et al., 2019 ), analyzed 2,800 publications (with an expansion to 10,300), developed topic maps from the publications identified. One of the authors of this paper had already carried out a preliminary scientometric study ( Bautista-Puig and Mauleón, 2019 ) by analyzing the core of scientific publications on MDGs and SDGs ( n = 4,532) in addition to the interrelations between different SDGs from a scientometric point of view. However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has approached a large-scale study of MDGs and SDGs relations from a scientometric point of view, considering the role of Higher Education Institutions and Research Centers in the production of research around MDGs and SDGs.

The development of these types of studies is paramount in order to assess and understand their potential limitations and robustness ( Rafols, 2020 ), particularly given the increasing number that are starting to use keyword-based scientometric queries, and machine learning approaches ( Pukelis et al., 2020 ) in order to map the contribution of research to the understanding of SDGs (e.g., Elsevier, OSDG tool, STRINGS Project, Dimensions, Aurora Project), and even their impact (e.g., Times Higher Education SDG Impact indicators). Thus, it is important that different methods and approaches are considered and discussed, particularly highlighting their advantages and limitations. This study aims at contributing also to this debate, as well as to provide scientometric evidence on the main research patterns around SDGs, that can help foster the debate on the role of universities to the SDGs goal.

The main purpose of this article is to produce a quantitative study of the scientific research on development goals during the period 2000–2017. Our ambition is 2-fold, on the one hand to propose a scientometric method based on citation relations that can be used to identify research conceptually related to MDGs and SDGs (henceforth M&SDGs), and on the other hand to identify and analyze the main institutions involved in the development of M&SDGs-related scientific outputs, as well as to characterize the main underlying topics related to M&SDGs research. The scientometric analysis was guided by three main research questions:

- RQ1: How can M&SDGs research can be scientometrically delineated and collected? This question focuses on applying an advanced citation-based approach to determine what M&SDG-related research is.

- RQ2. How has M&SDGs research carried out by HEIs has developed over time? This question seeks to characterize how the production of research outputs on M&SDGs has evolved over time, with a special focus on its main producers (institutions and countries). The unit of analysis of this study is on HEIs and RCs (hereafter HEIs). For the more specific definition of these terms used in this study, the reader is referred to Supplementary Material .

- RQ3: What are the specific M&SDGs research topics that have been studied by HEIs? This question identifies and characterizes the main research topics studied in the scientific literature produced by HEIs, with a special focus on the interrelations among the 17 SDGs based on the ad-hoc glossary developed by Bautista (2019) .

The rest of the article is organized as follows. The next section includes the methods section. This is followed by the results and discussions, providing answers to the research questions. Finally, the last section presents the main conclusions and suggestions for future research.

An important methodological difficulty with the definition of M&SDGs research is the discrepancy between what is research related to M&SDGs and what is research on M&SDGs . “ Research related to M&SDGs” comprises research that is related to concepts, issues or ideas related to the M&SDGs but without necessarily a direct linkage to the M&SDGs core (e.g., an institution doing research related to malaria prior to the official launch of the SDGs). “ Research on M&SDGs” comprises research directly focusing on the concepts, notions and principles of the M&SDGs (e.g., research directly mentioning “Sustainable Development Goal” or citing a paper that does it). In this work we partly incorporate both perspectives. Thus, we consider that a scientific publication is on the M&SDGs if it mentions either the concepts of MDG or SDGS (i.e., core research), or at a minimum cites, or is cited by, the core research. From a conceptual point of view it can be argued that our approach focuses on identifying research conceptually related to the “discourse of development goals,” and more specifically about how this topic has been constructed in the research by HEIs. With this citation-based approach we are providing a focused analysis on the scientific research that has a stronger cognitive 6 alignment with the M&SDGs philosophy and aims, thus avoiding the limitations of semantic approaches (e.g., based on keywords), in which different selections of keywords and terms are possible (and potentially questionable—see Rafols, 2020 ).

The following methodological steps were followed: (1) Formulation of a search strategy to identify the core M&SDGs literature; (2) Expansion of the dataset based on direct citations (cited and citing publications); (3) Data collection refining and information processing; and (4) Development of scientometric indicators.

(1) Formulation of a search strategy to identify the core M&SDGs literature

In the first step, we designed a search strategy composed by keywords that unambiguously relate to M&SDGs 7 . These keywords were searched in titles, abstracts, and keywords (author and paper keywords 8 ). The search strategy was run using the in-house CWTS WoS database (limited to publications from the years 2000–2017). A total of 4,685 publications were collected, and all publication types indexed in the Web of Science were considered. These are considered as the M&SDGs core set of publications.

(2) Expansion of the dataset based on direct citations (cited and citing publications)

Starting from the M&SDG core set of publications ( n = 4,685), the set of their direct citations (DC), considering both cited ( n = 59,180) and citing ( n = 74,859) publications were collected, 9 resulting in a final set of distinct publications referred to as M&SDGs Expansion ( n = 129,379).

(3) Data collection refining and affiliation information processing

In a following step, a total of 25,299 publications between 2000 and 2017 10 were selected, excluding 104,080 publications from years outside this period. These publications were further characterized, identifying those publications with at least one affiliation from HEIs ( Figure 1 ), thus conforming the final dataset of analysis, with 21,653 publications (85.59%). The harmonization of the affiliations was based in the in-house CWTS database ( Waltman et al., 2012 ).

Figure 1 . Methodological workflow for delineating M&SDGs on this study and creating the final dataset.

(4) Development of scientometric indicators & analytics

The following indicators were analyzed for the final dataset:

(i) Research patterns

- Yearly trend in scientific output in M&SDGs overall and by these institutions. A trend analysis of 6-year blocks is considered.

- Cumulative Average Growth Rate (CAGR) . The formula is the following:

Where X 1 and X n are the values found for the first and last periods studied. The expression is equivalent to the compound average growth rate (CAGR) often used in finance to measure mean growth across a time series.

- Output by institutions and countries : Absolute values and “ Activity Index ” (AI) of their M&SDGs research ( Supplementary Equation 1 ). The AI was proposed by Frame (1977) and it is used to analyze the degree of relative specialization of an actor (institution or country) in a research field. The indicator represents the percentage contribution of each country to the total WoS production, compared to the percentage of contribution in the analyzed topic. ArcGis software was used for creating the maps.

(ii) Subject specialization.

- Co-occurrence map 11 based on keywords using the VOSviewer tool 12 to identify thematic clusters within the scientific landscape. Regarding the clustering, VOSviewer applies its own algorithm based on modularity optimization ( Van Eck and Waltman, 2017 ). Table 1 summarizes the indicators analyzed.

Table 1 . List of indicators analyzed for the co-occurrence maps.

- Keywords “burst citation.” Burst is a concept associated with a change of a variable's value in a relatively short time. Those sudden increases in the usage frequency of keywords (i.e., burst strength) in order to determine the hotness of a topic were identified using Kleinberg's algorithm ( Kleinberg, 2003 ). This value is not normalized, but the ranking order and the duration of the burst are rather relevant for its interpretation.

- Scientific production classification into the SDGs . In order to study the semantic relations between the different SDGs (in terms of SDGs sharing similar keywords across publications), the individual publications were classified in accordance with the different SDGs. To classify the publications into individual SDGS, an ad-hoc ontology ( Bautista, 2019 ) with 4,122 terms has been applied. Publications were classified in different individual SDGs based on the linkage between the keywords in the publications and the ontology, allowing publications to be classified in more than one SDG when their keywords would point to different SDGs. A total of 20,749 (82.01%) publications were finally classified in at least one of the 17 SDGs. This includes keywords related to each SDG based on the United Nations-Description (e.g., “poverty” was classified into “SDG1-No poverty,” “sanitation” into “SDG6- clean water and sanitation”), 13 as well as a manual-supervision of the keywords located as the core and its consequent extension.

In this section the main results of the paper are presented in relationship to the main research questions formulated above.

Research Output and Main Actors

This section analyses the M&SDGs-related research output collected, as well as the main actors producing it and their specialization. Figure 2 presents the evolution of the scientific output of development goals produced. The scientific evolution shows a growing tendency, with an overall growth of 828.65% over the period and a CAGR of 14.01%. Since the launch of the SDGs in 2015, there has been a strong concentration of the M&SDGs research output, with more than 31.6% of the overall output published since the launch of the SDGs in 2015 (until 2017).

Figure 2 . Yearly output of the scientific production of organizations (2000–2017).

A total of 1,968 organizations were identified in the affiliations of these publications. The most productive institution was the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, with 1,963 publications (9.07%), followed by the World Health Organization (WHO), with 1,675 (7.74%), Johns Hopkins University with 1,324 (6.11%) and Harvard University with 1,079 (4.98%). However, when looking at the 6-year blocs as in Supplementary Table 1 , different tendencies are shown over time. In the first 6-year (2000–2005) sample, the number of publications was 2,330 produced by 660 organizations identified. The most productive organizations in this period were the WHO, with 292 publications (12.53%), followed by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine with 272 (11.67%) and the Johns Hopkins University with 157 (6.74%). In the second period (2006–2011), a total of 6,671 publications were produced by 1,244 organizations. During this period, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine led the ranking with 682 publications (10.22%), followed by the WHO with 580 (8.69%) and the Johns Hopkins University with 439 (6.58%). In the third period (2012–2017), a total of 12,652 publications, produced by 1,744 organizations, were identified. The same ranking of organizations as in the previous period is also found: The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine leads with 1,009 publications (7.98%), followed by the WHO with 803 publications (6.35%) and the Johns Hopkins University with 728 (5.75%). Among the more productive HEIs there are only five institutions from developing countries: two form South Africa (the University of Cape Town and the University of the Witwatersrand), one from Uganda (Makerere University), one from Pakistan (Aga Khan University), and one from Brazil (the Federal University of Pelotas).

Figure 3 shows a scatter plot of the relation between the institutions with a higher scientific production on SDGs [P(M&SDGs)] and their AI around research on this topic [AI(M&SDG)]. The size of the bubbles indicates the number of publications in WoS of each institution (only institutions with more than 50 are included in the Figure). Overall, the most productive institutions present a lower AI (e.g., the Johns Hopkins University and Harvard University with P(M&SDG) = 1,324 publications and P(M&SDG) = 1,024, respectively, have an AI of 8.70 and 3.89, respectively). The WHO [P(M&SDG) = 1,675] and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine [P(M&SDG)= 1,963] present a high AI of more than 88% each. Among the institutions with the larges AI values we find other institutions such as the Stockholm Environment Institute (AI 190.47), Aga Khan University (AI 141.06), or the International Center for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (AI 132.55) ( Figure 3 ).

Figure 3 . Scatter plot of the Top 20 organizations ranked by AI (with more than 50 docs.).

A map is drawn in order to show the geographical distribution of M&SDGs publications ( Figure 4 ). The most productive countries during the whole period were the United States (8,473 publications, 39.13%), followed by the United Kingdom (6,053 publications, 27.95%), Switzerland (2,232 publications, 10.31%), Australia (1,959 publications, 9.05%), and Canada (1,757 publications, 8.11%). By periods, in the first one (2000–2005) a total of 67 countries produced at least one publication on M&SDGs research increasing to 86 countries in the second period, and to 95 countries in the third period, with the same set of countries mentioned above as the most productive in each period ( Figure 4 ). From the point of view of the specialization (measured by the AI), African and Asian countries exhibit a stronger specialization in M&SDGs research compared to countries from other regions. Uganda is leading the specialization in the whole period (29 publications and AI of 24% in the first period: 107 and AI 32.60 in the second period and 265 publications and AI of 43.130 in the third period). Supplementary Table 2 provides information on 6-year blocs to see differences over time. Apart from Uganda, other African countries (Tanzania, South-Africa, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Rwanda, Mozambique, or Ethiopia) stand out in specialization. Besides, other countries from Asia (Bangladesh, Pakistan), or Europe (Switzerland) present a higher AI on the topic.

Figure 4 . Geographic distribution of scientific publications and AI (countries with >20 publications).

Keyword Co-occurrence Analysis

To reveal the main topics of the M&SDGs research, Figure 5 shows a keyword co-occurrence-based clustering. The parameters for creating the maps are detailed below: LingLog Modularity normalization method, 566 items; link of 65,446; link strength of 298,485; and repulsion, resolution and minimum cluster size with a value of 1 14 . Keywords (nodes) in VOSViewer maps are located in such a way that the distance between them is related to their co-occurrence frequency. Terms located closely in the map means that they tend to appear together in the titles and abstracts of the papers, and therefore it can be argued that they are thematically connected. The following five clusters were identified: Cluster #1, with terms related to the millennium development goals inheritance and policy framework; Cluster #2 with terms about maternal mortality and care; Cluster #3 with terms related to the health systems (“diagnosis,” “treatment”); Cluster #4 with terms about the African health ecosystem, and Cluster #5 including terms related to the developing countries' landscape (health, community, water, and so on). Table 2 summarizes the main information of each cluster (number of nodes, core papers, average year, average links, and the most frequent keywords). It can be observed that cluster 1 is the largest in terms of publications, followed by cluster 2. The number of links per paper (#link avg ) is higher in cluster #2 and cluster #3, both related to health issues, suggesting a stronger connection between these two clusters. In most clusters, the average year (#year avg ) is 2012, suggesting that an important share of the output has been developed in the most recent years of study, which is backed up by the growing M&SDGs output over time discussed above. The percentage of core publications (i.e., directly referring to M&SDGs) for each cluster is indicated in the column “% core papers,” showing that clusters #1 and #2 (with 45.40 and 37.55% of core publications, respectively), are clusters with a stronger conceptual proximity with the M&SDGs core ideas and aims, while the other clusters have a more indirect relationship with these core ideas.

Figure 5 . Co-occurrence map (frequency of, at least, 50 keywords) of scientific research.

Table 2 . Summary of five thematic clusters.

Keyword Burst Analysis

In this section, burst detection for keywords in M&SDGs publications is performed in order to show what terms have more rapidly increased attention in citations accumulation. We have identified at least 60 different bursting keywords during the period. Supplementary Table 3 lists the 60 keywords with the strongest citation bursts, along with their strength and time span. The term “middle income country” has the strongest citation burst with a burst strength of 75.13, followed by “tuberculosis” with 66.52 and “maternal health” with 64.98. Some keywords have only been “bursting” at the very beginning of the period (e.g., “low birth weight,” 2000–2003; “economic growth,” 2000–2001; and “rural Bangladesh,” 2000–2001). However, in more recent years, strongly bursting citation keywords include “new-born” (16.65, time span of 2015–2017), “middle income country” (75.13, 2014–2017), “maternal health” (64.98, 2014–2017), and “delivery” (36.38, 2014–2017).

Individual SDGs Analysis

Publication prevalence.

The following SDGs were most prevalently represented in the publications ( Supplementary Figure 1 ): SDG3 “Good Health and well-being,” with 15,963 papers (76.93%); followed by SDG16 “Peace, justice and strong institutions,” with 11,658 (56.19%); SDG11 “Sustainable cities and communities,” with 9,541 publications (45.98%); and SDG10: “Reduce inequalities,” with 6,115 publications (29.47%). On the other hand, the least represented SDGs are: SDG 12 “Responsible production and consumption,” 939 papers (4.51%); and SDG7 “Affordable and clean energy,” with 1,095 (5.26%).

Geographic Distribution

Figure 6 shows two different perspectives on the production of publications across continents related to their contribution to the research of each individual SDG. In Figure 6A , the contribution of each continent to each SDGs is presented (reading row-wise); while the table on the right depicts the share of each continent across the different individual SDGs (reading column-wise). Publications are assigned to each continent based on the affiliation of the first-author of the paper. The results of the left table show that all goals have higher production in Europe and North America. Considering all M&SDGs research, it can be observed that in Europe the largest percentage of output is in SDG13 “Climate action” (46.23%), followed by SDG12 “Responsible Production” (44.85%) and SDG15 “Life on Land” (44.28%). In America, the largest is SDG2 “Zero Hunger” (37.60%), followed by SDG5 “Gender Equality” (15.50%), and SDG3 “Good Health” (13.32%). In Africa, the highest production is in SDG5 “Gender Equality” (15.50%); SDG4 “Quality Education” (14.27%); and SDG11 “Sustainable cities” (13.73%). In Asia, the greatest output is in SDG17 “Partnership for the goals:” (13.97%); SDG4 “Quality Education:” (13.33%); and SDG5 “Gender Equality” (13.31%). Finally, in Oceania, the higher production of these institutions is in SDG13 “Climate Action” (8.47%); SDG12 “Responsible Production and consumption” (7.24%); and SDG15 “Life on Land” (6.81%). From a global perspective, if we consider the distribution of the publications on each goal by continent to determine their profile ( Figure 6B ), the approach of the different SDGs exhibit more similar patterns, although some SDGs—such as SDG3 “Good Health,” SDG16 “Peace, Justice,” and SDG10 “Reducing Inequalities”—stand out from the others.

Figure 6 . Contribution of each continent to each SDGs (A) and profile by continent (B) .

Cognitive Relationships

Although the interlinked nature of SDGs has been stressed, their interactions are “not explicit in the description of the goals” ( Griggs et al., 2017 ). For instance, SDG11 “Sustainable Cities,” contains targets related to economic dimensions (e.g., financial and technical assistance for developed countries, expenditure on the conservation of cultural and natural heritage), social dimensions (e.g., number of deaths per disaster and urban population living in slums), or environmental dimensions (e.g., reducing the adverse environmental impact of cities per capita, or the proportion of urban solid waste), and these three could be conceptually linked to other SDGs, for example SDG6 “Clean Water.” In our study, to reveal their cognitive relations (measured via citations), a co-citation map has been created. The proximity between SDGs indicates their similarity in terms of co-citation occurrence (i.e., publications from the two SDGs appear often cited together in the same set of publications). The size of the nodes reflects the frequency of SDGs in terms of overall publications, and the thickness of the edges denotes how often these SDGs are co-cited. Figure 7A shows the SDGs map of the M&SDGs research. The following clusters of SDGs are identified:

Figure 7 . Co-citation occurrence map of (A) M&SDGs research, and (B) average publication year.

Cluster 1 (red) is formed by SDGs with a strong industrial and energy orientation [SDG6 ‘Clean Water’, SDG7 ‘Clean Energy’, and SDG9 ‘Industry, Innovation’] and the environment (SDG15 ‘Life on Land’, and SDG14 ‘Life below Water’). Cluster 2 (blue) groups; SDG1 “No Poverty,” and SDG2 “Zero Hunger,” being two of the most important SDGs inheritance of MDGs. SDG1 is directly and indirectly related to all other SDGs, but dependent on SDG2 International Council for Science, 2015 ].

Cluster 3 (yellow) includes SDG10 “Reduced Inequalities,” and SDG17 “Partnership for the Goals,” linking the reduction of inequalities and partnership.

Cluster 4 (green) is composed by SDGs related with health, urbanization and peace: SDG3; “Good health;” SDG4 “Quality Education;” SDG 5 “Gender Equality;” SDG11 “Sustainable Cities;” and SDG16 “Peace, Justice.” For instance, SDG11 “Sustainable Cities” and SDG3 “Good Health” have a strong connection (link strength of 5,154).

Cluster 5 (purple) is composed only by SDG8 “Decent work.” However, this goal has links with SDG9 “Industry, Innovation” and SDG11 “Sustainable Cities,” or SDG3 “Good Health,” among others.

Figure 7B depicts the evolution of the SDG in each cluster from the average publication year (2011–2012). The more yellow indicates the more recent the publications. It can be observed how SDG3 “Good Health,” SDG8 “Decent Work,” SDG16 “Peace, Justice”, and SDG11 “Sustainable Cities” have had research output from earlier years, as compared to the other SDGs. From another perspective, SDGs with a stronger recentness in scientific output include SDG17 “Partnership for the Goals,” SDG10 “Reduced Inequalities,” SDG5 “Gender Equality,” and SDG4 “Quality Education,” indicate that awareness of areas related to education or gender are of a more recent nature.

The proposal of the different SDGs in 2005 together with Agenda 2030 has led to the creation of a path of collective national and international awareness toward sustainability. One of the main features of SDGs is their increasing relevance not only for policy makers, who are encouraging sustainability-oriented policies, but also for the scientific community as a whole ( Kajikawa et al., 2007 ; Sweileh, 2020 ). This study presents an empirical scientometric analysis of M&SDGs research, and the role of HEIs in its development. As stated in the literature review, few studies have focused on analyzing the research output of SDGs, and even fewer have focused on the role of the organizations developing such research. Thus, this paper contributes to the debate around the incorporation of the M&SDGs in the research agenda of HEIs by providing an overview of output in the area, and by proposing a practical methodology approach to delineate this area in bibliometric databases.

How Can M&SDGs-Research Be Scientometrically Delineated and Collected?

A well-delineated methodology is crucial to identify the research publications on a specific topic. In this study, we propose a citation-based methodology to track and monitor M&SDGs-related research. The application of our methodology retrieved a total of 25,299 publications, which identifies a much larger set of publications of M&SDGs at HEIs than in similar previous studies ( Bizerril et al., 2018 ; Veiga Ávila et al., 2018 ; Hallinger and Chatpinyakoop, 2019 ). The study by Nakamura et al. (2019) used a very similar methodology as the one presented here, however we identified a larger set of publications related to M&SDGs (4,685 in the core and 25,299 in total in the present study vs. the 2,800 in the core and 10,300 total in Nakamura study). The main reason for this difference is that in the present study the MDGs were also considered, as well as the fact that the CWTS WoS version has a more efficient citation matching algorithm than the one in WoS ( Olensky et al., 2016 ). The citation-based approach of this study, as well as in Nakamura et al. (2019) , offers some advantages in comparison with previous studies that applied keyword-based approaches ( Kajikawa et al., 2007 ; Elsevier Research Intelligence, 2015 ). For instance, it offers a systematic approach that can easily be reproduced and can be applied to any other database that records citation linkages among publications (e.g., Web of Science, Scopus, Microsoft Academic Graph, Dimensions, Crossref Open Citations, etc.), making possible the replication of this approach in future studies. Another important advantage of our approach is that it focuses on identifying publications that are cognitively related to M&SDGs, since the selected publications have cited/are citing relationships with the core literature on M&SDGs, thus avoiding the problem of delineating M&SDGs-related research using keywords. Keyword-based approaches would typically identify as SDGs-related research publications that only have a circumstantial relationships with SDGs, but that are not totally related to them (e.g., publications related to “economic growth,” but not in the philosophy underlying the M&SDGs—i.e., sustainable economic growth). Finally, the method developed here has the advantage that it captures the M&SDGs research output at the global level, thus providing an international perspective on the discussion around the study of the research activity on M&SDGs. However, in future studies other more local perspectives (e.g., the study of publications in local languages, local publishers) should be also explored.

How Has M&SDGs Research Carried Out by HEIs Developed Over Time?

The results presented in this study suggest that although one may presume that M&SDGs research would have a long tradition since the launch of the MDGs, there is an important concentration of publications in the most recent years, denoting a more recent interest in the SDGs (21.83% in 2000–2014, the MDGs period vs. 31.66% from 2015 to 2017 since the launch of the SDGs). However, we should take into consideration that by using WoS there is a strong bias toward English-language journals and might have distorted the results. In any case, this recency trend in the production of M&SDGs-related research is in line with the results obtained by Olawumi and Chan (2018) who observed that the scientific output on sustainable development, 2015–2016, represents 36.27% (vs. 21.42% on M&SDGs in the present study). There have also been previous publications discussing the growth of the scientific production related with sustainability. For example, Pulgarin et al. (2015) argued that the growth of research production in sustainability can be explained by “the impact of human activity on the environment” which “is leading to this area of research [sustainability] being studied from ever more different fields.” Olawumi and Chan (2018) consider that this increase could be also linked to “more efforts and resources” being devoted to this topic. For Nučič (2012) , the increasing growth of the scientific output could be associated with “sustainability science as a highly interdisciplinary research field.” This is in line with Schoolman et al. (2012) , who indicated that “sustainability research is more interdisciplinary than other scientific research” (based on the Shannon entropy measure), supporting the suggestion by Nakamura et al. (2019) that SDGs research is based on “transdisciplinary knowledge” between different fields, arguing that “most scientific disciplines are expected to contribute toward sustainability since in sustainability we have complex structures, including environmental, technological, societal, and economic facets” ( Kajikawa et al., 2014 ).

In previous studies on M&SDGs the role of these institutions has not been specifically analyzed (e.g., in Nakamura et al., 2019 ). Institutions like the London School of Hygiene, the WHO, and the Johns Hopkins University stand out among the most productive institutions. Their predominant role can be explained by their relatively large sizes; however, their AI confirms that these institutions are also highly specialized on this topic too. The London School of Hygiene belongs to the University of London and is specialized in public health and tropical medicine; while the WHO is a specialized agency of the United Nations focused on international public health. As well, London School of Hygiene have focused recently on health systems' strengthening (HSS) ( Seidman, 2017 ). The predominant role in output and specialization of the WHO, which is not a HEI or a RC but a supra-governmental organization that provides statistics for monitoring health-related aspects of the SDGs, 15 may be also seen as a sign of the strong social and political relevance of M&SDGs research.

Some other organizations that, although smaller in terms of output, have a high degree of specialization are the Stockholm Environment Institute (AI 191.47), the Aga Khan University (AI 141.06), or the International Center for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (AI 132.55). This relative importance of small organizations goes in line with Nakamura's et al. (2019) results, who suggested that not always the largest institutions “set the agenda” in M&SDGs research, but that smaller ones also could be key players (e.g., Stockholm Environment Institute, and the University of London).

This study confirms the observation by Yarime et al. (2010) of an increasing number of countries engaged in research on sustainability. Our results also resonate with studies like that of Adomßent et al. (2014) , who also stated that the HEIs' sustainability research is mostly produced by authors from developed countries such as the USA, the United Kingdom, Australia, or Canada. However, in terms of relative specialization, our study shows that African and Asian countries exhibit a much stronger specialization. A special case is South Africa. This country is the sixth country in number of M&SDGs publications, and one of its universities (i.e., University of Cape Town) is the most prolific African institution in M&SDGs research. This strong relevance of SDGs research in South African can be reinforced by the fact that “South Africa” is a topic in the M&SDGs research map since the name of the country appears as a node in the term co-occurrence map. Although our scientometric evidence is not strong enough to conclude that the higher performance of this country in M&SDGs is the direct effect of policies aimed at encouraging research on M&SDGs, it must be highlighted that the country counts with South Africa's National Development Plan (NDP), which defines national development priorities and provides the foundations for South Africa in order to achieve the SDGs ( Cumming et al., 2017 ).

What Are the Specific M&SDGs Research Topics That Have Been Studied by HEIs?

The SDGs more frequently addressed by HEIs are SDG3 “Good Health” (76.93% of the publications), SDG16 “Peace, Justice” (56.19%), SDG11 “Sustainable Cities” (45.98%) and SDG10 “Reduced inequalities” (29.47%), which is in line with the higher percentage of overall HEIs involved on this research ( Supplementary Table 4 ). Our results contrast with the results obtained by Salvia et al. (2019) , who surveyed research experts in SDGs across continents, highlighting the following SDGs as having more activity: SDG 13 “Climate Action” (41%), SDG 11 “Sustainable Cities” (33%), and SDG 4 “Quality Education” (29%). This remarkable difference between a qualitative approach (i.e., surveys sent to experts in Salvia et al., 2019 ) and our quantitative approach, reinforces the importance of considering and combining different methodologies in the study of how science is contributing to the achievement of SDGs, and how academic stakeholders are approaching the different SDGs.

Regarding the interconnection of SDGs, according to Nilsson et al. (2016) , SDGs are more interconnected among themselves than its predecessors, the MDGs. This idea of SDGs interconnecting among themselves is supported by their consideration as “enablers for integration,” which means that the internal structures of the different SDGs is conceived to fit across more different SDGs ( Le Blanc, 2015 ), thus enabling their own integration and interconnection. This integrative and interconnected property of SDGs is observed in this study, since all goals have connections among them, being particularly remarkable the connections between the following three pairs, which presented a higher co-occurrence values: SDG16 “Peace, Justice” vs. SDG13 “Climate Action;” SDG3 “Good Health” vs. SDG11 “Sustainable Cities;” and SDG16 “Peace, Justice” vs. SDG11 “Sustainable Cities.” Moreover, the linkage between the pairs responds to complementary relationships. For instance, SDG3 “Good Health” and SDG11 “Sustainable Cities,” linking health with cities could be understood as housing, transport, and access to green spaces are major determinants of health and well-being ( International Council for Science, 2015 ).

As mentioned above, SDG3 “Good Health” is the most researched SDG identified in our study. This is not a surprise since this goal has a central role in the achievement of sustainable development ( Pettigrew et al., 2015 ), and Biomedical Research is one of the largest research areas covered in Web of Science ( Mongeon and Paul-Hus, 2016 ). In any case, our results are in agreement with ( Körfgen et al., 2018 ; Sweileh, 2020 ), and as pointed out by previous studies, SDG3 “Good Health” was found to have a higher share of synergies with other SDGs in most countries ( Pradhan et al., 2017 ). The MDGs, experience has shown that without improvements in health systems performance, progress on the goals was both limited and potentially unsustainable ( Seidman, 2017 ). This may explain why this specific health-related goal (SDG3) became more ambitious and central than in the MDGs ( Seidman, 2017 ; Asi and Williams, 2018 ). It is important to highlight that one the major efforts of SDG3 has been to reduce mortality across population groups (e.g., “the poor” or “women and children”) ( Buse and Hawkes, 2015 ), thus explaining the central role of “good health” in the map of topics presented in this study. However, from our data, there is no empirical evidence suggesting why health is the goal most researched.

Conclusions

Based on an advanced citation-based field delineation, this paper provides an extensive analysis of M&SDGs research over time and contributes to contextualize and understand its trajectory. The results of this study are relevant for planners and decision-makers in HEIs. First, this paper presents a new delineation procedure for M&SDGs-related research. The methodology is simple and reproducible, allowing its application in future studies for researchers, as well as its implementation in other citation databases (e.g., Scopus, Dimensions, Microsoft Academic Graph, etc.). Second, our work contributes to the expansion of the toolset of research instruments aimed at evaluating the development of research around M&SDGs. We provide a relevant proof of concept on how scientometric methodologies can support the monitoring of the research developed to support the achievement of M&SDGs. The approach proposed in this paper has relevance for all stakeholders engaged in the development of research activities related to M&SDGs (e.g., HEIs, RCs, governmental and supranational organizations, NGOs, and any stakeholder interested in SDGs). Developing reproducible methodologies (as done in this paper) and establishing a stable analytical monitoring framework is fundamental for a proper understanding of how science is contributing to the achievement of SDGs. However, it is important, not only to analyze the number of papers, but also the contribution itself of those papers with the goals, targets, and indicators.

From a scientometric point of view, this study provides a novel contribution to the scientometric analysis on SDGs research output, particularly since most scientometric studies have focused on developing semantic approaches, in which the use of keywords has been the most common approximation to the topic ( Pukelis et al., 2020 ; Rafols, 2020 ). We adopt a citation-based approach. This approach does not suffer from the ambiguity of semantic approaches (e.g., synonymy, homonymy), and more fundamentally, our approach does not hold the limitation that keyword-based approaches may capture research that is not necessarily aligned with the principles and philosophical foundations of M&SDGs. Grounded on the idea that citations represent concept symbols ( Small, 1978 ), in which scientific authors associate ideas by creating symbolic acts with their citations (see also Haustein et al., 2016 ), it can be argued that our approach captures the body of scientific literature most conceptually related with M&SDGs. To the best of our knowledge, only the Nakamura et al. (2019) study and this one have adopted such a citation-based approach, with this study being the most comprehensive to-date in the body of literature analyzed.

It is important however to remark that our citation-based approach still presents some limitations that must be observed when generalizing its findings. By considering only the Web of Science (WoS) database the study may have limitations due to the underrepresentation of other related published works, which may be indexed in other scientometric databases (e.g., Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic…). Also, WoS does not cover all academic fields equally as it presents an underrepresentation of non-English speaking studies. The methodology proposed may not necessarily capture the whole picture of research related to M&SDGs. The sole use of direct citations related to a core set of publications may also be insufficient at times, since many publications genuinely linked to M&SDGs research may be more distanced in their citation relationship with the core set. In addition, despite all types of publications from WoS being included, some other typologies of interest (e.g., governmental reports) are not captured.

Considering the methodological limitations described above, future methodological improvements should take into account the possibility of characterizing not only the directly cited/citing publications of M&SDGs, but also other citation layers (e.g., 2nd, 3 rd , or more—also known as citation cascades — Min et al., 2020 ) in the expansion of the core set of publications. The use of citation cascades would allow the introduction of a more fluid approach (in which a much larger set of scientific publications may be considered regarding their citation proximity to the core set), in contrast with the binary approach (i.e., publication are M&SDGs-related or not) used in this study. Moreover, since this is the first study that has approached the scientific output from MDGs and SDGs together, we cannot assess whether other scientometric approaches or delineations would have delivered other results, therefore this is an aspect to be considered in future studies. Moreover, future studies on the topic might be complemented by means of qualitative research methods to uncover more specific motivations and drivers for research on SDGs in different contexts. The combination of scientometric indicators with other monitoring indicators (e.g., the SDG index) should also be considered. Such combination of methods will enable more advanced insights on the relationship between the research production of countries (as done in this study) and their success in their actual achievement of the specific SDGs, thus providing a more holistic perspective on how research can complement and support the consecution of Agenda 2030.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this study can be found in online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and accession number(s) can be found at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11106113.v1 .

Author Contributions

NB-P: conceptualization, data curation, software, visualization, formal analysis, and writing- original draft preparation. AA: investigation, and writing—review and editing. SL and UA: writing—review and editing. RC: conceptualization, investigation, methodology, resources, software, validation, supervision, and writing—review and editing. All authors: contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This work was partly supported by the Department of Science and Innovation and the National Research Foundation of South Africa.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.620743/full#supplementary-material

1. ^ Sustainable development was defined as a “kind of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” ( United Nations, 1987 ).

2. ^ Information on the MDGs available at the following link: https://www.who.int/topics/millennium_development_goals/about/en/ (accessed December 30, 2019).

3. ^ SDG Index available at: http://sdgindex.org/ (accessed December 30, 2019).

4. ^ There was no public consultation, as with the SDGs.

5. ^ Sustainability science is a new scientific field that investigates “complex and dynamic interactions between natural and human systems and aims “to bridge the gap between science and society and limit its knowledge to actions for sustainability” ( Disterheft et al., 2013 ).

6. ^ From a theoretical point of view, we build on the notion of citations as “concept symbols” ( Small, 1978 ) in which any publication cited by or citing M&SDGs core publications can considered to have a cognitive association with M&SDGs research.

7. ^ The search strategy was composed of the following parameters: TS = “Millennium Development Goal * ” OR TS = “Millennium Goal * ” OR TS = “Sustainable Development Goal * ”.

8. ^ Web of Science divides between author keywords (included in records of articles and determined by the authors) and keywords plus or “paper authors” (index terms automatically generated from the titles of cited articles).

9. ^ The approach used in this study (identification of a seed of papers, and expansion based on citation relationships) has been used in previous studies (see Reijnhoudt et al., 2014 ).

10. ^ The period corresponds with the launch of the MDGs in 2000.

11. ^ Co-citation is defined as the frequency with which two publications are cited together by other publications.

12. ^ VOSviewer is a software tool for constructing and visualizing bibliometric networks. These networks may include nodes of journals, researchers, or individual publications, and they can be constructed based on citation, bibliographic coupling, co-citation, or co-authorship relations. Additionally, it offers text mining functionality that can be used to construct and visualize co-occurrence networks of terms extracted from a research dataset ( https://www.vosviewer.com/ —accessed December 30, 2019).

13. ^ Information available at: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed December 30, 2019).

14. ^ For more clarification of these values the author is referred to the VOSViewer Manual https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.8.pdf .

15. ^ Information available at: https://www.who.int/sdg/en/ .

Adomßent, M., Fischer, D., Godemann, J., Herzig, C., Otte, I., Rieckmann, M., et al. (2014). Emerging areas in research on higher education for sustainable development e management education, sustainable consumption and perspectives from Central and Eastern Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 62, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.045

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alejandro-Cruz, J. S., Rio-Belver, R. M., Almanza-Arjona, Y. C., and Rodriguez-Andara, A. (2019). Towards a science map on sustainability in higher education. Sustainability 11:3521. doi: 10.3390/su11133521

Armitage, C. S., Lorenz, M., and Mikki, S. (2020). Mapping scholarly publications related to the Sustainable Development Goals: do independent bibliometric approaches get the same results? Quantitative Sci. Stud. 1, 1092–1108. doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00071

Asi, Y. M., and Williams, C. (2018). The role of digital health in making progress toward Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 in conflict-affected populations. Int. J. Med. Inform. 114, 114–120. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.11.003

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bautista, N. (2019). SDG Ontology . doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.11106113.v1

CrossRef Full Text

Bautista-Puig, N., and Mauleón, E. (2019). “Unveiling the path towards sustainability: is there a research interest on sustainable goals?” in International Conference on Scientometrics & Informetrics , Vol. 17 (Rome), 2770–2771.

Bizerril, M., Rosa, M. J., Carvalho, T., and Pedrosa, J. (2018). Sustainability in higher education: a review of contributions from Portuguese Speaking Countries. J. Clean. Prod. 171, 600–612. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.048

Buse, K., and Hawkes, S. (2015). Health in the sustainable development goals: ready for a paradigm shift? Glob. Health 11, 1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12992-015-0098-8

Caeiro, S., Azeiteiro, U. M., Filho, W. L., and Jabbour, C., (eds.). (2013). Sustainability Assessment Tools in Higher Education Institutions: Mapping Trends and Good Practices Around the World . Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Google Scholar

Caiado, R. G. G., Filho, W. L., Quelhas, O. L. G., Nascimento, D. L. d. M., and Ávila, L. V. (2018). A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the implementation of the sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 198, 1276–1288. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.102

Cumming, T. L., Shackleton, R. T., Förster, J., Dini, J., Khan, A., Gumula, M., et al. (2017). Achieving the national development agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) through investment in ecological infrastructure: a case study of South Africa. Ecosyst. Serv. 27, 253–260. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.005

Disterheft, A., Caeiro, S., Azeiteiro, U. M., and Leal Filho, W. (2013). “Sustainability science and education for sustainable development in universities: a way for transition,” in Sustainability Assessment Tools in Higher Education Institutions: Mapping Trends and Good Practices Around the World , eds S. Caeiro, W. L. Filho, C. Jabbour, and U. M. Azeiteiro (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 3–27.

Easterly, W. (2009). How the millennium development goals are unfair to Africa. World Dev. 37, 26–35. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.02.009

Elsevier Research Intelligence (2015). Sustainability Science in a Global Landscape . Available online at: https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/resource-library/sustainability-2015

Fisher, A., and Fukuda-Parr, S. (2019). Introduction—data, knowledge, politics and localizing the SDGs. J. Hum. Dev. Capabil. 20, 375–385. doi: 10.1080/19452829.2019.1669144

Forestier, O., and Kim, R. E. (2020). Cherry-picking the Sustainable Development Goals: goal prioritization by national governments and implications for global governance. Sustain. Dev. 28, 1269–1278. doi: 10.1002/sd.2082

Frame, J. D. (1977). Mainstream research in Latin America and the Caribbean. Interciencia 2, 143–148.

Fukuda-Parr, S. (2016). From the Millennium Development Goals to the Sustainable Development Goals: shifts in purpose, concept, and politics of global goal setting for development. Gender Dev. 24, 43–52. doi: 10.1080/13552074.2016.1145895

Fukuda-Parr, S. (2019). Keeping out extreme inequality from the SDG agenda – the politics of indicators. Global Policy 10, 61–69. doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12602

Fukuda-Parr, S., and McNeill, D. (2019). Knowledge and politics in setting and measuring the SDGs: introduction to special issue. Global Policy 10, 5–15. doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12604

Fuso Nerini, F., Sovacool, B., Hughes, N., Cozzi, L., Cosgrave, E., Howells, M., et al. (2019). Connecting climate action with other Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability 2, 674–680. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0334-y

Griggs, D. J., Nilsson, M., Stevance, A., and McCollum, D. (2017). A Guide to SDG Interactions: From Science to Implementation . Paris: International Council for Science.

Hák, T., Janousková, S., and Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: a need for relevant indicators. Ecol. Indic 60, 565–573. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003

Hallinger, P., and Chatpinyakoop, C. (2019). A bibliometric review of research on higher education for sustainable development 1998-2018. Sustainability 11, 1–20. doi: 10.3390/su11082401

Hassan, S. U., Haddawy, P., and Zhu, J. (2014). A bibliometric study of the world's research activity in sustainable development and its sub-areas using scientific literature. Scientometrics 99, 549–579. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1193-3

Haustein, S., Bowman, T. D., and Costas, R. (2016). “Interpreting “altmetrics”: viewing acts on social media through the lens of citation and social theories,” in Theories of Informetrics and Scholarly Communication , ed C. R. Sugimoto (De Gruyter Saur), 372–406. doi: 10.1515/9783110308464-022

Hesselbarth, C., and Schaltegger, S. (2014). Educating change agents for sustainability – learnings from the first sustainability management master of business administration. J. Clean. Prod 62, 24–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.042

International Council for Science (2015). Review of the Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective . Paris: International Council for Science (ICSU).

International Human Rights Instruments. (2008). Report on Indicators for Promoting and Monitoring the Implementation of Human Rights . Geneva: United Nations.

Kajikawa, Y., Ohno, J., Takeda, Y., Matsushima, K., and Komiyama, H. (2007). Creating an academic landscape of sustainability science: an analysis of the citation network. Sustain. Sci. 2:221. doi: 10.1007/s11625-007-0027-8

Kajikawa, Y., Tacoa, F., and Yamaguchi, K. (2014). Sustainability science: the changing landscape of sustainability research. Sustain. Sci. 9, 431–438. doi: 10.1007/s11625-014-0244-x

Ki-Moon, B. (2015). The millennium development goals report 2015 . United Nations Publications.

Kleinberg, J. (2003). Bursty and Hierarchical Structure in Streams. Data Mining Knowl. Disc . 7, 373–397. doi: 10.1023/A:1024940629314

Körfgen, A., Förster, K., Glatz, I., Maier, S., Becsi, B., Meyer, A., et al. (2018). It's a hit! Mapping Austrian research contributions to the sustainable development goals. Sustainability 10, 1–13. doi: 10.3390/su10093295

Kroll, C., Warchold, A., and Pradhan, P. (2019). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies? Palgrave Commun. 5, 1–11. doi: 10.1057/s41599-019-0335-5

Le Blanc, D. (2015). Towards integration at last? The sustainable development goals as a network of targets. Sustain. Dev. 23, 176–187. doi: 10.1002/sd.1582

Leal Filho, W., Pallant, E., Enete, A., Richter, B., and Brandli, L. L. (2018). Planning and implementing sustainability in higher education institutions: an overview of the difficulties and potentials. In. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol . 25, 713–721. doi: 10.1080/13504509.2018.1461707

Leal Filho, W., Wu, Y.-C. J., Brandli, L. L., Avila, L. V., Azeiteiro, U. A., Caeiro, S., et al. (2017). Identifying and overcoming obstacles to the implementation of sustainable development at universities. J. Integrative Environ. Sci. 14, 93–108. doi: 10.1080/1943815X.2017.1362007

Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K., Alonso-Almeida, M., Huisingh, D., Lozano, F. J., Waas, T., et al. (2015). A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: Results from a worldwide survey. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.048

Lusseau, D., and Mancini, F. (2019). Income-based variation in Sustainable Development Goal interaction networks. Nat. Sustain. 2, 242–247. doi: 10.1038/s41893-019-0231-4

Min, C., Chen, Q., Yan, E., Bu, Y., and Sun, J. (2020). Citation cascade and the evolution of topic relevance. J. Assoc. Information Sci. Technol. 2020, 110–127. doi: 10.1002/asi.24370

Mongeon, P., and Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106, 213–228. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Nakamura, M., Pendlebury, D., Schnell, J., and Szomszor, M. (2019). Navigating the structure of research on Sustainable Development Goals. Policy 11:12.

Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., and Visbeck, M. (2016). Policy: map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. News 534:320. doi: 10.1038/534320a

Nučič, M. (2012). Is sustainability science becoming more interdisciplinary over time? Acta Geogr. Sloven. 52, 215–236. doi: 10.3986/AGS52109

Olawumi, T. O., and Chan, D. W. M. (2018). A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 183, 231–250. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.162

Olensky, M., Schmidt, M., and Van Eck, N. J. (2016). Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the web of science. J. Assoc. Information Sci. Technol. 67, 2550–2564. doi: 10.1002/asi.23590

Pettigrew, L. M., De Maeseneer, J., Anderson, M. I. P., Essuman, A., Kidd, M. R., and Haines, A. (2015). Primary health care and the Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet 386, 2119–2121. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00949-6

Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W., and Kropp, J. P. (2017). A systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. Earth's Future 5, 1169–1179. doi: 10.1002/2017EF000632

Pukelis, L., Bautista-Puig, N., Skrynik, M., and Stanciauskas, V. (2020). OSDG–open-source approach to classify text data by UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14569.

Pulgarin, A., Eklund, P., Garrote, R., and Escalona-Fernandez, M. I. (2015). Evolution and structure of ‘sustainable development’: a bibliometric study. Brazil. J. Information Sci. Res. Trends 9:24. doi: 10.36311/1981-1640.2015.v9n1.03.p22

Rafols, I. (2020). Consensus and Dissensus in ‘Mappings’ of Science for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Blog Post on 10th August 2020 . Available online at: https://leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/consensus-and-dissensus-in-mappings-of-science-for-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs

Ramírez Ríos, J. F., Alzate Ibáñez, A. M., and Montenegro Riaño, D. F. (2016). Los discursos de la sostenibilidad: análisis de tendencias conceptuales a partir de mediciones bibliométricas. Questionar: Investigación Específica 4, 82–96. doi: 10.29097/23461098.114

Reijnhoudt, L., Costas, R., Noyons, E., Börner, K., and Scharnhorst, A. (2014). ‘Seed+ expand’: a general methodology for detecting publication oeuvres of individual researchers. Scientometrics 101, 1403–1417. doi: 10.1007/s11192-014-1256-0

Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., and Fuller, G. (2018). SD.G Index and Dashboards Report 2018 . New York, NY: Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).

Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., and Fuller, G. (2019). Sustainable Development Report 2019 . New York, NY: Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).

Salvia, A. L., Leal Filho, W., Brandli, L. L., and Griebelera, J. S. (2019). Assessing research trends related to Sustainable Development Goals: local and global issues. J. Clean Prod. 208, 841–849. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.242

Schoolman, E. D., Guest, J. S., Bush, K. F., and Bell, A. R. (2012). How interdisciplinary is sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustain. Sci. 7, 67–80. doi: 10.1007/s11625-011-0139-z

Seidman, G. (2017). Does SDG 3 have an adequate theory of change for improving health systems performance? J. Glob. Health 7. doi: 10.7189/jogh.07.010302

Siegel, K. M., and Bastos Lima, M. G. (2020). When international sustainability frameworks encounter domestic politics: the sustainable development goals and agri-food governance in South America. World Dev. 135:105053. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105053

Singh, G. G., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Swartz, W., Cheung, W., Guy, J. A., Kenny, T. A., et al. (2018). A rapid assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals. Marine Policy 93, 223–231. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.030

Small, H. (1978). Cited documents as concept symbols. Soc. Stud. Sci 8, 327–340. doi: 10.1177/030631277800800305

Sweileh, W. M. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on “sustainable development goals” with emphasis on “good health and well-being” goal (2015–2019). Global. Health 16:68. doi: 10.1186/s12992-020-00602-2

Tatalović Antony (2010). What Has It Done For The Millennium Development Goals?' Available online at: http://www.scidev.net/global/health/feature/science-what-has-it-done-for-the-millennium-development-goals-1.html

United Nations (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development . Oslo: United Nations.

United Nations (2015a). Millennium Development Goals: 2015 Progress Chart . Available online at: https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20PC%20final.pdf

United Nations (2015b). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1) . Available online at: https://undocs.org/A/RES/70/1

Van Eck, N. J., and Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics 111, 1053–1070. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7

Veiga Ávila, L., Rossato Facco, A. L., Bento, M. H., dos, S., Arigony, M. M., Obregon, S. L., et al. (2018). Sustainability and education for sustainability: an analysis of publications from the last decade. Environ. Qual. Manage. 27, 107–118. doi: 10.1002/tqem.21537

Vinuesa, R., Azizpour, H., Leite, I., Balaam, M., Dignum, V., Domisch, S., et al. (2020). The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y

Waas, T., Verbruggen, A., and Wright, T. (2010). University research for sustainable development: Definition and characteristics explored. J. Clean. Prod. 18, 629–636. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.017

Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C., Tijssen, R. J., van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: data collection, indicators, and interpretation. J. Am. Soc. Information Sci. Technol. 63, 2419–2432. doi: 10.1002/asi.22708

Wuelser, G., and Pohl, C. (2016). How researchers frame scientific contributions to sustainable development: a typology based on grounded theory. Sustain. Sci 11, 789–800. doi: 10.1007/s11625-016-0363-7

Yarime, M., Takeda, Y., and Kajikawa, Y. (2010). Towards institutional analysis of sustainability science: a quantitative examination of the patterns of research collaboration. Sustain. Sci. 5:115. doi: 10.1007/s11625-009-0090-4

Keywords: sustainable development goals, millennium development goals, higher education institutions, sustainability science, bibliometrics, scientometrics

Citation: Bautista-Puig N, Aleixo AM, Leal S, Azeiteiro U and Costas R (2021) Unveiling the Research Landscape of Sustainable Development Goals and Their Inclusion in Higher Education Institutions and Research Centers: Major Trends in 2000–2017. Front. Sustain. 2:620743. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2021.620743

Received: 23 October 2020; Accepted: 01 March 2021; Published: 25 March 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Bautista-Puig, Aleixo, Leal, Azeiteiro and Costas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Núria Bautista-Puig, nuria.bautista.puig@hig.se

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on the academic research agenda. A scientometric analysis

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Research Institute on Policies for Social Transformation, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Córdoba, Spain

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Public Policy Observatory, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, Chile

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Finance and Accounting, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Córdoba, Spain

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Social Matters Research Group, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Córdoba, Spain

• Antonio Sianes, 
• Alejandro Vega-Muñoz, 
• Pilar Tirado-Valencia, 
• Antonio Ariza-Montes

• Published: March 17, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Today, global challenges such as poverty, inequality, and sustainability are at the core of the academic debate. This centrality has only increased since the transition from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), whose scope is to shift the world on to a path of resilience focused on promoting sustainable development. The main purpose of this paper is to develop a critical yet comprehensive scientometric analysis of the global academic production on the SDGs, from its approval in 2015 to 2020, conducted using Web of Science (WoS) database. Despite it being a relatively short period of time, scholars have published more than five thousand research papers in the matter, mainly in the fields of green and sustainable sciences. The attained results show how prolific authors and schools of knowledge are emerging, as key topics such as climate change, health and the burden diseases, or the global governance of these issues. However, deeper analyses also show how research gaps exist, persist and, in some cases, are widening. Greater understanding of this body of research is needed, to further strengthen evidence-based policies able to support the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the achievement of the SDGs.

Citation: Sianes A, Vega-Muñoz A, Tirado-Valencia P, Ariza-Montes A (2022) Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on the academic research agenda. A scientometric analysis. PLoS ONE 17(3): e0265409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409

Editor: Stefano Ghinoi, University of Greenwich, UNITED KINGDOM

Received: September 10, 2021; Accepted: March 1, 2022; Published: March 17, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Sianes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1. Introduction

1.1. from the millennium agenda to the 2030 agenda and the sustainable development goals (sdgs).

To track the origins of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, we must recall the Millennium Agenda, which was the first global plan focused on fighting poverty and its more extreme consequences [ 1 ]. Approved in 2000, its guiding principle was that northern countries should contribute to the development of southern states via Official Development Assistance (ODA) flows. The commitment was to reach 0.7% of donors’ gross domestic product [ 2 ] to reduce poverty by half by 2015. The relative failure to reach this goal and the consolidation of a discourse of segregation between northern and southern countries [ 3 ] opened the door to strong criticism of the Millennium Agenda. Therefore, as 2015 approached, there were widespread calls for a profound reformulation of the system [ 4 ].

The world in 2015 was very different from that in the early 2000s. Globalization had reached every corner of the world, generating development convergence between countries but increasing inequalities within countries [ 5 , 6 ]. Increasing interest in the environmental crisis and other global challenges, such as the relocation of work and migration flows, consolidated a new approach to development and the need of a more encompassed agenda [ 7 ]. This new agenda was conceived after an integrating process that involved representatives from governments, cooperation agencies, nongovernmental organisations, global business, and academia. The willingness of the 2030 Agenda to ‘leave no one behind’ relies on this unprecedented global commitment by the international community [ 8 ].

As a result of this process, in 2015, the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted the document “Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” [ 9 ], later known as the 2030 Agenda. This new global agenda is an all-comprising strategy that seeks to inform and orient public policies and private interventions in an extensive range of fields, from climate change to smart cities and from labour markets to birth mortality, among many others.

The declared scope of the Agenda is to shift the world on to a path of resilience focused on promoting sustainable development. To do so, the 2030 Agenda operates under the guidance of five principles, formally known as the ‘5 Ps’: people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnerships [ 10 ]. With these pivotal concepts in mind, the Agenda has established a total of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 specific targets to be pursued in a 15-year period, which reflects the scale and profound ambition of this new Agenda.

The SDGs do not only address what rich countries should do for the poor but rather what all countries should do together for the global well-being of this and future generations [ 4 ]. Thus, the SDGs cover a much broader range of issues than their predecessors, the Millennium Development Goals [ 11 ], and are intended to be universal on the guidance towards a new paradigm of sustainable development that the international community has been demanding since the 1992 Earth Summit [ 7 , 12 , 13 ].

Despite this potential, some criticise their vagueness, weakness, and unambitious character. Fukuda-Parr [ 14 ], see weaknesses on the simplicity of the SDGs, which can lead to a very narrow conception that reduces the integral concept of development. The issue of measurement is also problematic; for some researchers, the quantification of objectives not only reduces their complexity, but leads to them being carried out without considering the interdependencies between the objectives [ 12 , 13 ]. Other authors have identified difficulties associated with specifying some of the less visible, intangible aspects of their qualitative nature such as inclusive development and green growth [ 14 , 15 ]. Finally, Stafford-Smith et al. [ 16 ] state that their successful implementation also requires paying greater attention to the links across sectors, across societal actors and between and among low-, medium-, and high-income countries.

Despite these criticisms, the SDGs have undoubtedly become the framework for what the Brundtland report defined as our common future. Unlike conventional development agendas that focus on a restricted set of dimensions, the SDGs provide a holistic and multidimensional view of development [ 17 ]. In this line, Le Blanc [ 12 ] concludes that the SDGs constitute a system with a global perspective; because they consider the synergies and trade-offs between the different issues involved in sustainable development, and favour comprehensive thinking and policies.

1.2. Towards a categorization of the SDGs

There is an underlying lack of unanimity in the interpretation of the SDGs, which has given rise to alternative approaches that allow categorizing the issues involved in their achievement without losing sight of the integral vision of sustainable development [ 15 , 18 – 23 ]. However, such categorization of the SDGs makes it possible to approach them in a more holistic and integrated way, focusing on the issues that underlie sustainable development and on trying to elucidate their connections.

Among the many systematization proposals, and following the contributions of Hajer et al. [ 19 ], four connected perspectives can strengthen the universal relevance of the SDGs: a) ‘planetary boundaries’ that emphasize the urgency of addressing environmental concerns and calling on governments to take responsibility for global public goods; b) ‘The safe and just operating space’ to highlight the interconnectedness of social and environmental issues and their consequences for the redistribution of wealth and human well-being; c) ‘The energetic society’ that avoids the plundering of energy resources; and d) ‘green competition’ to stimulate innovation and new business practices that limit the consumption of resources.

Planetary boundaries demand international policies that coordinate efforts to avoid overexploitation of the planet [ 24 ]. Issues such as land degradation, deforestation, biodiversity loss and natural resource overexploitation exacerbate poverty and deepen inequalities [ 21 , 25 – 27 ]. These problems are further compounded by the increasing impacts of climate change with clear ramifications for natural systems and societies around the globe [ 21 , 28 ].

A safe and just operating space implies social inclusivity that ensures equity principles for sharing opportunities for development [ 15 , 29 ]. Furthermore, it requires providing equitable access to effective and high-quality preventive and curative care that reduces global health inequalities [ 30 , 31 ] and promotes human well-being. Studies such as that of Kruk et al. [ 32 ] analyse the reforms needed in health systems to reduce mortality and the systemic changes necessary for high-quality care.

An energetic society demands global, regional and local production and consumption patterns as demands for energy and natural resources continue to increase, providing challenges and opportunities for poverty reduction, economic development, sustainability and social cohesion [ 21 ].

Finally, green competition establishes limits to the consumption of resources, engaging both consumers and companies [ 22 ] and redefining the relationship between firms and their suppliers in the supply chain [ 33 ]. These limits must also be introduced into life in cities, fostering a new urban agenda [ 34 , 35 ]. Poor access to opportunities and services offered by urban centres (a function of distance, transport infrastructure and spatial distribution) is a major barrier to improved livelihoods and overall development [ 36 ].

The diversification of development issues has opened the door to a wide range of new realities that must be studied under the guiding principles of the SDGs, which involve scholars from all disciplines. As Saric et al. [ 37 ] claimed, a shift in academic research is needed to contribute to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda. The identification of critical pathways to success based on sound research is needed to inform a whole new set of policies and interventions aimed at rendering the SDGs both possible and feasible [ 38 ].

1.3. The relevance and impact of the SDGs on academic research

In the barely five years since their approval, the SDGs have proven the ability to mobilize the scientific community and offer an opportunity for researchers to bring interdisciplinary knowledge to facilitate the successful implementation of the 2030 Agenda [ 21 ]. The holistic vision of development considered in the SDGs has impacted very diverse fields of knowledge, such as land degradation processes [ 25 , 26 ], health [ 39 ], energy [ 40 ] and tourism [ 41 ], as well as a priori further disciplines such as earth observation [ 42 ] and neurosurgery [ 43 ]. However, more importantly, the inevitable interdependencies, conflicts and linkages between the different SDGs have also emerged in the analyses, highlighting ideas such as the need for systemic thinking that considers the spatial and temporal connectivity of the SDGs, which calls for multidisciplinary knowledge. According to Le Blanc [ 12 ], the identification of the systemic links between the objectives can be a valuable undertaking for the scientific community in the coming years and sustainable development.

Following this line, several scientific studies have tried to model the relationships between the SDGs in an attempt to clarify the synergies between the objectives, demonstrating their holistic nature [ 12 , 17 , 20 , 44 , 45 ]. This knowledge of interdependencies can bring out difficulties and risks, or conversely the drivers, in the implementation of the SDGs, which will facilitate their achievement [ 22 ]. In addition, it will allow proposing more transformative strategies to implement the SDG agenda, since it favours an overall vision that is opposed to the false illusion that global problems can be approached in isolation [ 19 ].

The lack of prioritisation of the SDGs has been one of the issues raised regarding their weakness, which should also be addressed by academics. For example, Gupta and Vegelin [ 15 ] analyse the dangers of inclusive development prioritising economic issues, relegating social or ecological inclusivity to the background, or the relational aspects of inclusivity that guarantee the existence of laws, policies and global rules that favour equal opportunities. Holden et al. [ 46 ] suggest that this prioritisation should be established according to three moral criteria: the satisfaction of human needs, social equity and respect for environmental limits. These principles must be based on ethical values that, according to Burford et al. [ 47 ], constitute the missing pillar of sustainability. In this way, the ethical imperatives of the SDGs and the values implicit in the discourses on sustainable development open up new possibilities for transdisciplinary research in the social sciences [ 46 , 47 ].

Research on SDG indicators has also been relevant in the academic world, as they offer an opportunity to replace conventional progress metrics such as gross domestic product (GDP) with other metrics more consistent with the current paradigm of development and social welfare that takes into account such aspects as gender equality, urban resilience and governance [ 20 , 48 ].

The study of the role of certain development agents, including companies, universities or supranational organisations, also opens up new areas of investigation for researchers. Some studies have shown the enthusiastic acceptance of the SDGs by companies [ 22 , 49 ]. For Bebbington and Unerman [ 50 ], the study of the role of organisations in achieving the SDGs should be centred around three issues: challenging definitions of entity boundaries to understand their full impacts, introducing new conceptual frameworks for analysis of the context within which organisations operate and re-examining the conceptual basis of justice, responsibility and accountability. On the other hand, the academic community has recognized that knowledge and education are two basic pillars for the transition towards sustainable development, so it may also be relevant to study the responsibility of higher education in achieving the SDGs [ 47 , 50 ]. Institutional sustainability and governance processes are issues that should be addressed in greater depth through research [ 47 ].

Finally, some authors have highlighted the role of information technologies (ICT) in achieving the SDGs [ 23 ] and their role in addressing inequality or vulnerability to processes such as financial exclusion [ 51 ], which opens up new avenues for research.

Despite this huge impact of the SDGs on academic research, to the best of our knowledge, an overall analysis of such an impact to understand its profoundness and capillarity is missing in the literature. To date, reviews have focused on the implementation of specific SDGs [ 52 – 61 ], on specific topics and collectives [ 62 – 70 ], on traditional fields of knowledge, now reconsidered in light of the SDGs [ 71 – 73 ] and on contributions from specific regions or countries [ 74 , 75 ]. By relying on scientometric techniques and data mining analyses, this paper collects and analyses the more than 5,000 papers published on the SDGs to pursue this challenging goal and fill this knowledge gap.

This article aims to provide a critical review of the scientific research on SDGs, a concept that has emerged based on multiple streams of thinking and has begun to be consolidated as of 2015. As such, global references on this topic are identified and highlighted to manage pre-existing knowledge to understand relationships among researchers and with SDG dimensions to enhance the presently dispersed understanding of this subject and its areas of further development. A scientometric meta-analysis of publications on SDGs is conducted to achieve this objective. Mainstream journals from the Web of Science (WoS) are used to identify current topics, the most involved journals, the most prolific authors, and the thematic areas around which the current academic SDG debate revolves.

Once Section 1 has revised on the related literature to accomplish the main objective, Section 2 presents the research methodology. Section 3 presents the main results obtained, and Section 4 critically discusses these results. The conclusion and the main limitations of the study are presented in Section 5.

2. Materials and methods

In methodological terms, this research applies scientometrics as a meta-analytical means to study the evolution of documented scientific knowledge on the Sustainable Development Goals [ 76 – 81 ], taking as a secondary source of information academic contributions (i.e. articles, reviews, editorials, etc.) indexed in the Web of Science (WoS). To ensure that only peer-reviewed contributions authored by individual researchers are retrieved and that such publications have a worldwide prestige assessment, all of them should be published on journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR), either as part of the Sciences Citation Index Expanded or the Social Sciences Citation Index [ 82 – 84 ].

Following the recommendations of previous studies [ 85 ], it was decided to apply the next search vector from 2015 to 2020 to achieve the research objectives TS = (Sustainable NEAR/0 Development NEAR/0 Goals), which allows the extraction of data with 67 fields for each article registered in WoS.

As the first step, to give meaning to subsequent analyses, we tested the presence of exponential growth in the production of documented knowledge that allows a continuous renewal of knowledge [ 76 , 86 ].

As a second action, given the recent nature of the subject studied, it is of interest to map the playing field [ 87 ] using VOSviewer software version 1.6.16 [ 88 ], to know which topics are most addressed in the matter of SDGs. This analysis seeks an approach, both through the concentration of Keyword Plus® [ 89 ] and by analysing the references used as input in the production of knowledge, which can be treated as cocitations, coupling-citations and cross-citations [ 90 ], using the h-index, in citation terms, as discriminant criteria in the selection of articles [ 91 – 93 ]. This methodology will allow us to establish production, impact and relationship metrics [ 80 , 85 , 87 , 94 , 95 ].

Finally, it is of interest to explore the possible concentrations that may arise. Using Lotka’s Law, we estimated the possible prolific authors and their areas of work in SDGs, and using Bradford’s Law, we conducted a search of a possible adjustment to a geometric series of the concentration zones of journals and therefore a potential nucleus where a profuse discussion on SDGs is taking place [ 96 – 100 ].

3.1. Configuration of the academic production on SDGs

The results present a total of 5,281 articles for a period of six years (2015–2020) in 1,135 journals, with over 60% of these documents published in the last two years. The total of articles is distributed among authors affiliated with 7,418 organisations from 181 countries/regions, giving thematic coverage to 183 categories of the Journal Citation Report-Web of Science (JCR-WoS). Table 1 shows the distribution among the top ten JCR-WoS categories, highlighting the prevalence of journals indexed in green and environmental sciences and, thus, in the Science Index-Expanded.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t001

3.2. Existence of research critical mass

Fig 1 shows the regression model for the period 2015–2020, the last year with complete records consolidated in the Web of Science. The results obtained show significant growth in the number of studies on SDGs, with an R 2 adjustment greater than 96%. The exponential nature of the model shows that a ‘critical mass’ is consolidating around the research on this topic, as proposed by the Law of Exponential Growth of Science over Time [ 76 ], which in some way gives meaning to this research and to obtaining derived results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.g001

3.3. Establishment of concentrations

In accordance with Lotka’s Law, 22,336 authors were identified of the 5,281 articles under study. From this author set, 136 (≈sqrt (22,336)) are considered prolific authors with a contribution to nine or more works. However, a second restriction, even more demanding, is to identify those prolific authors who are also prolific in contemporary terms. Although SDG studies are recent, the growth production rates are extremely high. As previously shown, for the period 2015–2020, 64% of the publications are concentrated between 2019–2020. Based on this second restriction, for 3,400 articles of the 5,281 articles published in 2019 and 2020, and a total of 15,120 authors, only eight prolific authors manage to sustain a publication number that equals or exceeds nine articles. These authors are listed and characterized in Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t002

The analysis shown in Table 2 highlights the University of Washington’s participation in health issues with Murray and Hay (coauthors of eight articles in the period 2019–2020), who are also important in the area of health for the prolific authors Yaya and Bhutta. The environmental SDGs mark a strong presence with Abhilash, Leal-Filho and Kalin. The affiliation of Abhilsash (Banaras Hindu University) is novel, as it is not part of the classic world core in knowledge production that is largely concentrated in the United States and Europe. It is worth noting that other prolific authors belong to nonmainstream knowledge production world areas, such as Russia or Pakistan. Professor Alola also deserves mention; not only is he the only contemporary prolific author producing in the area of economics, but he is also producing knowledge in Turkey.

In the same way, at the journal level, the potential establishment of concentration areas and determination of a deep discussion nucleus are analysed using Bradford’s law.

With a percentage error of 0.6%, between the total journal number and the total journal number estimated by the Bradford series, the database shows a core of 18 journals (2%) where one in three articles published are concentrated (see Table 3 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t003

Regarding the number of contributions by journal, Sustainability has the largest number of studies on SDGs, in which 689 (13%) of the 5,281 articles studied are concentrated. The Journal of Cleaner Production, indexed to WoS categories related to Environmental SDGs, is the second most prominent journal, with 2.7% participation of the articles (147). Both journals are followed by the multidisciplinary journal Plos One, with 2.2% of the total dataset. In terms of impact factor, the 60 points of the health journal The Lancet are superlative in the whole, which in the other cases ranges between 2.000 and 7.246. As shown in Table 4 , we have developed a “Prominence ranking” by weighting article production by impact factor. This metric shows The Lancet, with only 40 articles on SDGs, as the most relevant journal, followed by Sustainability, which becomes relevant due to the high number of publications (689) despite an impact factor of 2.576. These journals are followed by the Journal of Cleaner Production with 147 articles and an impact factor of 7.246.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t004

3.4. Thematic coverage

Concerning the thematic coverage, Fig 2A and 2B show a diversity of 7,003 Keyword Plus® (KWP), consistently connected to a total of 7,141 KWP assigned by Clarivate as metadata to the set of 5,281 articles studied, which presents a strong concentration in a small number of terms (red colour in the heat map generated with VOSviewer version 1.6.16).

a) Keywords Plus® heatmap and b) heat map zoom to highlight the highest concentration words, data source WoS, 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.g002

Based on this result, a concentration sphere with 85 KWP (= sqrt (7,141)) is established according to Zipf’s Law, which is presented in 50 or more articles out of the total of 5,281. Moreover, a central concentration sphere of 9 KWPs (= sqrt (85)) can be found, with keywords present in a range of 178 to 346 articles out of a total of 5,281. These nine pivotal keywords are all connected in terms of co-occurrence (associated by Clarivate two or more to the same article) and within papers with an average number of citations in WoS that vary from 9.27 to 16.69, as shown in Table 5 . The nine most prominent key words in relation to the study of the SDGs are health, climate change, management, impact, challenges, governance, systems, policy and framework. These terms already suggest some of the themes around which the debate and research in this area revolves.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t005

The prominence of these keywords is obtained by combining the level of occurrence and average citations (see Table 5 ): on the one hand, the occurrence or number of articles with which the KWP is associated (e.g., Management, 346) and, on the other hand, the average citations presented by the articles associated with these words (e.g., Framework. 9.27). The final score (prominence) mixes both concepts, given the product of the occurrences and the average citations of each KWP in proportion to the mean values (e.g., (330 * 16.69)/(246 * 11.96) = 1.9).

3.5. Relations within the academic contributions

The coupling-citation analysis using VOSviewer identifies the 5,281 articles under study, of which only those found in the h-index as a whole have been considered (the h-index in the database is 81, as there are 81 articles cited 81 or more times). The bibliographic coupling analysis found consistent connections in only 73 of these articles, gathered in seven clusters. Such clusters and unconnected articles are represented in Fig 3 .

Data source WoS. 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.g003

In simple terms, discrimination belonging to one cluster or another depends on the total link number that an article has with the other 80 articles based on the use of the common references. Table 6 specifies the articles belonging to the same publication cluster in relation to Fig 3 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t006

Bibliographic coupling analysis can also be used to link the seven clusters that use common references with the field document title (TI), publication name (SO), Keyword Plus-KWP (ID), and research areas (SC). This allows the identification of the main topics of each cluster. As shown in Table 7 , cluster 1 (red) concerns environmental and public affairs; cluster 2 (green), health; cluster 3 (blue), economics; cluster 4 (yellow), health–the burden of disease; cluster 5 (violet), economics–Kuznets curve; cluster 6 (light blue), energy; and cluster 7 (orange), soil—land.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t007

3.6. Outstanding contributions in the field

The cocitation analysis identified a total of 232,081 references cited by the 5,281 articles under study. It suggests taking as references to review those that present 44 or more occurrences in the database (232,081/5,281). This method results in 34 articles that have been used as main inputs for the scientific production under analysis, cited between 44 and 504 times. A result worth highlighting is that one in three of these documents corresponds to reports from international organisations, such as the United Nations (UN), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), World Bank Group (WB) or World Health Organization (WHO). However, it is also possible to identify 21 peer-reviewed scientific contributions. These papers are identified in detail in Table 8 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.t008

The cocitation analysis yields the degree of relationship of these 21 most cited research articles. It is how such references have been used simultaneously in the same article. Fig 4 displays this information (to help readers, it has also been included in Table 8 , centrality in 21 column).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.g004

According to the relationship level in the most cited article’s selection, the graph ( Fig 3 ) has been clustered in three colours: cluster 1 in red colour groups the highest articles proportion (9) published between 2013 and 2017 in 7 journals. These journals present an impact factor (IF) quite heterogeneous, with values ranging from 2.576 (Sustainability) to 60.39 (Lancet) and indexed in one or more of the following WoS categories: Environmental Sciences (4 journals), Green & Sustainable Science & Technology (4), Environmental Studies (2), Development Studies (1), Medicine, General & Internal (1), Multidisciplinary Sciences (1) and Regional & Urban Planning (1). Three of these articles are cited 130–150 times in the 5,281-article dataset and, at the same time, show a connection centrality of 95–100% with the other 20 articles in the graph, implying a high level of cocitation. The other two clusters group six articles each. The articles of cluster 2 (green colour) are included in a widespread WoS category set: Environmental Sciences (3 journals), Geosciences, Multidisciplinary (2), Ecology (1), Economics (1), Energy & Fuels (1), Environmental Studies (1), Green & Sustainable Science & Technology (1), Materials Science, Multidisciplinary (1), Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences (1) and Multidisciplinary Sciences (1). The research of Nilsson [ 101 ] was used as a reference in 176 of the 5,281 articles under study, showing a centrality of 100%. This great connection level is also featured in another less cited article [ 17 ] published in Earth’s Future. Finally, cluster 3 (blue) highlights six articles concentrated in three highly cited journals in the WoS categories: Medicine, General & Internal (Lancet) and Multidisciplinary Sciences (Nature and Science), whose IFs range from 41.9 to 60.4. In general, they are articles less connected (cocited) to the set of 21, with centralities of 30–90%. Two of these articles were referenced 140 times or more, although one was published in 2009. Thus, cluster 3 concentrates the references mainly in journals on environmental issues with scientific-technological orientation, as well as classic and high-impact WoS journals (The Lancet, Nature and Science). It is worth noting that some of these top journals may not be listed in Table 4 as they are not included in the Bradford’s nucleus, due to their comparatively low number of contributions published.

Finally, continuing with the thematic study, a cross-citation analysis was developed. Considering only the 81 articles that are part of the h-index of the total set of 5,821 articles under study, the citations that are presented among this elite article set are explored using VosViewer. The cross-citation analysis detects existing relationships between 37 of these 81 articles. Once the directionality of the citations has been analysed, a directed temporal graph is generated using Pajek 64 version 5.09, which is presented in Fig 5 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.g005

Fig 5 shows how these 37 highly cited articles are related to each other (the number after the name is the publication year), considering that some of these articles are cited as references in other articles in this set. The relationships between the articles in Fig 5 are complex and should be understood under a temporal sequence logic in the citation between two articles. However, some trends can be highlighted.

On the one hand, some contributions stand out for their centrality. Lim et al. [ 102 ] is connected with eight of the 37 articles (21.6%) on citing relationships, as is Fullman et al. [ 27 ], which relates to seven of the 37 articles (18.9%). Both authors researched health issues and are also coauthors of nine articles of the dataset under study. On the other hand, according to the SDG segmentation proposed, Hajer et al. [ 19 ] and Le Blanc [ 12 ] are recognized as seminal articles in social SDGs, since they contribute to the production of other subsequent articles in the set of 37. On the other hand, in health matters, seminal articles are Norheim et al. [ 103 ] and You et al. [ 104 ], two articles published in The Lancet whose citations also contribute to the production of the set introduced as Fig 5 .

4. Discussion

The main purpose of this paper was to develop a critical and comprehensive scientometric analysis of the global academic literature on the SDGs from 2015 to 2020, conducted using the WoS database. The attained results have made it possible to comprehend and communicate to the scientific community the current state of the debate on the SDGs, thus offering insights for future lines of research.

To achieve the objectives, the present study analysed a broad spectrum of 5,281 articles published in 1,135 WoS journals. A first aspect that is striking is the great diversity of topics addressed in these studies, which reflects the multidimensionality of the SDGs. Despite this, more than half of the articles are concentrated in two JCR-WoS categories (Environmental Sciences and Green Sustainable Science Technology), a percentage that exceeds 80% if the categories Environmental Studies and Public Environmental Occupational Health are added. Thus, on the one hand, the size of the body of literature and the broad spectrum of topics more than covers the four perspectives of analysis that are relevant in research on the SDGs, according to Hajer et al. [ 19 ]: planetary boundaries, the safe and just operating space, the energetic society and, last, green competition. However, on the other hand, results also highlight a strong focus on the environmental aspects of the SDGs, which undoubtedly concentrate the most contributions.

The Sustainable Development Goals constitute an area of research that has experienced exponential scientific growth, a tendency already suggested by previous studies [ 81 , 105 ], thus complying with the fundamental principles of Price’s law [ 76 ], which suggests the need for this exponential growth to manifest a continuous renewal of knowledge on the subject under study. The results of this study highlight a significant increase in the number of articles published in the last two years, given that six out of ten articles were published in 2019 or 2020. This tendency confirms how the SDGs continue to arouse great interest in the scientific community and that the debate on the interpretation of sustainable development is still open and very present in academia.

The variety of knowledge areas from which science can approach the SDGs demonstrates the different avenues that exist to address different research questions and their multidimensional nature, as anticipated by Pradhan et al. [ 17 ], a dispersion not far from the traditional fields of knowledge or the conventional dimensions of sustainability. Investigating the reasons for this dispersion in academic research on the SDGs may be a topic of great interest, as anticipated by Burford et al. [ 47 ] and Le Blanc [ 12 ], since understanding the phenomenon of development can only be achieved if the main challenges, both current and future, can be viewed holistically and comprehensively. Along these lines, Imaz and Eizagirre [ 106 ] state that the complexity of the study of the SDGs is undoubtedly marked by their aspiration for universality, by their broad scope encompassing the three basic pillars of sustainable development (economic development, environmental sustainability and social inclusion) and by their desire for integration, motivated by the complexity of the challenges and by the countless interlinkages and interdependencies.

This natural multidimensionality of the SDGs calls for strong cooperation and collaboration between researchers, universities, and countries. In this sense, the scientometric analysis provides good news, as more than a hundred prolific authors (defined as those authors who have published nine or more articles on this topic) have been identified, although these are reduced to eight in contemporary terms (2019 or 2020). This select group of eight authors who lead research and publishing on the SDGs (sometimes with dual or triple affiliations) produce knowledge for universities and research centres both in the global north and the global south: Canada, the U.S., the UK, Germany, Pakistan, Turkey, India, Benin, Russia and Cyprus. The protagonist role played by research institutes in countries in the north has already been acknowledged by previous studies [ 81 , 105 ]. However, the emergence of top scholars producing academic knowledge from developing countries is a more recent tendency, which underscores the pertinence of this analysis.

A closer look at the academic and research curricula of these authors leads to the conclusion that the study of the SDGs does not constitute a final field of research at present. These researchers come from very heterogeneous disciplines, so their approach to the SDGs is also multidisciplinary. To illustrate it with an example, the most cited article by Professor Abhilash of Banaras Hindu University (the most published contemporary prolific author along with Christopher Murray of the University of Washington), with 363 WoS citations in February 2021 alone, is on the use and application of pesticides in India.

In more concrete terms, following Wu et al.’s [ 23 ] classification as a frame of reference, the eight most prolific contemporary authors approach the SDG research problem from two main domains, one of an environmental nature (Abhilash, Leal-Filho, Alola and Kalin) and the other related to health (Murray, Yaya, Bhutta, and Hay). The most common journals where these authors publish on environmental issues are the Journal of Cleaner Production, Higher Education, Water and Science of the Total Environment. Health researchers, on the other hand, tend to publish mainly in the journals of the BMC group, The Lancet and Nature.

This wide diversity of academic fora can be clarified with the application of Bradford’s laws, which identified a core of 18 journals that bring together the debates and academic discussions about the SDGs. It is worth noting that the 18 journals that form the core are distributed in 16 different thematic areas or WoS categories: Development Studies; Ecology; Economics; Education & Educational Research; Engineering, Environmental; Environmental Sciences; Environmental Studies; Green & Sustainable Science & Technology; Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism; International Relations; Medicine, General & Internal; Multidisciplinary Sciences; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; Regional & Urban Planning; and Water Resources. On the one hand, this wide dispersion in terms of areas of knowledge suggests that research on the SDGs can be studied from different approaches and disciplines, which opens up a wide range of possibilities for researchers from different branches of scientific knowledge, as well as an opportunity for multidisciplinary collaborations. On the other hand, this heterogeneity might also hinder the communication and dissemination of learning from one field to another. The cross-citation analysis provided in Fig 5 suggests this possibility, as seminal works are related to thematic disciplines more than to the seminal contributions identified in Table 8 .

In this sense, it is interesting to analyse the top-cited articles in the database, as they provide a clear picture of the field of knowledge. One-third of these contributions are provided by international institutions, such as the United Nations Development Program or the World Bank, which provide analyses of a normative nature. This prevalence reflects some weaknesses in the academic basis of the analysis of the SDGs as a whole from a scientific approach, an idea reinforced when the most cited papers are analysed. In fact, only six papers have reached more than 100 citations by contributions included in the database [ 4 , 12 , 24 , 29 , 101 , 107 ]. Not only were these papers largely published before the approval of the SDGs themselves, but half of them are editorial material, inviting contributions but are not evidence-based research papers. Highlighting the nature of the most cited contributions does not diminish their value but does speak to the normative approach that underlies the analysis of the SDGs when addressed not individually but as an overall field of research.

Regarding topics and themes of interest, the scientometric analysis carried out in this research identified a strong concentration around a small number of terms, as represented in a heat map ( Fig 2A and 2B ). All these topics constitute a potential source of inspiration for future research on the subject.

Through an analysis of the main keywords, it can be seen that the studies focused on the traditional areas of health and climate change. However, these keywords also provide new elements for discussion, as they uncover some other areas of study that have been highlighted by the literature. First, the appearance of the term Management as one of the main keywords reveals the importance that researchers give to the role of business in achieving the SDGs, as already suggested by Scheyvens et al. [ 49 ] and Spangenber [ 22 ]. Second, the need to address new governance processes and to seek global solutions, as suggested by authors such as Sachs [ 4 ], underscore the keywords Governance, Policy and Framework, all aspects deemed crucial for the achievement of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda [ 108 ]. Finally, other keywords such as Impact, Challenges or Systems are a clear example of the complexity and interdependencies that exist in research on the SDGs, considered an essential aspect by Griggs et al. [ 13 ] or Le Blanc [ 12 ]. The attained results highlight some of the connections between different domains of sustainable development by identifying categories and themes that are highly related in the groupings that emerge from the bibliographic coupling analysis.

In general terms, the holistic vision of development embodied by the SDGs has drawn the attention of very different disciplines, fields and areas of scientific knowledge. However, seven major areas of research have emerged: environmental and public affairs, health, economics, health-burden of disease, economics-Kuznets curve, energy and soil-land. These areas are not far removed from the current paradigm of sustainable development, where poverty or inequality are problems that are not exclusive to developing countries [ 5 , 6 ]. Thus, emerging issues that mainly affect first world countries, including urban planning, the impact of activities such as hospitality, sport or tourism, or education for development, are starting to stand out with increasing intensity, which continues to open new avenues for future research.

In short, the results of the scientometric analysis have provided a systematized overview of the research conducted in relation to the SDGs since the approval of the 2030 Agenda. Among other things, the critical analysis has identified the main trends with respect to the number of publications, the most relevant journals, the most prolific authors, institutions and countries, and the collaborative networks between authors and the research areas at the epicentre of the debate on the SDGs. As Olawumi and Chan [ 105 ] already acknowledged, the power research networks applied to the study of the SDGs offer valuable insights and in-depth understandings not only of key scholars and institutions but also about the state of research fields, emerging trends and salient topics.

Consequently, the results of this work contribute to the systematic analysis of scientific research on the SDGs, which can be of great interest for decision-making at the governmental level (e.g., which research to fund and which not to fund), at the corporate level and at the level of research centres, both public and private. Furthermore, the scientometric analysis carried out may provide clues for academics regarding future lines of research and topics of interest where the debate on the SDGs is currently situated.

5. Conclusions, limitations and future research lines

As could not be otherwise, all research in the field of social sciences has a series of limitations that must be clearly and transparently explained. The two most relevant in this study are the following.

First, although the study of the SDGs is a recent object of research, the rate of publication is growing exponentially, such that scientific knowledge is renewed practically in its entirety every two years. The only articles that escape this scientometric obsolescence are those with a high number of citations (h-index). This circumstance generates a temporal limitation in terms of the conclusions obtained in the present investigation, conclusions that should be revised periodically until the growth of publications stabilizes by adopting a logistic form, as recommended by Sun and Lin [ 109 ].

Second, the articles used as the basis for this research were restricted to those published in the JCR-WoS. This decision was made for two main reasons. On the one hand, the limitation was to eliminate potential distortions that could occur as a result of the constant growth of journals that are incorporated annually into other databases, such as ESCI-WoS (Emerging Sources Citation Index). On the other hand, it is impossible to compare impact indices if integrating other databases such as Scopus.

We are aware of these limitations, which for developing a more selective analysis imply assuming the cost of less coverage in exchange.

Regarding future lines of research, the analysis highlights how the study of the SDGs is failing to balance their economic, social and sustainability components, as it still maintains an overall focus on environmental studies.

This suggests the urgency of increasing studies on social SDGs, key topics on the 2030 Agenda including equity (SDGs 4, 5 and 10), social development (SDGs 11 and 16) and governance (SDG 17). These topics are part of the public discourse and currently a source of social pressure in many latitudes, but they are still research areas that are necessary to deepen.

Economic sustainability studies are more present, but highly concentrated, in health economics, as previously acknowledged by Meschede [ 81 ]. Academic research on the SDGs against poverty (SDG 1) and hunger (SDG 2) has not achieved such a prominent place as health. Even less so, the economics of technological development (SDGs 8 and 9), which are recognized as crucial for economic development.

Finally, the environmental SDGs do not achieve a balance among themselves either. Academic research has prioritized action for climate (SDG 13) and industrial and human consumption, mainly water (SDG 6) and energy (SDG 7). New research should be developed in the area of land (SDG 15), life under the sea (SDG 14) and sustainable production (SDG 12).

Supporting information

S1 dataset..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265409.s001

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 9. Nations United. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York, NY, USA: United Nations; 2015.

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Sustainable Development: Samples in 250, 300 and 500 Words

• Updated on  
• Nov 18, 2023

On 3rd August 2023, the Indian Government released its Net zero emissions target policy to reduce its carbon footprints. To achieve the sustainable development goals (SDG) , as specified by the UN, India is determined for its long-term low-carbon development strategy. Selfishly pursuing modernization, humans have frequently compromised with the requirements of a more sustainable environment.

As a result, the increased environmental depletion is evident with the prevalence of deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gases, climate change etc. To combat these challenges, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change launched the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) in 2019. The objective was to improve air quality in 131 cities in 24 States/UTs by engaging multiple stakeholders.

‘Development is not real until and unless it is sustainable development.’ – Ban Ki-Moon

The concept of Sustainable Development in India has even greater relevance due to the controversy surrounding the big dams and mega projects and related long-term growth. Since it is quite a frequently asked topic in school tests as well as competitive exams , we are here to help you understand what this concept means as well as the mantras to drafting a well-written essay on Sustainable Development with format and examples.

This Blog Includes:

What is sustainable development, 250-300 words essay on sustainable development, 300 words essay on sustainable development, 500 words essay on sustainable development, introduction, conclusion of sustainable development essay, importance of sustainable development, examples of sustainable development.

As the term simply explains, Sustainable Development aims to bring a balance between meeting the requirements of what the present demands while not overlooking the needs of future generations. It acknowledges nature’s requirements along with the human’s aim to work towards the development of different aspects of the world. It aims to efficiently utilise resources while also meticulously planning the accomplishment of immediate as well as long-term goals for human beings, the planet as well and future generations. In the present time, the need for Sustainable Development is not only for the survival of mankind but also for its future protection. 

Looking for ideas to incorporate in your Essay on Sustainable Development? Read our blog on Energy Management – Find Your Sustainable Career Path and find out!

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 250-300 words:

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 300 + words:

Must Read: Article Writing

To give you an idea of the way to deliver a well-written essay, we have curated a sample on sustainable development below, with 500 + words:

Essay Format

Before drafting an essay on Sustainable Development, students need to get familiarised with the format of essay writing, to know how to structure the essay on a given topic. Take a look at the following pointers which elaborate upon the format of a 300-350 word essay.

Introduction (50-60 words) In the introduction, students must introduce or provide an overview of the given topic, i.e. highlighting and adding recent instances and questions related to sustainable development. Body of Content (100-150 words) The area of the content after the introduction can be explained in detail about why sustainable development is important, its objectives and highlighting the efforts made by the government and various institutions towards it.  Conclusion (30-40 words) In the essay on Sustainable Development, you must add a conclusion wrapping up the content in about 2-3 lines, either with an optimistic touch to it or just summarizing what has been talked about above.

How to write the introduction of a sustainable development essay? To begin with your essay on sustainable development, you must mention the following points:

• What is sustainable development?
• What does sustainable development focus on?
• Why is it useful for the environment?

How to write the conclusion of a sustainable development essay? To conclude your essay on sustainable development, mention why it has become the need of the hour. Wrap up all the key points you have mentioned in your essay and provide some important suggestions to implement sustainable development.

The importance of sustainable development is that it meets the needs of the present generations without compromising on the needs of the coming future generations. Sustainable development teaches us to use our resources in the correct manner. Listed below are some points which tell us the importance of sustainable development.

• Focuses on Sustainable Agricultural Methods – Sustainable development is important because it takes care of the needs of future generations and makes sure that the increasing population does not put a burden on Mother Earth. It promotes agricultural techniques such as crop rotation and effective seeding techniques.
• Manages Stabilizing the Climate – We are facing the problem of climate change due to the excessive use of fossil fuels and the killing of the natural habitat of animals. Sustainable development plays a major role in preventing climate change by developing practices that are sustainable. It promotes reducing the use of fossil fuels which release greenhouse gases that destroy the atmosphere.
• Provides Important Human Needs – Sustainable development promotes the idea of saving for future generations and making sure that resources are allocated to everybody. It is based on the principle of developing an infrastructure that is can be sustained for a long period of time.
• Sustain Biodiversity – If the process of sustainable development is followed, the home and habitat of all other living animals will not be depleted. As sustainable development focuses on preserving the ecosystem it automatically helps in sustaining and preserving biodiversity.
• Financial Stability – As sustainable development promises steady development the economies of countries can become stronger by using renewable sources of energy as compared to using fossil fuels, of which there is only a particular amount on our planet.

Mentioned below are some important examples of sustainable development. Have a look:

• Wind Energy – Wind energy is an easily available resource. It is also a free resource. It is a renewable source of energy and the energy which can be produced by harnessing the power of wind will be beneficial for everyone. Windmills can produce energy which can be used to our benefit. It can be a helpful source of reducing the cost of grid power and is a fine example of sustainable development. 
• Solar Energy – Solar energy is also a source of energy which is readily available and there is no limit to it. Solar energy is being used to replace and do many things which were first being done by using non-renewable sources of energy. Solar water heaters are a good example. It is cost-effective and sustainable at the same time.
• Crop Rotation – To increase the potential of growth of gardening land, crop rotation is an ideal and sustainable way. It is rid of any chemicals and reduces the chances of disease in the soil. This form of sustainable development is beneficial to both commercial farmers and home gardeners.
• Efficient Water Fixtures – The installation of hand and head showers in our toilets which are efficient and do not waste or leak water is a method of conserving water. Water is essential for us and conserving every drop is important. Spending less time under the shower is also a way of sustainable development and conserving water.
• Sustainable Forestry – This is an amazing way of sustainable development where the timber trees that are cut by factories are replaced by another tree. A new tree is planted in place of the one which was cut down. This way, soil erosion is prevented and we have hope of having a better, greener future.

Related Articles

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 global goals established by the United Nations in 2015. These include: No Poverty Zero Hunger Good Health and Well-being Quality Education Gender Equality Clean Water and Sanitation Affordable and Clean Energy Decent Work and Economic Growth Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure Reduced Inequality Sustainable Cities and Communities Responsible Consumption and Production Climate Action Life Below Water Life on Land Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions Partnerships for the Goals

The SDGs are designed to address a wide range of global challenges, such as eradicating extreme poverty globally, achieving food security, focusing on promoting good health and well-being, inclusive and equitable quality education, etc.

India is ranked #111 in the Sustainable Development Goal Index 2023 with a score of 63.45.

Hence, we hope that this blog helped you understand the key features of an essay on sustainable development. If you are interested in Environmental studies and planning to pursue sustainable tourism courses , take the assistance of Leverage Edu ’s AI-based tool to browse through a plethora of programs available in this specialised field across the globe and find the best course and university combination that fits your interests, preferences and aspirations. Call us immediately at 1800 57 2000 for a free 30-minute counselling session

Team Leverage Edu

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Thanks a lot for this important essay.

NICELY AND WRITTEN WITH CLARITY TO CONCEIVE THE CONCEPTS BEHIND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

Thankyou so much!

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Open access
• Published: 13 January 2020

The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

• Ricardo Vinuesa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6570-5499 1 ,
• Hossein Azizpour   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5211-6388 2 ,
• Iolanda Leite 2 ,
• Madeline Balaam 3 ,
• Virginia Dignum 4 ,
• Sami Domisch   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8127-9335 5 ,
• Anna Felländer 6 ,
• Simone Daniela Langhans 7 , 8 ,
• Max Tegmark 9 &
• Francesco Fuso Nerini   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4770-4051 10  

Nature Communications volume  11 , Article number:  233 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

400k Accesses

909 Citations

917 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Computational science
• Developing world
• Energy efficiency

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and its progressively wider impact on many sectors requires an assessment of its effect on the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. Using a consensus-based expert elicitation process, we find that AI can enable the accomplishment of 134 targets across all the goals, but it may also inhibit 59 targets. However, current research foci overlook important aspects. The fast development of AI needs to be supported by the necessary regulatory insight and oversight for AI-based technologies to enable sustainable development. Failure to do so could result in gaps in transparency, safety, and ethical standards.

Similar content being viewed by others

A definition, benchmark and database of AI for social good initiatives

AI for social good: unlocking the opportunity for positive impact

Accelerating evidence-informed decision-making for the Sustainable Development Goals using machine learning

Introduction.

The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) is shaping an increasing range of sectors. For instance, AI is expected to affect global productivity 1 , equality and inclusion 2 , environmental outcomes 3 , and several other areas, both in the short and long term 4 . Reported potential impacts of AI indicate both positive 5 and negative 6 impacts on sustainable development. However, to date, there is no published study systematically assessing the extent to which AI might impact all aspects of sustainable development—defined in this study as the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets internationally agreed in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 7 . This is a critical research gap, as we find that AI may influence the ability to meet all SDGs.

Here we present and discuss implications of how AI can either enable or inhibit the delivery of all 17 goals and 169 targets recognized in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Relationships were characterized by the methods reported at the end of this study, which can be summarized as a consensus-based expert elicitation process, informed by previous studies aimed at mapping SDGs interlinkages 8 , 9 , 10 . A summary of the results is given in Fig.  1 and the Supplementary Data  1 provides a complete list of all the SDGs and targets, together with the detailed results from this work. Although there is no internationally agreed definition of AI, for this study we considered as AI any software technology with at least one of the following capabilities: perception—including audio, visual, textual, and tactile (e.g., face recognition), decision-making (e.g., medical diagnosis systems), prediction (e.g., weather forecast), automatic knowledge extraction and pattern recognition from data (e.g., discovery of fake news circles in social media), interactive communication (e.g., social robots or chat bots), and logical reasoning (e.g., theory development from premises). This view encompasses a large variety of subfields, including machine learning.

Documented evidence of the potential of AI acting as ( a ) an enabler or ( b ) an inhibitor on each of the SDGs. The numbers inside the colored squares represent each of the SDGs (see the Supplementary Data  1 ). The percentages on the top indicate the proportion of all targets potentially affected by AI and the ones in the inner circle of the figure correspond to proportions within each SDG. The results corresponding to the three main groups, namely Society, Economy, and Environment, are also shown in the outer circle of the figure. The results obtained when the type of evidence is taken into account are shown by the inner shaded area and the values in brackets.

Documented connections between AI and the SDGs

Our review of relevant evidence shows that AI may act as an enabler on 134 targets (79%) across all SDGs, generally through a technological improvement, which may allow to overcome certain present limitations. However, 59 targets (35%, also across all SDGs) may experience a negative impact from the development of AI. For the purpose of this study, we divide the SDGs into three categories, according to the three pillars of sustainable development, namely Society, Economy, and Environment 11 , 12 (see the Methods section). This classification allows us to provide an overview of the general areas of influence of AI. In Fig.  1 , we also provide the results obtained when weighting how appropriate is the evidence presented in each reference to assess an interlinkage to the percentage of targets assessed, as discussed in the Methods section and below. A detailed assessment of the Society, Economy, and Environment groups, together with illustrative examples, are discussed next.

AI and societal outcomes

Sixty-seven targets (82%) within the Society group could potentially benefit from AI-based technologies (Fig.  2 ). For instance, in SDG 1 on no poverty, SDG 4 on quality education, SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation, SDG 7 on affordable and clean energy, and SDG 11 on sustainable cities, AI may act as an enabler for all the targets by supporting the provision of food, health, water, and energy services to the population. It can also underpin low-carbon systems, for instance, by supporting the creation of circular economies and smart cities that efficiently use their resources 13 , 14 . For example, AI can enable smart and low-carbon cities encompassing a range of interconnected technologies such as electrical autonomous vehicles and smart appliances that can enable demand response in the electricity sector 13 , 14 (with benefits across SDGs 7, 11, and 13 on climate action). AI can also help to integrate variable renewables by enabling smart grids that partially match electrical demand to times when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing 13 . Fewer targets in the Society group can be impacted negatively by AI (31 targets, 38%) than the ones with positive impact. However, their consideration is crucial. Many of these relate to how the technological improvements enabled by AI may be implemented in countries with different cultural values and wealth. Advanced AI technology, research, and product design may require massive computational resources only available through large computing centers. These facilities have a very high energy requirement and carbon footprint 15 . For instance, cryptocurrency applications such as Bitcoin are globally using as much electricity as some nations’ electrical demand 16 , compromising outcomes in the SDG 7 sphere, but also on SDG 13 on Climate Action. Some estimates suggest that the total electricity demand of information and communications technologies (ICTs) could require up to 20% of the global electricity demand by 2030, from around 1% today 15 . Green growth of ICT technology is therefore essential 17 . More efficient cooling systems for data centers, broader energy efficiency, and renewable-energy usage in ICTs will all play a role in containing the electricity demand growth 15 . In addition to more efficient and renewable-energy-based data centers, it is essential to embed human knowledge in the development of AI models. Besides the fact that the human brain consumes much less energy than what is used to train AI models, the available knowledge introduced in the model (see, for instance, physics-informed deep learning 18 ) does not need to be learnt through data-intensive training, a fact that may significantly reduce the associated energy consumption. Although AI-enabled technology can act as a catalyst to achieve the 2030 Agenda, it may also trigger inequalities that may act as inhibitors on SDGs 1, 4, and 5. This duality is reflected in target 1.1, as AI can help to identify areas of poverty and foster international action using satellite images 5 . On the other hand, it may also lead to additional qualification requirements for any job, consequently increasing the inherent inequalities 19 and acting as an inhibitor towards the achievement of this target.

Documented evidence of positive or negative impact of AI on the achievement of each of the targets from SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 16 ( https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ ). Each block in the diagram represents a target (see the Supplementary Data  1 for additional details on the targets). For targets highlighted in green or orange, we found published evidence that AI could potentially enable or inhibit such target, respectively. The absence of highlighting indicates the absence of identified evidence. It is noteworthy that this does not necessarily imply the absence of a relationship. (The content of of this figure has not been reviewed by the United Nations and does not reflect its views).

Another important drawback of AI-based developments is that they are traditionally based on the needs and values of nations in which AI is being developed. If AI technology and big data are used in regions where ethical scrutiny, transparency, and democratic control are lacking, AI might enable nationalism, hate towards minorities, and bias election outcomes 20 . The term “big nudging” has emerged to represent using big data and AI to exploit psychological weaknesses to steer decisions—creating problems such as damaging social cohesion, democratic principles, and even human rights 21 . AI has been recently utilized to develop citizen scores, which are used to control social behavior 22 . This type of score is a clear example of threat to human rights due to AI misuse and one of its biggest problems is the lack of information received by the citizens on the type of analyzed data and the consequences this may have on their lives. It is also important to note that AI technology is unevenly distributed: for instance, complex AI-enhanced agricultural equipment may not be accessible to small farmers and thus produce an increased gap with respect to larger producers in more developed economies 23 , consequently inhibiting the achievement of some targets of SDG 2 on zero hunger. There is another important shortcoming of AI in the context of SDG 5 on gender equality: there is insufficient research assessing the potential impact of technologies such as smart algorithms, image recognition, or reinforced learning on discrimination against women and minorities. For instance, machine-learning algorithms uncritically trained on regular news articles will inadvertently learn and reproduce the societal biases against women and girls, which are embedded in current languages. Word embeddings, a popular technique in natural language processing, have been found to exacerbate existing gender stereotypes 2 . In addition to the lack of diversity in datasets, another main issue is the lack of gender, racial, and ethnic diversity in the AI workforce 24 . Diversity is one of the main principles supporting innovation and societal resilience, which will become essential in a society exposed to changes associated to AI development 25 . Societal resilience is also promoted by decentralization, i.e., by the implementation of AI technologies adapted to the cultural background and the particular needs of different regions.

AI and economic outcomes

The technological advantages provided by AI may also have a positive impact on the achievement of a number of SDGs within the Economy group. We have identified benefits from AI on 42 targets (70%) from these SDGs, whereas negative impacts are reported in 20 targets (33%), as shown in Fig.  1 . Although Acemoglu and Restrepo 1 report a net positive impact of AI-enabled technologies associated to increased productivity, the literature also reflects potential negative impacts mainly related to increased inequalities 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 . In the context of the Economy group of SDGs, if future markets rely heavily on data analysis and these resources are not equally available in low- and middle- income countries, the economical gap may be significantly increased due to the newly introduced inequalities 30 , 31 significantly impacting SDGs 8 (decent work and economic growth), 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), and 10 (reduced inequalities). Brynjolfsson and McAfee 31  argue that AI can exacerbate inequality also within nations. By replacing old jobs with ones requiring more skills, technology disproportionately rewards the educated: since the mid 1970s, the salaries in the United States (US) salaries rose about 25% for those with graduate degrees, while the average high-school dropout took a 30% pay cut. Moreover, automation shifts corporate income to those who own companies from those who work there. Such transfer of revenue from workers to investors helps explain why, even though the combined revenues of Detroit's “Big 3” (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) in 1990 were almost identical to those of Silicon Valley's “Big 3” (Google, Apple, and Facebook) in 2014, the latter had 9 times fewer employees and were worth 30 times more on the stock market 32 . Figure  3 shows an assessment of the documented positive and negative effects on the various targets within the SDGs in the Economy group.

Documented evidence of positive or negative impact of AI on the achievement of each of the targets from SDGs 8, 9, 10, 12, and 17 ( https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ ). The interpretation of the blocks and colors is as in Fig.  2 .  (The content of of this figure has not been reviewed by the United Nations and does not reflect its views).

Although the identified linkages in the Economy group are mainly positive, trade-offs cannot be neglected. For instance, AI can have a negative effect on social media usage, by showing users content specifically suited to their preconceived ideas. This may lead to political polarization 33 and affect social cohesion 21 with consequences in the context of SDG 10 on reduced inequalities. On the other hand, AI can help identify sources of inequality and conflict 34 , 35 , and therewith potentially reduce inequalities, for instance, by using simulations to assess how virtual societies may respond to changes. However, there is an underlying risk when using AI to evaluate and predict human behavior, which is the inherent bias in the data. It has been reported that a number of discriminatory challenges are faced in the automated targeting of online job advertising using AI 35 , essentially related to the previous biases in selection processes conducted by human recruiters. The work by Dalenberg 35 highlights the need of modifying the data preparation process and explicitly adapting the AI-based algorithms used for selection processes to avoid such biases.

AI and environmental outcomes

The last group of SDGs, i.e., the one related to Environment, is analyzed in Fig.  4 . The three SDGs in this group are related to climate action, life below water and life on land (SDGs 13, 14, and 15). For the Environment group, we identified 25 targets (93%) for which AI could act as an enabler. Benefits from AI could be derived by the possibility of analyzing large-scale interconnected databases to develop joint actions aimed at preserving the environment. Looking at SDG 13 on climate action, there is evidence that AI advances will support the understanding of climate change and the modeling of its possible impacts. Furthermore, AI will support low-carbon energy systems with high integration of renewable energy and energy efficiency, which are all needed to address climate change 13 , 36 , 37 . AI can also be used to help improve the health of ecosystems. The achievement of target 14.1, calling to prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, can benefit from AI through algorithms for automatic identification of possible oil spills 38 . Another example is target 15.3, which calls for combating desertification and restoring degraded land and soil. According to Mohamadi et al. 39 , neural networks and objective-oriented techniques can be used to improve the classification of vegetation cover types based on satellite images, with the possibility of processing large amounts of images in a relatively short time. These AI techniques can help to identify desertification trends over large areas, information that is relevant for environmental planning, decision-making, and management to avoid further desertification, or help reverse trends by identifying the major drivers. However, as pointed out above, efforts to achieve SDG 13 on climate action could be undermined by the high-energy needs for AI applications, especially if non carbon-neutral energy sources are used. Furthermore, despite the many examples of how AI is increasingly applied to improve biodiversity monitoring and conservation 40 , it can be conjectured that an increased access to AI-related information of ecosystems may drive over-exploitation of resources, although such misuse has so far not been sufficiently documented. This aspect is further discussed below, where currently identified gaps in AI research are considered.

Documented evidence of positive or negative impact of AI on the achievement of each of the targets from SDGs 13, 14, and 15 ( https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ ). The interpretation of the blocks and colors is as in Fig.  2 . (The content of of this figure has not been reviewed by the United Nations and does not reflect its views).

An assessment of the collected evidence on the interlinkages

A deeper analysis of the gathered evidence was undertaken as shown in Fig.  1 (and explained in the Methods section). In practice, each interlinkage was weighted based on the applicability and appropriateness of each of the references to assess a specific interlinkage—and possibly identify research gaps. Although accounting for the type of evidence has a relatively small effect on the positive impacts (we see a reduction of positively affected targets from 79% to 71%), we observe a more significant reduction (from 35% to 23%) in the targets with negative impact of AI. This can be partly due the fact that AI research typically involves quantitative methods that would bias the results towards the positive effects. However, there are some differences across the Society, Economy and Environment spheres. In the Society sphere, when weighting the appropriateness of evidence, positively affected targets diminish by 5 percentage points (p.p.) and negatively affected targets by 13 p.p. In particular, weighting the appropriateness of evidence on negative impacts on SDG 1 (on no poverty) and SDG 6 (on clean water and sanitation) reduces the fraction of affected targets by 43 p.p. and 35 p.p., respectively. In the Economy group instead, positive impacts are reduced more (15 p.p.) than negative ones (10 p.p.) when taking into account the appropriateness of the found evidence to speak of the issues. This can be related to the extensive study in literature assessing the displacement of jobs due to AI (because of clear policy and societal concerns), but overall the longer-term benefits of AI on the economy are perhaps not so extensively characterized by currently available methods. Finally, although the weighting of evidence decreases the positive impacts of AI on the Environment group only by 8 p.p., the negative impacts see the largest average reduction (18 p.p.). This is explained by the fact that, although there are some indications of the potential negative impact of AI on this SDG, there is no strong evidence (in any of the targets) supporting this claim, and therefore this is a relevant area for future research.

In general, the fact that the evidence on interlinkages between AI and the large majority of targets is not based on tailored analyses and tools to refer to that particular issue provides a strong rationale to address a number of research gaps, which are identified and listed in the section below.

Research gaps on the role of AI in sustainable development

The more we enable SDGs by deploying AI applications, from autonomous vehicles 41 to AI-powered healthcare solutions 42 and smart electrical grids 13 , the more important it becomes to invest in the AI safety research needed to keep these systems robust and beneficial, so as to prevent them from malfunctioning, or from getting hacked 43 . A crucial research venue for a safe integration of AI is understanding catastrophes, which can be enabled by a systemic fault in AI technology. For instance, a recent World Economic Forum (WEF) report raises such a concern due to the integration of AI in the financial sector 44 . It is therefore very important to raise awareness on the risks associated to possible failures of AI systems in a society progressively more dependent on this technology. Furthermore, although we were able to find numerous studies suggesting that AI can potentially serve as an enabler for many SDG targets and indicators, a significant fraction of these studies have been conducted in controlled laboratory environments, based on limited datasets or using prototypes 45 , 46 , 47 . Hence, extrapolating this information to evaluate the real-world effects often remains a challenge. This is particularly true when measuring the impact of AI across broader scales, both temporally and spatially. We acknowledge that conducting controlled experimental trials for evaluating real-world impacts of AI can result in depicting a snapshot situation, where AI tools are tailored towards that specific environment. However, as society is constantly changing (also due to factors including non-AI-based technological advances), the requirements set for AI are changing as well, resulting in a feedback loop with interactions between society and AI. Another underemphasized aspect in existing literature is the resilience of the society towards AI-enabled changes. Therefore, novel methodologies are required to ensure that the impact of new technologies are assessed from the points of view of efficiency, ethics, and sustainability, prior to launching large-scale AI deployments. In this sense, research aimed at obtaining insight on the reasons for failure of AI systems, introducing combined human–machine analysis tools 48 , are an essential step towards accountable AI technology, given the large risk associated to such a failure.

Although we found more published evidence of AI serving as an enabler than as an inhibitor on the SDGs, there are at least two important aspects that should be considered. First, self-interest can be expected to bias the AI research community and industry towards publishing positive results. Second, discovering detrimental aspects of AI may require longer-term studies and, as mentioned above, there are not many established evaluation methodologies available to do so. Bias towards publishing positive results is particularly apparent in the SDGs corresponding to the Environment group. A good example of this bias is target 14.5 on conserving coastal and marine areas, where machine-learning algorithms can provide optimum solutions given a wide range of parameters regarding the best choice of areas to include in conservation networks 49 . However, even if the solutions are optimal from a mathematical point of view (given a certain range of selected parameters), additional research would be needed to assess the long-term impact of such algorithms on equity and fairness 6 , precisely because of the unknown factors that may come into play. Regarding the second point stated above, it is likely that the AI projects with the highest potential of maximizing profit will get funded. Without control, research on AI is expected to be directed towards AI applications where funding and commercial interests are. This may result in increased inequality 50 . Consequently, there is the risk that AI-based technologies with potential to achieve certain SDGs may not be prioritized, if their expected economic impact is not high. Furthermore, it is essential to promote the development of initiatives to assess the societal, ethical, legal, and environmental implications of new AI technologies.

Substantive research and application of AI technologies to SDGs is concerned with the development of better data-mining and machine-learning techniques for the prediction of certain events. This is the case of applications such as forecasting extreme weather conditions or predicting recidivist offender behavior. The expectation with this research is to allow the preparation and response for a wide range of events. However, there is a research gap in real-world applications of such systems, e.g., by governments (as discussed above). Institutions have a number of barriers to the adoption AI systems as part of their decision-making process, including the need of setting up measures for cybersecurity and the need to protect the privacy of citizens and their data. Both aspects have implications on human rights regarding the issues of surveillance, tracking, communication, and data storage, as well as automation of processes without rigorous ethical standards 21 . Targeting these gaps would be essential to ensure the usability and practicality of AI technologies for governments. This would also be a prerequisite for understanding long-term impacts of AI regarding its potential, while regulating its use to reduce the possible bias that can be inherent to AI 6 .

Furthermore, our research suggests that AI applications are currently biased towards SDG issues that are mainly relevant to those nations where most AI researchers live and work. For instance, many systems applying AI technologies to agriculture, e.g., to automate harvesting or optimize its timing, are located within wealthy nations. Our literature search resulted in only a handful of examples where AI technologies are applied to SDG-related issues in nations without strong AI research. Moreover, if AI technologies are designed and developed for technologically advanced environments, they have the potential to exacerbate problems in less wealthy nations (e.g., when it comes to food production). This finding leads to a substantial concern that developments in AI technologies could increase inequalities both between and within countries, in ways which counteract the overall purpose of the SDGs. We encourage researchers and funders to focus more on designing and developing AI solutions, which respond to localized problems in less wealthy nations and regions. Projects undertaking such work should ensure that solutions are not simply transferred from technology-intensive nations. Instead, they should be developed based on a deep understanding of the respective region or culture to increase the likelihood of adoption and success.

Towards sustainable AI

The great wealth that AI-powered technology has the potential to create may go mainly to those already well-off and educated, while job displacement leaves others worse off. Globally, the growing economic importance of AI may result in increased inequalities due to the unevenly distributed educational and computing resources throughout the world. Furthermore, the existing biases in the data used to train AI algorithms may result in the exacerbation of those biases, eventually leading to increased discrimination. Another related problem is the usage of AI to produce computational (commercial, political) propaganda based on big data (also defined as “big nudging”), which is spread through social media by independent AI agents with the goals of manipulating public opinion and producing political polarization 51 . Despite the fact that current scientific evidence refutes technological determinism of such fake news 51 , long-term impacts of AI are possible (although unstudied) due to a lack of robust research methods. A change of paradigm is therefore needed to promote cooperation and to limit the possibilities for control of citizen behavior through AI. The concept of Finance 4.0 has been proposed 52 as a multi-currency financial system promoting a circular economy, which is aligned with societal goals and values. Informational self-determination (in which the individual takes an active role in how their data are handled by AI systems) would be an essential aspect of such a paradigm 52 . The data intensiveness of AI applications creates another problem: the need for more and more detailed information to improve AI algorithms, which is in conflict with the need of more transparent handling and protection of personal data 53 . One area where this conflict is particularly important is healthcare: Panch et al. 54 argue that although the vast amount of personal healthcare data could lead to the development of very powerful tools for diagnosis and treatment, the numerous problems associated to data ownership and privacy call for careful policy intervention. This is also an area where more research is needed to assess the possible long-term negative consequences. All the challenges mentioned above culminate in the academic discourse about legal personality of robots 55 , which may lead to alarming narratives of technological totalitarianism.

Many of these aspects result from the interplay between technological developments on one side and requests from individuals, response from governments, as well as environmental resources and dynamics on the other. Figure  5 shows a schematic representation of these dynamics, with emphasis on the role of technology. Based on the evidence discussed above, these interactions are not currently balanced and the advent of AI has exacerbated the process. A wide range of new technologies are being developed very fast, significantly affecting the way individuals live as well as the impacts on the environment, requiring new piloting procedures from governments. The problem is that neither individuals nor governments seem to be able to follow the pace of these technological developments. This fact is illustrated by the lack of appropriate legislation to ensure the long-term viability of these new technologies. We argue that it is essential to reverse this trend. A first step in this direction is to establish adequate policy and legislation frameworks, to help direct the vast potential of AI towards the highest benefit for individuals and the environment, as well as towards the achievement of the SDGs. Regulatory oversight should be preceded by regulatory insight, where policymakers have sufficient understanding of AI challenges to be able to formulate sound policy. Developing such insight is even more urgent than oversight, as policy formulated without understanding is likely to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.

Schematic representation showing the identified agents and their roles towards the development of AI. Thicker arrows indicate faster change. In this representation, technology affects individuals through technical developments, which change the way people work and interact with each other and with the environment, whereas individuals would interact with technology through new needs to be satisfied. Technology (including technology itself and its developers) affects governments through new developments that need appropriate piloting and testing. Also, technology developers affect government through lobbying and influencing decision makers. Governments provide legislation and standards to technology. The governments affect individuals through policy and legislation, and individuals would require new legislation consistent with the changing circumstances from the governments. The environment interacts with technology by providing the resources needed for technological development and is affected by the environmental impact of technology. Furthermore, the environment is affected either negatively or positively by the needs, impacts, and choices of individuals and governments, which in turn require environmental resources. Finally, the environment is also an underlying layer that provides the “planetary boundaries” to the mentioned interactions.

Although strong and connected institutions (covered by SDG 16) are needed to regulate the future of AI, we find that there is limited understanding of the potential impact of AI on institutions. Examples of the positive impacts include AI algorithms aimed at improving fraud detection 56 , 57 or assessing the possible effects of certain legislation 58 , 59 . Another concern is that data-driven approaches for policing may hinder equal access to justice because of algorithm bias, particularly towards minorities 60 . Consequently, we believe that it is imperative to develop legislation regarding transparency and accountability of AI, as well as to decide the ethical standards to which AI-based technology should be subjected to. This debate is being pushed forward by initiatives such as the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) ethical aligned design 60 and the new EU (European Union) ethical guidelines for trustworthy AI 61 . It is noteworthy that despite the importance of an ethical, responsible, and trustworthy approach to AI development and use, in a sense, this issue is independent of the aims of the article. In other words, one can envision AI applications that improve SDG outcomes while not being fully aligned with AI ethics guidelines. We therefore recommend that AI applications that target SDGs are open and explicit about guiding ethical principles, also by indicating explicitly how they align with the existing guidelines. On the other hand, the lack of interpretability of AI, which is currently one of the challenges of AI research, adds an additional complication to the enforcement of such regulatory actions 62 . Note that this implies that AI algorithms (which are trained with data consisting of previous regulations and decisions) may act as a “mirror” reflecting biases and unfair policy. This presents an opportunity to possibly identify and correct certain errors in the existing procedures. The friction between the uptake of data-driven AI applications and the need of protecting the privacy and security of the individuals is stark. When not properly regulated, the vast amount of data produced by citizens might potentially be used to influence consumer opinion towards a certain product or political cause 51 .

AI applications that have positive societal welfare implications may not always benefit each individual separately 41 . This inherent dilemma of collective vs. individual benefit is relevant in the scope of AI applications but is not one that should be solved by the application of AI itself. This has always been an issue affecting humankind and it cannot be solved in a simple way, since such a solution requires participation of all involved stakeholders. The dynamicity of context and the level of abstraction at which human values are described imply that there is not a single ethical theory that holds all the time in all situations 63 . Consequently, a single set of utilitarian ethical principles with AI would not be recommendable due to the high complexity of our societies 52 . It is also essential to be aware of the potential complexity in the interaction between human and AI agents, and of the increasing need for ethics-driven legislation and certification mechanisms for AI systems. This is true for all AI applications, but especially those that, if they became uncontrolled, could have even catastrophic effects on humanity, such as autonomous weapons. Regarding the latter, associations of AI and robotics experts are already getting together to call for legislation and limitations of their use 64 . Furthermore, associations such as the Future of Life Institute are reviewing and collecting policy actions and shared principles around the world to monitor progress towards sustainable-development-friendly AI 65 . To deal with the ethical dilemmas raised above, it is important that all applications provide openness about the choices and decisions made during design, development, and use, including information about the provenance and governance of the data used for training algorithms, and about whether and how they align with existing AI guidelines. It is therefore important to adopt decentralized AI approaches for a more equitable development of AI 66 .

We are at a critical turning point for the future of AI. A global and science-driven debate to develop shared principles and legislation among nations and cultures is necessary to shape a future in which AI positively contributes to the achievement of all the SDGs. The current choices to develop a sustainable-development-friendly AI by 2030 have the potential to unlock benefits that could go far-beyond the SDGs within our century. All actors in all nations should be represented in this dialogue, to ensure that no one is left behind. On the other hand, postponing or not having such a conversation could result in an unequal and unsustainable AI-fueled future.

In this section we describe the process employed to obtain the results described in the present study and shown in the Supplementary Data  1 . The goal was to answer the question “Is there published evidence of AI acting as an enabler or an inhibitor for this particular target?” for each of the 169 targets within the 17 SDGs. To this end, we conducted a consensus-based expert elicitation process, informed by previous studies on mapping SDGs interlinkages 8 , 9 and following Butler et al. 67 and Morgan 68 . The authors of this study are academics spanning a wide range of disciplines, including engineering, natural and social sciences, and acted as experts for the elicitation process. The authors performed an expert-driven literature search to support the identified connections between AI and the various targets, where the following sources of information were considered as acceptable evidence: published work on real-world applications (given the quality variation depending on the venue, we ensured that the publications considered in the analysis were of sufficient quality); published evidence on controlled/laboratory scenarios (given the quality variation depending on the venue, we ensured that the publications considered in the analysis were of sufficient quality); reports from accredited organizations (for instance: UN or government bodies); and documented commercial-stage applications. On the other hand, the following sources of information were not considered as acceptable evidence: educated conjectures, real-world applications without peer-reviewed research; media, public beliefs or other sources of information.

The expert elicitation process was conducted as follows: each of the SDGs was assigned to one or more main contributors, and in some cases to several additional contributors as summarized in the Supplementary Data  1 (here the initials correspond to the author names). The main contributors carried out a first literature search for that SDG and then the additional contributors completed the main analysis. One published study on a synergy or a trade-off between a target and AI was considered enough for mapping the interlinkage. However, for nearly all targets several references are provided. After the analysis of a certain SDG was concluded by the contributors, a reviewer was assigned to evaluate the connections and reasoning presented by the contributors. The reviewer was not part of the first analysis and we tried to assign the roles of the main contributor and reviewer to experts with complementary competences for each of the SDGs. The role of the reviewer was to bring up additional points of view and considerations, while critically assessing the analysis. Then, the main contributors and reviewers iteratively discussed to improve the results presented for each of the SDGs until the analysis for all the SDGs was sufficiently refined.

After reaching consensus regarding the assessment shown in the Supplementary Data  1 , we analyzed the results by evaluating the number of targets for which AI may act as an enabler or an inhibitor, and calculated the percentage of targets with positive and negative impact of AI for each of the 17 goals, as shown in Fig.  1 . In addition, we divided the SDGs into the three following categories: Society, Economy, and Environment, consistent with the classification discussed by Refs. 11 , 12 . The SDGs assigned to each of the categories are shown in Fig.  6 and the individual results from each of these groups can be observed in Figs.  2 – 4 . These figures indicate, for each target within each SDG, whether any published evidence of positive or negative impact was found.

(The content of this figure has not been reviewed by the United Nations and does not reflect its views).

Taking into account the types of evidence

In the methodology described above, a connection between AI and a certain target is established if at least one reference documenting such a link was found. As the analyzed studies rely on very different types of evidence, it is important to classify the references based on the methods employed to support their conclusions. Therefore, all the references in the Supplementary Data  1 include a classification from (A) to (D) according to the following criteria:

References using sophisticated tools and data to refer to this particular issue and with the possibility to be generalized are of type (A).

Studies based on data to refer to this particular issue, but with limited generalizability, are of type (B).

Anecdotal qualitative studies and methods are of type (C) .

Purely theoretical or speculative references are of type (D).

The various classes were assigned following the same expert elicitation process described above. Then, the contribution of these references towards the linkages is weighted and categories (A), (B), (C), and (D) are assigned relative weights of 1, 0.75, 0.5, and 0.25, respectively. It is noteworthy that, given the vast range of studies on all the SDG areas, the literature search was not exhaustive and, therefore, certain targets are related to more references than others in our study. To avoid any bias associated to the different amounts of references in the various targets, we considered the largest positive and negative weight to establish the connection with each target. Let us consider the following example: for a certain target, one reference of type (B) documents a positive connection and two references of types (A) and (D) document a negative connection with AI. In this case, the potential positive impact of AI on that target will be assessed with 0.75, while the potential negative impact is 1.

Limitations of the research

The presented analysis represents the perspective of the authors. Some literature on how AI might affect certain SDGs could have been missed by the authors or there might not be published evidence yet on such interlinkage. Nevertheless, the employed methods tried to minimize the subjectivity of the assessment. How AI might affect the delivery of each SDG was assessed and reviewed by several authors and a number of studies were reviewed for each interlinkage. Furthermore, as discussed in the Methods section, each interlinkage was discussed among a subset of authors until consensus was reached on its nature.

Finally, this study relies on the analysis of the SDGs. The SDGs provide a powerful lens for looking at internationally agreed goals on sustainable development and present a leap forward compared with the Millenium Development Goals in the representation of all spheres of sustainable development, encompassing human rights 69 , social sustainability, environmental outcomes, and economic development. However, the SDGs are a political compromise and might be limited in the representation of some of the complex dynamics and cross-interactions among targets. Therefore, the SDGs have to be considered in conjunction with previous and current, and other international agreements 9 . For instance, as pointed out in a recent work by UN Human Rights 69 , human rights considerations are highly embedded in the SDGs. Nevertheless, the SDGs should be considered as a complement, rather than a replacement, of the United Nations Universal Human Rights Charter 70 .

Data availability

The authors declare that all the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its Supplementary Data  1 file .

Acemoglu, D. & Restrepo, P. Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and Work. NBER Working Paper No. 24196 (National Bereau of Economic Research, 2018).

Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J., Saligrama, V. & Kalai, A. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? Debiasing word embeddings. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 29 , 4349–4357 (2016).

Google Scholar  

Norouzzadeh, M. S. et al. Automatically identifying, counting, and describing wild animals in camera-trap images with deep learning. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , E5716–E5725 (2018).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Tegmark, M. Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence (Random House Audio Publishing Group, 2017).

Jean, N. et al. Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty. Science (80-.) 353 , 790–794 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Courtland, R. Bias detectives: the researchers striving to make algorithms fair. Nature 558 , 357–360 (2018).

UN General Assembly (UNGA). A/RES/70/1Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolut 25 , 1–35 (2015).

Fuso Nerini, F. et al. Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 3 , 10–15 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0036-5 (2017).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Fuso Nerini, F. et al. Connecting climate action with other Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain . 1 , 674–680 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0334-y

Article   Google Scholar  

Fuso Nerini, F. et al. Use SDGs to guide climate action. Nature 557 , https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05007-1 (2018).

United Nations Economic and Social Council. Sustainable Development (United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2019).

Stockholm Resilience Centre’s (SRC) contribution to the 2016 Swedish 2030 Agenda HLPF report (Stockholm University, 2017).

International Energy Agency. Digitalization & Energy (International Energy Agency, 2017).

Fuso Nerini, F. et al. A research and innovation agenda for zero-emission European cities. Sustainability 11 , 1692 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061692 (2019).

Jones, N. How to stop data centres from gobbling up the world’s electricity. Nature 561 , 163–166 (2018).

Truby, J. Decarbonizing Bitcoin: law and policy choices for reducing the energy consumption of Blockchain technologies and digital currencies. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 44 , 399–410 (2018).

Ahmad Karnama, Ehsan Bitaraf Haghighi, Ricardo Vinuesa, (2019) Organic data centers: A sustainable solution for computing facilities. Results in Engineering 4:100063

Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P. & Karniadakis, G. E. Physics informed deep learning (part I): data-driven solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations. arXiv:1711.10561 (2017).

Nagano, A. Economic growth and automation risks in developing countries due to the transition toward digital modernity. Proc. 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance—ICEGOV ’18 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3209415.3209442

Helbing, D. & Pournaras, E. Society: build digital democracy. Nature 527 , 33–34 (2015).

Helbing, D. et al. in Towards Digital Enlightenment 73–98 (Springer International Publishing, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90869-4_7

Nagler, J., van den Hoven, J. & Helbing, D. in Towards Digital Enlightenment 41–46 (Springer International Publishing, 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90869-4_5

Wegren, S. K. The “left behind”: smallholders in contemporary Russian agriculture. J. Agrar. Chang. 18 , 913–925 (2018).

NSF - National Science Foundation. Women and Minorities in the S&E Workforce (NSF - National Science Foundation, 2018).

Helbing, D. The automation of society is next how to survive the digital revolution; version 1.0 (Createspace, 2015).

Cockburn, I., Henderson, R. & Stern, S. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Innovation (NBER, 2018). https://doi.org/10.3386/w24449

Seo, Y., Kim, S., Kisi, O. & Singh, V. P. Daily water level forecasting using wavelet decomposition and artificial intelligence techniques. J. Hydrol. 520 , 224–243 (2015).

Adeli, H. & Jiang, X. Intelligent Infrastructure: Neural Networks, Wavelets, and Chaos Theory for Intelligent Transportation Systems and Smart Structures (CRC Press, 2008).

Nunes, I. & Jannach, D. A systematic review and taxonomy of explanations in decision support and recommender systems. Use. Model Use. Adapt Interact. 27 , 393–444 (2017).

Bissio, R. Vector of hope, source of fear. Spotlight Sustain. Dev . 77–86 (2018).

Brynjolfsson, E. & McAfee, A. The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies (W. W. Norton & Company, 2014).

Dobbs, R. et al. Poorer Than Their Parents? Flat or Falling Incomes in Advanced Economies (McKinsey Global Institute, 2016).

Francescato, D. Globalization, artificial intelligence, social networks and political polarization: new challenges for community psychologists. Commun. Psychol. Glob. Perspect. 4 , 20–41 (2018).

Saam, N. J. & Harrer, A. Simulating norms, social inequality, and functional change in artificial societies. J. Artificial Soc.Social Simul . 2 (1999).

Dalenberg, D. J. Preventing discrimination in the automated targeting of job advertisements. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 34 , 615–627 (2018).

World Economic Forum (WEF). Fourth Industrial Revolution for the Earth Series Harnessing Artificial Intelligence for the Earth (World Economic Forum, 2018).

Vinuesa, R., Fdez. De Arévalo, L., Luna, M. & Cachafeiro, H. Simulations and experiments of heat loss from a parabolic trough absorber tube over a range of pressures and gas compositions in the vacuum chamber. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 8 (2016).

Keramitsoglou, I., Cartalis, C. & Kiranoudis, C. T. Automatic identification of oil spills on satellite images. Environ. Model. Softw. 21 , 640–652 (2006).

Mohamadi, A., Heidarizadi, Z. & Nourollahi, H. Assessing the desertification trend using neural network classification and object-oriented techniques. J. Fac. Istanb. Univ. 66 , 683–690 (2016).

Kwok, R. AI empowers conservation biology. Nature 567 , 133–134 (2019).

Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A. & Rahwan, I. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352 , 1573–1576 (2016).

De Fauw, J. et al. Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nat. Med 24 , 1342–1350 (2018).

Russell, S., Dewey, D. & Tegmark, M. Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence. AI Mag. 34 , 105–114 (2015).

World Economic Forum (WEF). The New Physics of Financial Services – How Artificial Intelligence is Transforming the Financial Ecosystem (World Economic Forum, 2018).

Gandhi, N., Armstrong, L. J. & Nandawadekar, M. Application of data mining techniques for predicting rice crop yield in semi-arid climatic zone of India. 2017 IEEE Technological Innovations in ICT for Agriculture and Rural Development (TIAR) (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/tiar.2017.8273697

Esteva, A. et al. Corrigendum: dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature 546 , 686 (2017).

Cao, Y., Li, Y., Coleman, S., Belatreche, A. & McGinnity, T. M. Detecting price manipulation in the financial market. 2014 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence for Financial Engineering & Economics (CIFEr) (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/cifer.2014.6924057

Nushi, B., Kamar, E. & Horvitz, E. Towards accountable AI: hybrid human-machine analyses for characterizing system failure. arXiv:1809.07424 (2018).

Beyer, H. L., Dujardin, Y., Watts, M. E. & Possingham, H. P. Solving conservation planning problems with integer linear programming. Ecol. Model. 328 , 14–22 (2016).

Whittaker, M. et al. AI Now Report 2018 (AI Now Institute, 2018).

Petit, M. Towards a critique of algorithmic reason. A state-of-the-art review of artificial intelligence, its influence on politics and its regulation. Quad. del CAC 44 (2018).

Scholz, R. et al. Unintended side effects of the digital transition: European scientists’ messages from a proposition-based expert round table. Sustainability 10 , 2001 (2018).

Ramirez, E., Brill, J., Maureen, K., Wright, J. D. & McSweeny, T. Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability (Federal Trade Commission, 2014).

Panch, T., Mattie, H. & Celi, L. A. The “inconvenient truth” about AI in healthcare. npj Digit. Med 2 , 77 (2019).

Solaiman, S. M. Legal personality of robots, corporations, idols and chimpanzees: a quest for legitimacy. Artif. Intell. Law 25 , 155–179 (2017).

West, J. & Bhattacharya, M. Intelligent financial fraud detection: a comprehensive review. Comput. Secur 57 , 47–66 (2016).

Hajek, P. & Henriques, R. Mining corporate annual reports for intelligent detection of financial statement fraud – A comparative study of machine learning methods. Knowl.-Based Syst. 128 , 139–152 (2017).

Perry, W. L., McInnis, B., Price, C. C., Smith, S. C. & Hollywood, J. S. Predictive Policing: The Role of Crime Forecasting in Law Enforcement Operations (RAND Corporation, 2013).

Gorr, W. & Neill, D. B. Detecting and preventing emerging epidemics of crime. Adv. Dis. Surveillance 4 , 13 (2007).

IEEE. Ethically Aligned Design - Version II overview (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCS.2018.2810458

European Commission. Draft Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI (Digital Single Market, 2018).

Lipton, Z. C. The mythos of model interpretability. Commun. ACM 61 , 36–43 (2018).

Dignum, V. Responsible Artificial Intelligence (Springer International Publishing, 2019).

Future of Life Institute. Open Letter on Autonomous Weapons (Future of Life Institute, 2015).

Future of Life Institute. Annual Report 2018. https://futureoflife.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2018-Annual-Report.pdf?x51579

Montes, G. A. & Goertzel, B. Distributed, decentralized, and democratized artificial intelligence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 141 , 354–358 (2019).

Butler, A. J., Thomas, M. K. & Pintar, K. D. M. Systematic review of expert elicitation methods as a tool for source attribution of enteric illness. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 12 , 367–382 (2015).

Morgan, M. G. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 7176–7184 (2014).

United Nations Human Rights. Sustainable Development Goals Related Human Rights (United Nations Human Rights, 2016).

Draft Committee. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948).

Download references

Acknowledgements

R.V. acknowledges funding provided by KTH Sustainability Office. I.L. acknowledges the Swedish Research Council (registration number 2017-05189) and funding through an Early Career Research Fellowship granted by the Jacobs Foundation. M.B. acknowledges Implicit SSF: Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research project RIT15-0046. V.D. acknowledges the support of the Wallenberg AI, Autonomous Systems, and Software Program (WASP) program funded by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. S.D. acknowledges funding from the Leibniz Competition (J45/2018). S.L. acknowledges funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Marie Skłodowska–Curie grant agreement number 748625. M.T. was supported by the Ethics and Governance of AI Fund. F.F.N. acknowledges funding from the Formas grant number 2018-01253.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Linné FLOW Centre, KTH Mechanics, SE-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

Ricardo Vinuesa

Division of Robotics, Perception, and Learning, School of EECS, KTH Royal Institute Of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

Hossein Azizpour & Iolanda Leite

Division of Media Technology and Interaction Design, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Lindstedtsvägen 3, Stockholm, Sweden

Madeline Balaam

Responsible AI Group, Department of Computing Sciences, Umeå University, SE-90358, Umeå, Sweden

Virginia Dignum

Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries, Müggelseedamm 310, 12587, Berlin, Germany

Sami Domisch

AI Sustainability Center, SE-114 34, Stockholm, Sweden

Anna Felländer

Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), 48940, Leioa, Spain

Simone Daniela Langhans

Department of Zoology, University of Otago, 340 Great King Street, 9016, Dunedin, New Zealand

Center for Brains, Minds and Machines, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 02139, USA

Max Tegmark

Unit of Energy Systems Analysis (dESA), KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Brinellvagen, 68SE-1004, Stockholm, Sweden

Francesco Fuso Nerini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

R.V. and F.F.N. ideated, designed, and wrote the paper; they also coordinated inputs from the other authors, and assessed and reviewed SDG evaluations as for the Supplementary Data 1 . H.A. and I.L. supported the design, wrote, and reviewed sections of the paper; they also assessed and reviewed SDG evaluations as for the Supplementary Data 1 . M.B., V.D., S.D., A.F. and S.L. wrote and reviewed sections of the paper; they also assessed and reviewed SDG evaluations as for the Supplementary Data 1 . M.T. reviewed the paper and acted as final editor.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ricardo Vinuesa or Francesco Fuso Nerini .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Communications thanks Dirk Helbing and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Description of additional supplementary files, supplementary data 1, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Vinuesa, R., Azizpour, H., Leite, I. et al. The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Commun 11 , 233 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y

Download citation

Received : 03 May 2019

Accepted : 16 December 2019

Published : 13 January 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-14108-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Assessing the current landscape of ai and sustainability literature: identifying key trends, addressing gaps and challenges.

• Shailesh Tripathi
• Nadine Bachmann
• Herbert Jodlbauer

Journal of Big Data (2024)

Navigating the digital world: development of an evidence-based digital literacy program and assessment tool for youth

• M. Claire Buchan
• Jasmin Bhawra
• Tarun Reddy Katapally

Smart Learning Environments (2024)

Green and sustainable AI research: an integrated thematic and topic modeling analysis

• Raghu Raman
• Debidutta Pattnaik
• Prema Nedungadi

Digital technologies for construction sustainability: Status quo, challenges, and future prospects

• Weisheng Lu
• Jinfeng Lou

npj Materials Sustainability (2024)

Assessing the sustainability of the European Green Deal and its interlin kages with the SDGs

• Phoebe Koundouri
• Angelos Alamanos
• Stathis Devves

npj Climate Action (2024)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: AI and Robotics newsletter — what matters in AI and robotics research, free to your inbox weekly.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Introduction of Sustainability, Sustainable Development, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

What is sustainability.

Sustainability is a well-known and frequently used term of the 21st century. How often do you see or hear the word? Have you ever stopped to really think about what exactly does sustainability mean and where did the term originate from?

A quick Google search for ‘what is sustainability’ yields over 1.9 billion results. Sustainability is widely defined as ‘the ability to be maintained at a certain rate or level’. Embedded in most definitions of sustainability are concerns for the environment, social equity, and economic prosperity(1). Most definitions look to avoid the depletion of natural resources to maintain an ecological balance. Sustainability in the context of the environment looks at the activities required to balance social, economic, and environmental needs to maintain ecosystem services at a suitable level. It is generally accepted, the goals of sustainability are related to the need for the conservation of natural capital and ecosystem services, with a shift to a less resource-intensive future [1] .

While to most, the concept of sustainability is a relatively new idea, sustainability has a long history of use and meaning. The practice of sustainability has been utilized by various cultures for thousands of years, with the term sustainability first used in the 1700’s. Sustainability comes from the practice of  nachhaltigkeit , translated to mean ‘sustained yield’ in English, a term coined in 1713 by German foresters [2] .  Sustained yield refers to the practice of taking only enough trees to allow forests to naturally regenerate well into the future. The concept of sustained yield broadened to include the conservation of plants, animals, and other food necessities, eventually moving beyond the forestry discourse but still mainly confined to research and science.

It was not until the 1970’s that the concept of sustainability became more widely used. In January 1972, the journal the Ecologist published the  Blueprint for Survival , a series of science papers calling for better management of natural resources and modification of consumptive lifestyles of western civilizations. That same year, a global think-tank published the report  Limits to Growth , where a definition was given to the term sustainable. For the first time in the literature, sustainable was defined to mean without sudden and uncontrolled collapse and capable of satisfying the basic material requirements of all its people (2).  Then later that year the United Nations (UN) world conference on  human environment was held Stockholm, Sweden to address the global the growing environmental crisis. The term sustainable development was introduced into the discourse. As evidenced at the UN Conference, the environment was being neglected and not in balance with economic development.

Through the 1980’s, the concept of sustainability became more mainstream. In 1987, former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, as chairwoman of what was then the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) released a Report, widely known as the Brundtland’s Commission,  Our Common Future .  The report emphasized the importance that development should consider social, environmental, and economic aspects to ensure the sustainability of all human societies. Her main concern was that development had to meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [3] . This concept went on to become the most widely used definition of sustainability although in the context of sustainable development.

Although sustainability and sustainable development both consider the environment, society, and economies with a future timeframe, the two terms have very different meanings and should not be used interchangeably.  Sustainability looks at the activities required to protect the environment as our base for survival while balancing social, cultural, and economic needs. It is generally accepted that the goals of sustainability are related to the need to conserve our natural world with a shift away from the resource-intensive current way of living 1 .

What is Sustainable Development?

We learned that sustainability is the process of living within the limits of available physical, natural, and social resources in ways that allow all living things, not only humans to thrive well into the future.

Sustainable development is a process that creates growth and progress through the addition of physical, economic, environmental, and social components to improve quality of life without damaging the resources of the environment. Simply put, sustainable development is a way for people to use resources without the resources running out 3 .

As previously discussed, the concept of sustainable development arrived in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission “Our Common Future”, the document that defined sustainable development as an approach designed to meet the needs of the present [generation] without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs 3 . This definition incorporated the understanding that economic growth is required to provide societies with the necessities of life such as clean water and food, while acknowledging the dilemma of environmental degradation that often coincides with economic development.

In 1992 the UN conference on the environment and development, informally known as the Earth Summit, or the Rio Conference took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The conference promoted the idea of ecological sustainable development and in order to achieve it you had to consider social development (communities). From the mid 1990’s, different strategies were developed to try to work out what sustainability means in practice, how do we get that middle area where the environment, economics, and social development are achieved at the same time. Governments alone can not achieve sustainable development. Governments can set regulations and determine infrastructure needs but they don’t tend to have long-term goals in mind, they tend to focus on election cycles which are typically about 4 to 8 years.  The market economies (goods and services) timeframe is usually only about 4 months to a year. Sustainability is about long-term solutions. The market economies and governments can not effectively do this.  If the community is not driving the will for a better more sustainable future, sustainable development will be difficult to achieve. As we previously discussed, the Brundtland Commission’s definition has become a widely used definition for sustainable development and sustainability and has therefore come with many challenges, including confusion over meaning, interpretations, and misinformation.

Recognizing some of the key challenges with the implementation of sustainable development and the quest for achieving a balance between the environment and economies, the role of people and societies were formally added into the equation for sustainable development in 2005 at the UN World Summit on Social Development. The three pillars of sustainability became widely known and currently used today:

(Click on the “?” icons below for more information):

This updated model for sustainable development recognizes that in order to meet the needs of current and future generations you have to consider the three pillars or the 3P’s (people, planet, prosperity), and they all need to be working together at the same. The key being all at the same time, or simultaneously.

Integrating the short-term and long-term needs with a focus on future generations, will require social development, environmental protection, and economic prosperity working in unison. Being able to incorporate sustainability into your day to day activities, this is what will create change.

The United Nations and the Path to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

History of the un.

Direct Source

The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War by 51 countries committed to maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations, and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights.

Due to its unique international character, and the powers vested in its founding Charter, the Organization can take action on a wide range of issues and provide a forum for its 193 Member States to express their views, through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and other bodies and committees.

The work of the United Nations reaches every corner of the globe. Although best known for peacekeeping, peace-building, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance, there are many other ways the United Nations and its System (specialized agencies, funds, and programmes) affect our lives and make the world a better place. The Organization works on a broad range of fundamental issues, from sustainable development, environment and refugees protection, disaster relief, counter terrorism, disarmament and non-proliferation, to promoting democracy, human rights, gender equality and the advancement of women, governance, economic and social development and international health, clearing landmines, expanding food production, and more, in order to achieve its goals and coordinate efforts for a safer world for this and future generations.

The UN has 4 main purposes:

• To keep peace throughout the world;
• To develop friendly relations among nations;
• To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease, and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;
• To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals

Pathway to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

In 2015, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was adopted by 193 United Nations (UN) Member States. The 2030 Agenda is centered on the 17 SDGs which are underpinned by the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  The MDGs were developed in 2000 to end poverty and hunger, fight inequality and injustice, advance climate change action, create sustainable consumption and production, and promote peace and prosperity for all.  One major change between the MDGs versus the SDGs is that for the SDGs, all countries are now involved. The MDGs only applied to developing countries. Another difference is that each country has set their own goals and priorities for achieving the SDGs.  International collaboration to advance the SDG Agenda remains a critical component. The 17 SD goals, with their 169 targets, and over 230 indicators work together at the local and international level to help promote a shared global framework to achieve a fair, equitable, and sustainable future for all. Currently, all countries and international organizations are working on the achievement of the UN 2030 Agenda serving as the basis for better economic development that is environmentally low impact, socially just, and economically efficient and fair.

Pathway to the SDGs

Comprehension Questions

Recommended reading.

• Sustainable Development Solutions Network. (2021). Sustainable Development Report 2021: The Decade of Action for the Sustainable Development Goals .

Additional Readings

• Brundtland G, Khalid M. 1987. UN Brundtland commission report.  Our Common Future .  41-59.
• Kidd C. V. 1992.  The evolution of sustainability .  Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 5(1), 1-26.
• Baker, J., Dupont, D., & Vasseur, L. (2021). Exploring Canadian Ramsar Sites Ecosystem Governance and Sustainability. Wetlands, 41(1), 1-11. ↵
• Grober, U. (2007). Deep roots-a conceptual history of sustainable development (Nachhaltigkeit) . ↵
• United Nations. (2021). 1987 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (page 41) . ↵

Introduction to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Copyright © by Jocelyn Baker is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Get involved

THE SDGS IN ACTION.

What are the sustainable development goals.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals, were adopted by the United Nations in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that by 2030 all people enjoy peace and prosperity.

The 17 SDGs are integrated—they recognize that action in one area will affect outcomes in others, and that development must balance social, economic and environmental sustainability.

Countries have committed to prioritize progress for those who're furthest behind. The SDGs are designed to end poverty, hunger, AIDS, and discrimination against women and girls.

The creativity, knowhow, technology and financial resources from all of society is necessary to achieve the SDGs in every context.

Eradicating poverty in all its forms remains one of the greatest challenges facing humanity. While the number of people living in extreme poverty dropped by more than half between 1990 and 2015, too many are still struggling for the most basic human needs.

As of 2015, about 736 million people still lived on less than US$1.90 a day; many lack food, clean drinking water and sanitation. Rapid growth in countries such as China and India has lifted millions out of poverty, but progress has been uneven. Women are more likely to be poor than men because they have less paid work, education, and own less property.

Progress has also been limited in other regions, such as South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, which account for 80 percent of those living in extreme poverty. New threats brought on by climate change, conflict and food insecurity, mean even more work is needed to bring people out of poverty.

The SDGs are a bold commitment to finish what we started, and end poverty in all forms and dimensions by 2030. This involves targeting the most vulnerable, increasing basic resources and services, and supporting communities affected by conflict and climate-related disasters.

736 million people still live in extreme poverty.

10 percent of the world’s population live in extreme poverty, down from 36 percent in 1990.

Some 1.3 billion people live in multidimensional poverty.

Half of all people living in poverty are under 18.

One person in every 10 is extremely poor.

Goal targets

• By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions
• Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable
• By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance
• By 2030, build the resilience of the poor and those in vulnerable situations and reduce their exposure and vulnerability to climate-related extreme events and other economic, social and environmental shocks and disasters
• Ensure significant mobilization of resources from a variety of sources, including through enhanced development cooperation, in order to provide adequate and predictable means for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, to implement programmes and policies to end poverty in all its dimensions
• Create sound policy frameworks at the national, regional and international levels, based on pro-poor and gender-sensitive development strategies, to support accelerated investment in poverty eradication actions

SDGs in Action

Resilient human development: L...

Poverty and malaria are linked...

UNDP’s Engagement at Financing...

Voices of youth in the lead up...

Building a new, secure climate...

Publications.

Accelerating the Green Transit...

Zero hunger.

Zero Hunger

The number of undernourished people has dropped by almost half in the past two decades because of rapid economic growth and increased agricultural productivity. Many developing countries that used to suffer from famine and hunger can now meet their nutritional needs. Central and East Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean have all made huge progress in eradicating extreme hunger.

Unfortunately, extreme hunger and malnutrition remain a huge barrier to development in many countries. There are 821 million people estimated to be chronically undernourished as of 2017, often as a direct consequence of environmental degradation, drought and biodiversity loss. Over 90 million children under five are dangerously underweight. Undernourishment and severe food insecurity appear to be increasing in almost all regions of Africa, as well as in South America.

The SDGs aim to end all forms of hunger and malnutrition by 2030, making sure all people–especially children–have sufficient and nutritious food all year. This involves promoting sustainable agricultural, supporting small-scale farmers and equal access to land, technology and markets. It also requires international cooperation to ensure investment in infrastructure and technology to improve agricultural productivity.

The number of undernourished people reached 821 million in 2017.

In 2017 Asia accounted for nearly two thirds, 63 percent, of the world’s hungry.

Nearly 151 million children under five, 22 percent, were still stunted in 2017.

More than 1 in 8 adults is obese.

1 in 3 women of reproductive age is anemic.

26 percent of workers are employed in agriculture.

• By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons
• By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, pastoralists and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment
• By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality
• By 2020, maintain the genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at the national, regional and international levels, and promote access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, as internationally agreed
• Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services, technology development and plant and livestock gene banks in order to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries, in particular least developed countries
• Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets, including through the parallel elimination of all forms of agricultural export subsidies and all export measures with equivalent effect, in accordance with the mandate of the Doha Development Round
• Adopt measures to ensure the proper functioning of food commodity markets and their derivatives and facilitate timely access to market information, including on food reserves, in order to help limit extreme food price volatility.

Mapping Essential Life Support...

One year into war, much remain...

UNDP at the 4th International ...

UNDP at the UN ECOSOC Youth Fo...

"We felt very welcome and acce...

Good health and well-being.

We have made great progress against several leading causes of death and disease. Life expectancy has increased dramatically; infant and maternal mortality rates have declined, we’ve turned the tide on HIV and malaria deaths have halved.

Good health is essential to sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda reflects the complexity and interconnectedness of the two. It takes into account widening economic and social inequalities, rapid urbanization, threats to the climate and the environment, the continuing burden of HIV and other infectious diseases, and emerging challenges such as noncommunicable diseases. Universal health coverage will be integral to achieving SDG 3, ending poverty and reducing inequalities. Emerging global health priorities not explicitly included in the SDGs, including antimicrobial resistance, also demand action.

But the world is off-track to achieve the health-related SDGs. Progress has been uneven, both between and within countries. There’s a 31-year gap between the countries with the shortest and longest life expectancies. And while some countries have made impressive gains, national averages hide that many are being left behind. Multisectoral, rights-based and gender-sensitive approaches are essential to address inequalities and to build good health for all.

At least 400 million people have no basic healthcare, and 40 percent lack social protection.

More than 1.6 billion people live in fragile settings where protracted crises, combined with weak national capacity to deliver basic health services, present a significant challenge to global health.

By the end of 2017, 21.7 million people living with HIV were receiving antiretroviral therapy. Yet more than 15 million people are still waiting for treatment.

Every 2 seconds someone aged 30 to 70 years dies prematurely from noncommunicable diseases - cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes or cancer.

7 million people die every year from exposure to fine particles in polluted air.

More than one of every three women have experienced either physical or sexual violence at some point in their life resulting in both short- and long-term consequences for their physical, mental, and sexual and reproductive health.

• By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio to less than 70 per 100,000 live births
• By 2030, end preventable deaths of newborns and children under 5 years of age, with all countries aiming to reduce neonatal mortality to at least as low as 12 per 1,000 live births and under-5 mortality to at least as low as 25 per 1,000 live births
• By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases
• By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being
• Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including narcotic drug abuse and harmful use of alcohol
• By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents
• By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes
• Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all
• By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination
• Strengthen the implementation of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in all countries, as appropriate
• Support the research and development of vaccines and medicines for the communicable and noncommunicable diseases that primarily affect developing countries, provide access to affordable essential medicines and vaccines, in accordance with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which affirms the right of developing countries to use to the full the provisions in the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights regarding flexibilities to protect public health, and, in particular, provide access to medicines for all
• Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries, especially in least developed countries and small island developing States
• Strengthen the capacity of all countries, in particular developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks

Transforming waste management ...

2024 LGBTI Inclusion Index: Re...

Preventing and responding to a...

HIV and Health Annual Report 2...

Quality education.

Since 2000, there has been enormous progress in achieving the target of universal primary education. The total enrollment rate in developing regions reached 91 percent in 2015, and the worldwide number of children out of school has dropped by almost half. There has also been a dramatic increase in literacy rates, and many more girls are in school than ever before. These are all remarkable successes.

Progress has also been tough in some developing regions due to high levels of poverty, armed conflicts and other emergencies. In Western Asia and North Africa, ongoing armed conflict has seen an increase in the number of children out of school. This is a worrying trend. While Sub-Saharan Africa made the greatest progress in primary school enrollment among all developing regions – from 52 percent in 1990, up to 78 percent in 2012 – large disparities still remain. Children from the poorest households are up to four times more likely to be out of school than those of the richest households. Disparities between rural and urban areas also remain high.

Achieving inclusive and quality education for all reaffirms the belief that education is one of the most powerful and proven vehicles for sustainable development. This goal ensures that all girls and boys complete free primary and secondary schooling by 2030. It also aims to provide equal access to affordable vocational training, to eliminate gender and wealth disparities, and achieve universal access to a quality higher education.

Enrollment in primary education in developing countries has reached 91 percent.

Still, 57 million primary-aged children remain out of school, more than half of them in sub-Saharan Africa.

In developing countries, one in four girls is not in school.

About half of all out-of-school children of primary school age live in conflict-affected areas.

103 million youth worldwide lack basic literacy skills, and more than 60 percent of them are women.

6 out of 10 children and adolescents are not achieving a minimum level of proficiency in reading and math.

• By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and Goal-4 effective learning outcomes
• By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and preprimary education so that they are ready for primary education
• By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university
• By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship
• By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations
• By 2030, ensure that all youth and a substantial proportion of adults, both men and women, achieve literacy and numeracy
• By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development
• Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, nonviolent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all
• By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States and African countries, for enrolment in higher education, including vocational training and information and communications technology, technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed countries and other developing countries
• By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and small island developing states

Empowering Afghan women and gi...

How Do Investments in Human Ca...

Using technology to support ne...

The future of education

Gender equality.

Gender Equality

Ending all discrimination against women and girls is not only a basic human right, it’s crucial for sustainable future; it’s proven that empowering women and girls helps economic growth and development.

UNDP has made gender equality central to its work and we’ve seen remarkable progress in the past 20 years. There are more girls in school now compared to 15 years ago, and most regions have reached gender parity in primary education.

But although there are more women than ever in the labour market, there are still large inequalities in some regions, with women systematically denied the same work rights as men. Sexual violence and exploitation, the unequal division of unpaid care and domestic work, and discrimination in public office all remain huge barriers. Climate change and disasters continue to have a disproportionate effect on women and children, as do conflict and migration.

It is vital to give women equal rights land and property, sexual and reproductive health, and to technology and the internet. Today there are more women in public office than ever before, but encouraging more women leaders will help achieve greater gender equality.

Women earn only 77 cents for every dollar that men get for the same work.

35 percent of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence.

Women represent just 13 percent of agricultural landholders.

Almost 750 million women and girls alive today were married before their 18th birthday.

Two thirds of developing countries have achieved gender parity in primary education.

Only 24 percent of national parliamentarians were women as of November 2018, a small increase from 11.3 percent in 1995.

• End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere
• Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation
• Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation
• Recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services, infrastructure and social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate
• Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decisionmaking in political, economic and public life
• Ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights as agreed in accordance with the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Platform for Action and the outcome documents of their review conferences
• Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance and natural resources, in accordance with national laws
• Enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology, to promote the empowerment of women
• Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls at all levels

Bridging Gender Gaps with a Su...

SDG Push through Social Protec...

Climate governance, adaptation...

Clean water and sanitation.

Water scarcity affects more than 40 percent of people, an alarming figure that is projected to rise as temperatures do. Although 2.1 billion people have improved water sanitation since 1990, dwindling drinking water supplies are affecting every continent.

More and more countries are experiencing water stress, and increasing drought and desertification is already worsening these trends. By 2050, it is projected that at least one in four people will suffer recurring water shortages.

Safe and affordable drinking water for all by 2030 requires we invest in adequate infrastructure, provide sanitation facilities, and encourage hygiene. Protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems is essential.

Ensuring universal safe and affordable drinking water involves reaching over 800 million people who lack basic services and improving accessibility and safety of services for over two billion.

In 2015, 4.5 billion people lacked safely managed sanitation services (with adequately disposed or treated excreta) and 2.3 billion lacked even basic sanitation.

71 percent of the global population, 5.2 billion people, had safely-managed drinking water in 2015, but 844 million people still lacked even basic drinking water.

39 percent of the global population, 2.9 billion people, had safe sanitation in 2015, but 2.3 billion people still lacked basic sanitation. 892 million people practiced open defecation.

80 percent of wastewater goes into waterways without adequate treatment.

Water stress affects more than 2 billion people, with this figure projected to increase.

80 percent of countries have laid the foundations for integrated water resources management.

The world has lost 70 percent of its natural wetlands over the last century.

• By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all
• By 2030, achieve access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all and end open defecation, paying special attention to the needs of women and girls and those in vulnerable situations
• By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally
• By 2030, substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity
• By 2030, implement integrated water resources management at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate
• By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes
• By 2030, expand international cooperation and capacity-building support to developing countries in water- and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies
• Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management

The challenges facing Sudan

Navigating the crossroads of c...

Affordable and clean energy.

Between 2000 and 2018, the number of people with electricity increased from 78 to 90 percent, and the numbers without electricity dipped to 789 million.

Yet as the population continues to grow, so will the demand for cheap energy, and an economy reliant on fossil fuels is creating drastic changes to our climate.

Investing in solar, wind and thermal power, improving energy productivity, and ensuring energy for all is vital if we are to achieve SDG 7 by 2030.

Expanding infrastructure and upgrading technology to provide clean and more efficient energy in all countries will encourage growth and help the environment.  

One out of 10 people still lacks electricity, and most live in rural areas of the developing world. More than half are in sub-Saharan Africa.

Energy is by far the main contributor to climate change. It accounts for 73 percent of human-caused greenhouse gases.

Energy efficiency is key; the right efficiency policies could enable the world to achieve more than 40 percent of the emissions cuts needed to reach its climate goals without new technology.

Almost a third of the world’s population—2.8 billion—rely on polluting and unhealthy fuels for cooking.

As of 2017, 17.5 percent of power was generated through renewable sources.

The renewable energy sector employed a record 11.5 million people in 2019. The changes needed in energy production and uses to achieve the Paris Agreement target of limiting the rise in temperature to below 2C can create 18 million jobs.

• By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services
• By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
• By 2030, double the global rate of improvement in energy efficiency
• By 2030, enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology, including renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced and cleaner fossil-fuel technology, and promote investment in energy infrastructure and clean energy technology
• By 2030, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries, in particular least developed countries, small island developing States, and land-locked developing coun

The big switch

Targeted and Inclusive Approac...

Breaking the cycle of poverty ...

Decent work and economic growth.

Over the past 25 years the number of workers living in extreme poverty has declined dramatically, despite the lasting impact of the 2008 economic crisis and global recession. In developing countries, the middle class now makes up more than 34 percent of total employment – a number that has almost tripled between 1991 and 2015.

However, as the global economy continues to recover we are seeing slower growth, widening inequalities, and not enough jobs to keep up with a growing labour force. According to the International Labour Organization, more than 204 million people were unemployed in 2015.

The SDGs promote sustained economic growth, higher levels of productivity and technological innovation. Encouraging entrepreneurship and job creation are key to this, as are effective measures to eradicate forced labour, slavery and human trafficking. With these targets in mind, the goal is to achieve full and productive employment, and decent work, for all women and men by 2030.

An estimated 172 million people worldwide were without work in 2018 - an unemployment rate of 5 percent.

As a result of an expanding labour force, the number of unemployed is projected to increase by 1 million every year and reach 174 million by 2020.

Some 700 million workers lived in extreme or moderate poverty in 2018, with less than US$3.20 per day.

Women’s participation in the labour force stood at 48 per cent in 2018, compared with 75 percent for men. Around 3 in 5 of the 3.5 billion people in the labour force in 2018 were men.

Overall, 2 billion workers were in informal employment in 2016, accounting for 61 per cent of the world’s workforce.

Many more women than men are underutilized in the labour force—85 million compared to 55 million.

• Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries
• Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation, including through a focus on high-value added and labour-intensive sectors
• Promote development-oriented policies that support productive activities, decent job creation, entrepreneurship, creativity and innovation, and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services
• Improve progressively, through 2030, global resource efficiency in consumption and production and endeavour to decouple economic growth from environmental degradation, in accordance with the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, with developed countries taking the lead
• By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value
• By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training
• Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern slavery and human trafficking and secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour, including recruitment and use of child soldiers, and by 2025 end child labour in all its forms
• Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment
• By 2030, devise and implement policies to promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products
• Strengthen the capacity of domestic financial institutions to encourage and expand access to banking, insurance and financial services for all
• Increase Aid for Trade support for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, including through the Enhanced Integrated Framework for Trade-Related Technical Assistance to Least Developed Countries
• By 2020, develop and operationalize a global strategy for youth employment and implement the Global Jobs Pact of the International Labour Organization

A digital leap for Caribbean i...

Making finance work for people...

A question of scale; rising up...

Industry, innovation and infrastructure.

Investment in infrastructure and innovation are crucial drivers of economic growth and development. With over half the world population now living in cities, mass transport and renewable energy are becoming ever more important, as are the growth of new industries and information and communication technologies.

Technological progress is also key to finding lasting solutions to both economic and environmental challenges, such as providing new jobs and promoting energy efficiency. Promoting sustainable industries, and investing in scientific research and innovation, are all important ways to facilitate sustainable development.

More than 4 billion people still do not have access to the Internet, and 90 percent are from the developing world. Bridging this digital divide is crucial to ensure equal access to information and knowledge, as well as foster innovation and entrepreneurship.   

Worldwide, 2.3 billion people lack access to basic sanitation.

In some low-income African countries, infrastructure constraints cut businesses’ productivity by around 40 percent.

2.6 billion people in developing countries do not have access to constant electricity.

More than 4 billion people still do not have access to the Internet; 90 percent of them are in the developing world.

The renewable energy sectors currently employ more than 2.3 million people; the number could reach 20 million by 2030.

In developing countries, barely 30 percent of agricultural products undergo industrial processing, compared to 98 percent high-income countries.

• Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all
• Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and, by 2030, significantly raise industry’s share of employment and gross domestic product, in line with national circumstances, and double its share in least developed countries
• Increase the access of small-scale industrial and other enterprises, in particular in developing countries, to financial services, including affordable credit, and their integration into value chains and markets
• By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency and greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes, with all countries taking action in accordance with their respective capabilities
• Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries, in particular developing countries, including, by 2030, encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers per 1 million people and public and private research and development spending
• Facilitate sustainable and resilient infrastructure development in developing countries through enhanced financial, technological and technical support to African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States 18
• Support domestic technology development, research and innovation in developing countries, including by ensuring a conducive policy environment for, inter alia, industrial diversification and value addition to commodities
• Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020

How Digital is Transforming th...

Popping the bottle

Small Island Digital States: H...

Reduced inequalities.

Income inequality is on the rise—the richest 10 percent have up to 40 percent of global income whereas the poorest 10 percent earn only between 2 to 7 percent. If we take into account population growth inequality in developing countries, inequality has increased by 11 percent.

Income inequality has increased in nearly everywhere in recent decades, but at different speeds. It’s lowest in Europe and highest in the Middle East.

These widening disparities require sound policies to empower lower income earners, and promote economic inclusion of all regardless of sex, race or ethnicity.

Income inequality requires global solutions. This involves improving the regulation and monitoring of financial markets and institutions, encouraging development assistance and foreign direct investment to regions where the need is greatest. Facilitating the safe migration and mobility of people is also key to bridging the widening divide.

In 2016, 22 percent of global income was received by the top 1 percent compared with 10 percent of income for the bottom 50 percent.

In 1980, the top one percent had 16 percent of global income. The bottom 50 percent had 8 percent of income.

Economic inequality is largely driven by the unequal ownership of capital. Since 1980, very large transfers of public to private wealth occurred in nearly all countries. The global wealth share of the top 1 percent was 33 percent in 2016.

Under "business as usual", the top 1 percent global wealth will reach 39 percent by 2050.

Women spend, on average, twice as much time on unpaid housework as men.

Women have as much access to financial services as men in just 60 percent of the countries assessed and to land ownership in just 42 percent of the countries assessed.

• By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average
• By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status
• Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard
• Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality
• Improve the regulation and monitoring of global financial markets and institutions and strengthen the implementation of such regulations
• Ensure enhanced representation and voice for developing countries in decision-making in global international economic and financial institutions in order to deliver more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institutions
• Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies
• Implement the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in particular least developed countries, in accordance with World Trade Organization agreements
• Encourage official development assistance and financial flows, including foreign direct investment, to States where the need is greatest, in particular least developed countries, African countries, small island developing States and landlocked developing countries, in accordance with their national plans and programmes
• By 2030, reduce to less than 3 per cent the transaction costs of migrant remittances and eliminate remittance corridors with costs higher than 5 per cent

People-centred rule of law bui...

Sustainable cities and communities.

More than half of us  live in cities. By 2050, two-thirds of all humanity—6.5 billion people—will be urban. Sustainable development cannot be achieved without significantly transforming the way we build and manage our urban spaces.

The rapid growth of cities—a result of rising populations and increasing migration—has led to a boom in mega-cities, especially in the developing world, and slums are becoming a more significant feature of urban life.

Making cities sustainable means creating career and business opportunities, safe and affordable housing, and building resilient societies and economies. It involves investment in public transport, creating green public spaces, and improving urban planning and management in participatory and inclusive ways.

In 2018, 4.2 billion people, 55 percent of the world’s population, lived in cities. By 2050, the urban population is expected to reach 6.5 billion.

Cities occupy just 3 percent of the Earth’s land but account for 60 to 80 percent of energy consumption and at least 70 percent of carbon emissions.

828 million people are estimated to live in slums, and the number is rising.

In 1990, there were 10 cities with 10 million people or more; by 2014, the number of mega-cities rose to 28, and was expected to reach 33 by 2018. In the future, 9 out of 10 mega-cities will be in the developing world.

In the coming decades, 90 percent of urban expansion will be in the developing world.

The economic role of cities is significant. They generate about 80 percent of the global GDP.

• By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums
• By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons
• By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries
• Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage
• By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations
• By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management
• By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities
• Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning
• By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels
• Support least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance, in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials

Countries start to streamline ...

Preparing Cities for Climate D...

Responsible consumption and production.

Achieving economic growth and sustainable development requires that we urgently reduce our ecological footprint by changing the way we produce and consume goods and resources. Agriculture is the biggest user of water worldwide, and irrigation now claims close to 70 percent of all freshwater for human use.

The efficient management of our shared natural resources, and the way we dispose of toxic waste and pollutants, are important targets to achieve this goal. Encouraging industries, businesses and consumers to recycle and reduce waste is equally important, as is supporting developing countries to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption by 2030.

A large share of the world population is still consuming far too little to meet even their basic needs.  Halving the per capita of global food waste at the retailer and consumer levels is also important for creating more efficient production and supply chains. This can help with food security, and shift us towards a more resource efficient economy.

1.3 billion tonnes of food is wasted every year, while almost 2 billion people go hungry or undernourished.

The food sector accounts for around 22 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, largely from the conversion of forests into farmland.

Globally, 2 billion people are overweight or obese.

Only 3 percent of the world’s water is fresh (drinkable), and humans are using it faster than nature can replenish it.

If people everywhere switched to energy efficient lightbulbs, the world would save US$120 billion annually.

One-fifth of the world’s final energy consumption in 2013 was from renewable sources.

• Implement the 10-year framework of programmes on sustainable consumption and production, all countries taking action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries
• By 2030, achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources
• By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses
• By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment
• By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse
• Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle
• Promote public procurement practices that are sustainable, in accordance with national policies and priorities
• By 2030, ensure that people everywhere have the relevant information and awareness for sustainable development and lifestyles in harmony with nature
• Support developing countries to strengthen their scientific and technological capacity to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production
• Develop and implement tools to monitor sustainable development impacts for sustainable tourism that creates jobs and promotes local culture and products
• Rationalize inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption by removing market distortions, in accordance with national circumstances, including by restructuring taxation and phasing out those harmful subsidies, where they exist, to reflect their environmental impacts, taking fully into account the specific needs and conditions of developing countries and minimizing the possible adverse impacts on their development in a manner that protects the poor and the affected communities

Generic web page

Popping the bottle.

Preserving the laboratory of e...

Unsung heroes: Four things pol...

Climate action.

There is no country that is not experiencing the drastic effects of climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions are more than 50 percent higher than in 1990. Global warming is causing long-lasting changes to our climate system, which threatens irreversible consequences if we do not act.

The annual average economic losses from climate-related disasters are in the hundreds of billions of dollars. This is not to mention the human impact of geo-physical disasters, which are 91 percent climate-related, and which between 1998 and 2017 killed 1.3 million people, and left 4.4 billion injured. The goal aims to mobilize US$100 billion annually by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries to both adapt to climate change and invest in low-carbon development.

Supporting vulnerable regions will directly contribute not only to Goal 13 but also to the other SDGs. These actions must also go hand in hand with efforts to integrate disaster risk measures, sustainable natural resource management, and human security into national development strategies. It is still possible, with strong political will, increased investment, and using existing technology, to limit the increase in global mean temperature to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, aiming at 1.5 ° C, but this requires urgent and ambitious collective action.

As of 2017 humans are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels.

Sea levels have risen by about 20 cm (8 inches) since 1880 and are projected to rise another 30–122 cm (1 to 4 feet) by 2100.

To limit warming to 1.5C, global net CO2 emissions must drop by 45% between 2010 and 2030, and reach net zero around 2050.

Climate pledges under The Paris Agreement cover only one third of the emissions reductions needed to keep the world below 2°C.

Bold climate action could trigger at least US$26 trillion in economic benefits by 2030.

The energy sector alone will create around 18 million more jobs by 2030, focused specifically on sustainable energy.

• Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
• Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
• Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning
• Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible
• Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities

Are we communicating climate c...

Planning for a Net-Zero Future...

Sovereign SDG bonds are an opp...

Life below water.

The world’s oceans – their temperature, chemistry, currents and life – drive global systems that make the Earth habitable for humankind. How we manage this vital resource is essential for humanity as a whole, and to counterbalance the effects of climate change.

Over three billion people depend on marine and coastal biodiversity for their livelihoods. However, today we are seeing 30 percent of the world’s fish stocks overexploited, reaching below the level at which they can produce sustainable yields.

Oceans also absorb about 30 percent of the carbon dioxide produced by humans, and we are seeing a 26 percent rise in ocean acidification since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Marine pollution, an overwhelming majority of which comes from land-based sources, is reaching alarming levels, with an average of 13,000 pieces of plastic litter to be found on every square kilometre of ocean.

The SDGs aim to sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems from pollution, as well as address the impacts of ocean acidification. Enhancing conservation and the sustainable use of ocean-based resources through international law will also help mitigate some of the challenges facing our oceans.

The ocean covers three quarters of the Earth’s surface and represents 99 percent of the living space on the planet by volume.

The ocean contains nearly 200,000 identified species, but actual numbers may lie in the millions.

As much as 40 percent of the ocean is heavily affected by pollution, depleted fisheries, loss of coastal habitats and other human activities.

The ocean absorbs about 30 percent of carbon dioxide produced by humans, buffering the impacts of global warming.

More than 3 billion people depend on marine and coastal biodiversity for their livelihoods.

The market value of marine and coastal resources and industries is estimated at US$3 trillion per year, about 5 percent of global GDP.

• By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including marine debris and nutrient pollution
• By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans
• Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels
• By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics
• By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law and based on the best available scientific information
• By 2020, prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and refrain from introducing new such subsidies, recognizing that appropriate and effective special and differential treatment for developing and least developed countries should be an integral part of the World Trade Organization fisheries subsidies negotiation
• By 2030, increase the economic benefits to Small Island developing States and least developed countries from the sustainable use of marine resources, including through sustainable management of fisheries, aquaculture and tourism
• Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries, in particular small island developing States and least developed countries
• Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets
• Enhance the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources by implementing international law as reflected in UNCLOS, which provides the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of oceans and their resources, as recalled in paragraph 158 of The Future We Want

Investing in SIDS and LLDCs is...

The beginning of the end for p...

Life on land.

Human life depends on the earth as much as the ocean for our sustenance and livelihoods. Plant life provides 80 percent of the human diet, and we rely on agriculture as an important economic resources. Forests cover 30 percent of the Earth’s surface, provide vital habitats for millions of species, and important sources for clean air and water, as well as being crucial for combating climate change.

Every year, 13 million hectares of forests are lost, while the persistent degradation of drylands has led to the desertification of 3.6 billion hectares, disproportionately affecting poor communities.

While 15 percent of land is protected, biodiversity is still at risk. Nearly 7,000 species of animals and plants have been illegally traded. Wildlife trafficking not only erodes biodiversity, but creates insecurity, fuels conflict, and feeds corruption.

Urgent action must be taken to reduce the loss of natural habitats and biodiversity which are part of our common heritage and support global food and water security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and peace and security.

Around 1.6 billion people depend on forests for their livelihoods.

Forests are home to more than 80 percent of all terrestrial species of animals, plants and insects.

2.6 billion people depend directly on agriculture for a living.

Nature-based climate solutions can contribute about a third of CO2 reductions by 2030.

The value of ecosystems to human livelihoods and well-being is $US125 trillion per year.v

Mountain regions provide 60-80 percent of the Earth's fresh water.

• By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains and drylands, in line with obligations under international agreements
• By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally
• By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world
• By 2030, ensure the conservation of mountain ecosystems, including their biodiversity, in order to enhance their capacity to provide benefits that are essential for sustainable development
• Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species
• Promote fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and promote appropriate access to such resources, as internationally agreed
• Take urgent action to end poaching and trafficking of protected species of flora and fauna and address both demand and supply of illegal wildlife products
• By 2020, introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact of invasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority species
• By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts
• Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and ecosystems
• Mobilize significant resources from all sources and at all levels to finance sustainable forest management and provide adequate incentives to developing countries to advance such management, including for conservation and reforestation
• Enhance global support for efforts to combat poaching and trafficking of protected species, including by increasing the capacity of local communities to pursue sustainable livelihood opportunities

In the line of fire

Peace, justice and strong institutions.

We cannot hope for sustainable development without peace, stability, human rights and effective governance, based on the rule of law. Yet our world is increasingly divided. Some regions enjoy peace, security and prosperity, while others fall into seemingly endless cycles of conflict and violence. This is not inevitable and must be addressed.

Armed violence and insecurity have a destructive impact on a country’s development, affecting economic growth, and often resulting in grievances that last for generations. Sexual violence, crime, exploitation and torture are also prevalent where there is conflict, or no rule of law, and countries must take measures to protect those who are most at risk

The SDGs aim to significantly reduce all forms of violence, and work with governments and communities to end conflict and insecurity. Promoting the rule of law and human rights are key to this process, as is reducing the flow of illicit arms and strengthening the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance.

By the end of 2017, 68.5 million people had been forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence or human rights violations.

There are at least 10 million stateless people who have been denied nationality and its related rights.

Corruption, bribery, theft and tax evasion cost developing countries US$1.26 trillion per year.

49 countries lack laws protecting women from domestic violence.

In 46 countries, women now hold more than 30 percent of seats in at least one chamber of national parliament.

1 billion people are legally ‘invisible’ because they cannot prove who they are. This includes an estimated 625 million children under 14 whose births were never registered.

• Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere
• End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children
• Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all
• By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime
• Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms
• Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels
• Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels
• Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance
• By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration
• Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements
• Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime
• Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development

Building on the strengths of t...

Leveraging public finance and ...

Partnerships for the goals.

The SDGs can only be realized with strong global partnerships and cooperation. Official Development Assistance remained steady but below target, at US$147 billion in 2017. While humanitarian crises brought on by conflict or natural disasters continue to demand more financial resources and aid. Many countries also require Official Development Assistance to encourage growth and trade.

The world is more interconnected than ever. Improving access to technology and knowledge is an important way to share ideas and foster innovation. Coordinating policies to help developing countries manage their debt, as well as promoting investment for the least developed, is vital for sustainable growth and development.

The goals aim to enhance North-South and South-South cooperation by supporting national plans to achieve all the targets. Promoting international trade, and helping developing countries increase their exports is all part of achieving a universal rules-based and equitable trading system that is fair and open and benefits all.

The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) says achieving SDGs will require US$5 trillion to $7 trillion in annual investment.

Total official development assistance reached US$147.2 billion in 2017.

In 2017, international remittances totaled US$613 billion; 76 percent of it went to developing countries.

In 2016, 6 countries met the international target to keep official development assistance at or above 0.7 percent of gross national income.

Sustainable and responsible investments represent high-potential sources of capital for SDGs. As of 2016, US$18.2 trillion was invested in this asset class.

The bond market for sustainable business is growing. In 2018 global green bonds reached US$155.5billion, up 78 percent from previous year.

• Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection
• Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries
• Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources
• Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress
• Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries  
• Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism
• Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed
• Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology  

Capacity building

• Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the sustainable development goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation  
• Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development Agenda
• Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020
• Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access  

Systemic issues

Policy and institutional coherence

• Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherence
• Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development
• Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development  

Multi-stakeholder partnerships

• Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries
• Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships  

Data, monitoring and accountability

• By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts
• By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries

How do taxes drive the Sustain...

Press releases.

Joint OECD - UNDP initiative h...

Uniting for our future

Sustainable Development Goals Integration

Sustainable Development Essay

500+ words essay on sustainable development.

Sustainable development is a central concept. It is a way of understanding the world and a method for solving global problems. The world population continues to rise rapidly. This increasing population needs basic essential things for their survival such as food, safe water, health care and shelter. This is where the concept of sustainable development comes into play. Sustainable development means meeting the needs of people without compromising the ability of future generations. In this essay on sustainable development, students will understand what sustainable development means and how we can practise sustainable development. Students can also access the list of CBSE essay topics to practise more essays.

What Does Sustainable Development Means?

The term “Sustainable Development” is defined as the development that meets the needs of the present generation without excessive use or abuse of natural resources so that they can be preserved for the next generation. There are three aims of sustainable development; first, the “Economic” which will help to attain balanced growth, second, the “Environment”, to preserve the ecosystem, and third, “Society” which will guarantee equal access to resources to all human beings. The key principle of sustainable development is the integration of environmental, social, and economic concerns into all aspects of decision-making.

Need for Sustainable Development?

There are several challenges that need attention in the arena of economic development and environmental depletion. Hence the idea of sustainable development is essential to address these issues. The need for sustainable development arises to curb or prevent environmental degradation. It will check the overexploitation and wastage of natural resources. It will help in finding alternative sources to regenerate renewable energy resources. It ensures a safer human life and a safer future for the next generation.

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the need to keep sustainable development at the very core of any development strategy. The pandemic has challenged the health infrastructure, adversely impacted livelihoods and exacerbated the inequality in the food and nutritional availability in the country. The immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic enabled the country to focus on sustainable development. In these difficult times, several reform measures have been taken by the Government. The State Governments also responded with several measures to support those affected by the pandemic through various initiatives and reliefs to fight against this pandemic.

How to Practise Sustainable Development?

The concept of sustainable development was born to address the growing and changing environmental challenges that our planet is facing. In order to do this, awareness must be spread among the people with the help of many campaigns and social activities. People can adopt a sustainable lifestyle by taking care of a few things such as switching off the lights when not in use; thus, they save electricity. People must use public transport as it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. They should save water and not waste food. They build a habit of using eco-friendly products. They should minimise waste generation by adapting to the principle of the 4 R’s which stands for refuse, reduce, reuse and recycle.

The concept of sustainable development must be included in the education system so that students get aware of it and start practising a sustainable lifestyle. With the help of empowered youth and local communities, many educational institutions should be opened to educate people about sustainable development. Thus, adapting to a sustainable lifestyle will help to save our Earth for future generations. Moreover, the Government of India has taken a number of initiatives on both mitigation and adaptation strategies with an emphasis on clean and efficient energy systems; resilient urban infrastructure; water conservation & preservation; safe, smart & sustainable green transportation networks; planned afforestation etc. The Government has also supported various sectors such as agriculture, forestry, coastal and low-lying systems and disaster management.

Students must have found this essay on sustainable development useful for practising their essay writing skills. They can get the study material and the latest updates on CBSE/ICSE/State Board/Competitive Exams, at BYJU’S.

Frequently Asked Questions on Sustainable development Essay

Why is sustainable development a hot topic for discussion.

Environment change and constant usage of renewable energy have become a concern for all of us around the globe. Sustainable development must be inculcated in young adults so that they make the Earth a better place.

What will happen if we do not practise sustainable development?

Landfills with waste products will increase and thereby there will be no space and land for humans and other species/organisms to thrive on.

What are the advantages of sustainable development?

Sustainable development helps secure a proper lifestyle for future generations. It reduces various kinds of pollution on Earth and ensures economic growth and development.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

• Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Counselling