Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Health Equity in China: The Interplay of Public Health Infrastructure, Service Utilization, and Health Insurance
Previous Article in Journal
Facilitating LCA During Product Development by Automated Inventory Model Generation Using SysML System Models
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 11
10.3390/su17114784
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Sustainability Reporting as a Governance Tool for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Bibliometric and Content Analysis

by
Sheela Sundarasen
1,*,
Usha Rajagopalan
1 and
Beata Zyznarska-Dworczak
2
1
Department of Accounting, Prince Sultan University, Riyadh 12435, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Accounting and Financial Audit, Poznan University of Economics and Business, al. Niepodległości 10, 61-875 Poznań, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(11), 4784; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114784
Submission received: 7 March 2025 / Revised: 11 May 2025 / Accepted: 17 May 2025 / Published: 22 May 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study reviews and synthesizes the scholarly work on sustainability reporting as a governance tool in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework. Bibliometrix R-package (Biblioshiny) and VosViewer are utilized to examine the descriptive and thematic outcomes using 148 articles from the Web of Science database. In contrast to previous bibliometric reviews, this study not only maps the broader landscape of the literature but also provides an in-depth exploration of three emerging thematic areas, offering a more nuanced understanding of the evolving discourse on corporate sustainability. Network visualization of keywords unveils three core themes within this research domain: Theme 1: sustainability reporting as a governance mechanism; Theme 2: the intersection of sustainable development goals (SDGs) and corporate sustainability; and Theme 3: the performance-accountability paradox in sustainability disclosure, which facilitated the identification of potential future research directions. The research outcome could contribute to institutional policies on sustainability reporting, highlighting (1) the importance of corporate governance in guiding businesses on policies and practices in sustainability reporting and mobilizing collective efforts among stakeholders on sustainability reporting, and (2) the awareness of using it as a platform to enhance the implementation of SDGs. This study underscores sustainability reporting as a disclosure mechanism and a pivotal governance tool for guiding institutional alignment with the SDGs.

1. Introduction

Sustainability reporting is a valuable governance tool to identify, measure, and document corporate strategies that align with sustainable development goals (SDGs) [1,2]. Reporting on the strategies and accomplishments of the 17 interrelated SDGs and 169 targets, as outlined in the 2030 Agenda [3], has gained significant traction over the years. In tandem with the recommendation of Target 12.6 of the SDGs—“Encourage companies, huge and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle”, businesses must go beyond traditional financial reporting and incorporate sustainability considerations into their overall reporting framework. This study supports the assertion and aims to explore the breadth of scholarly discourse on sustainability reporting as a governance tool in the SDG framework via bibliometric and content analysis. It deliberately positions governance, not as a peripheral variable, but as the analytical fulcrum through which sustainability reporting mechanisms are assessed for their institutional and strategic influence on SDG advancement.
Extant literature also suggests that sustainability reporting could significantly contribute towards SDGs by fostering transparency, establishing objectives [4], engaging stakeholders [5,6], managing risks [7,8], optimizing resource utilization [9], and ultimately creating long-term value [5,10]. Sustainability reporting can potentially enhance companies’ efforts to align with the SDGs, as it is the most critical accountability tool. Firms could disclose the extent of sustainability embedded in the corporate strategy, execute measures that directly support the SDGs, and assist in identifying and reporting companies’ potential sustainability risks or opportunities.
To further facilitate the reporting, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), EU sustainability reporting initiatives (ESRS), and Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) enable companies to report sustainability systematically and provide comparable information to stakeholders. The Integrated Reporting (IR) framework also encourages firms to not only work on regulatory compliance [11] in terms of sustainability reporting but also to take further steps to show how sustainability-related initiatives are incorporated into firm strategies [12].
This study acknowledges the extensive literature on sustainability reporting and SDGs and intends to consolidate the existing literature and identify gaps for potential future research. Notably, several recent review-based studies have explored various facets of sustainability reporting and their alignment towards SDGs, exemplified by the works of [13,14,15,16]. Ref. [13] comprehensively reviewed non-financial reporting (NFR) practices and the evolution of NFR research, focusing on prominent articles from 2012 to 2020. NFR encompasses all non-monetary disclosures, including sustainability and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting. The authors employed bibliometric analysis and identified eight key research areas in NFR. These areas encompass the content of non-financial reports, the IR framework, the relationship between NFR and firm-level variables, the interplay of NFR with corporate governance, theoretical underpinnings of NFR, NFR assurance practices, the association between institutional context and NFR, and environmental reporting. Conversely, ref. [14] investigated the relationship between ESG practices and SDGs, focusing on India. The findings highlight ESG’s critical role in achieving SDGs in India, emphasizing compliance, integration, and the quantitative assessment of ESG contributions to specific goals for sustainable economic growth. In another recent review of sustainability reporting and SDGs, ref. [15] conducted a bibliometric and science mapping analysis, revealing the current research trends on sustainability reporting and mapping them precisely to SDGs, filling a void in the existing literature. Similarly, ref. [16] undertook a bibliometric study on sustainability reporting and sustainable development using Web of Science data between 2004 and 2021. The authors found uneven institutional and regional involvement in sustainability reporting and suggested more ESG disclosures to bridge gaps and align with the SDGs.
The abovementioned review papers focus on NFR in general, detailed ESG practices, and SDGs, and the mapping of sustainability reporting with SDGs. Thus, this study is expected to extend the discussion by exploring the scholarly discussion on aligning sustainability reporting as a governance tool in enhancing SDGs. This study identified publication patterns, notable authors, prominent articles, publishers, and country collaborations using bibliometric and content analysis. Three main thematic clusters are identified: sustainability reporting as a governance mechanism, the intersection of SDGs and corporate sustainability, and the performance-accountability paradox in sustainability disclosure. Some suggestions for future research are also put forward: cross-market comparative analyses, exploring how artificial intelligence might influence sustainability reporting practices, looking into the impact of cultural norms on SDG integration, diving into challenges that vary by industry, and even considering what encourages greenwashing. Ultimately, this study offers helpful advice on improving sustainability reporting, assisting with business operations, policy decision-making, and mobilizing group efforts to accomplish the SDGs.
The following research questions will be examined:
RQ1: What are the current trends in publications, top articles, prominent authors, sources, publishers, and country collaborations that align sustainability reporting, governance, and SDGs?
RQ2: What primary research themes emerge from the scholarly discussion of aligning sustainability reporting, governance, and SDGs?
RQ3: What is the potential for future research in aligning sustainability reporting, governance, and SDGs?
The paper’s structure is as follows: Section 2 outlines the research methodology, Section 3 presents the descriptive results and thematic analysis, proposes potential future research, and Section 4 concludes this study.

2. Methodology

2.1. Data Extraction and Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The method used to select articles followed the PRISMA principles recommended for Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) by [17]. PRISMA is widely recognized as a standard way to conduct SLRs in various fields of study, including management and business [18,19]. To this end, the Web of Science (WoS) database is used, though both WoS and Scopus have been widely used for bibliometric studies, with their respective justifications. This study chose Web of Science (WoS) because its curation prioritizes quality and works with bibliometric tools such as VOSviewer and Biblioshiny [20]. We recognize that selection bias may be introduced by relying solely on WoS.
To start extracting data, we used specific keywords in the title, abstract, and keyword section, utilizing the “AND” and “OR” operators [21]: “Sustainability Reporting” OR “Sustainability Disclosures*” AND “governance tool” AND “SDG*” OR “Sustainable Development Goal*”. This will ensure sustainability reporting, governance, and SDG-related articles are included in the initial listing. A total of 567 articles were obtained from the initial screening. This meticulous approach also ensures that this study encompasses valuable perspectives from academic sources, contributing to thoroughly exploring the subject matter. The sample was further filtered using the exclusion and inclusion criteria. Firstly, we limited the articles to those published in business management, business finance, and economics, resulting in 226 articles. Second, we restricted our search to English-language publications and early access because these sources are peer-reviewed, comprehensive, and offer thorough methodological and theoretical contributions pertinent to bibliometric and content analysis. This produced 162 articles published between 2017 and 2024. The WoS software determined this time frame based on the chosen keywords and additional inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each document underwent a manual assessment to verify its relevance to the present study, which focuses on the role of sustainability reporting as a governance tool in achieving SDGs. Initially, the title, abstract, and keywords were read to determine their alignment with the main topics of sustainability reporting, governance, and SDG-related discourse. In cases where the abstract did not highlight this study’s purposes and findings, all the articles were further examined to ensure their suitability. In this process, fourteen articles were excluded as they did not align with the central theme of investigation. A final corpus of 148 articles met the criteria for inclusion in the present study. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA table, summarizing the methodological process.

2.2. Data Analysis

As documented in the literature of similar studies, we use Biblioshiny, R Studio software Version 4.2.0 [22] to create visual and textual representations of publication trends, prominent papers, authors, publishing sources, leading countries, and collaboration patterns among countries and affiliations. Complementing this, VOSviewer software 1.6.20 [23] emerges as another powerful tool for visualizing the network of keywords. The software finds groups of closely linked keywords and articles, indicating strong connections in themes or ideas. Based on the strength of their co-occurrence, the map finds keyword clusters, and each color-coded group corresponds to a different thematic domain. By examining the keyword network, this study comprehends the associations between different keywords and citations, thus identifying clusters, tracking the research themes, and providing an inclusive suggestion for future research.
The red cluster on the map focuses on corporate social responsibility and sustainability reporting, indicating a theme pertaining to stakeholder engagement and governance. The green cluster highlights alignment with SDG-driven reporting practices by including sustainable development goals, disclosure, and corporate sustainability. In contrast, the blue cluster focuses on performance legitimacy and accountability themes, reflecting the performance-accountability discourse. By examining the most cited papers linked to each theme, we could infer each group’s conceptual focus through an inductive analysis of these clusters. Thematic areas were thus identified and categorized using the map as a basis, and these were further enhanced by qualitative analysis of the literature within each cluster. This method adheres to recognized bibliometric-content analysis methodologies [24,25], permitting an organized but interpretive investigation of the field.

3. Findings

3.1. Publication Trend

Figure 2 displays the publication trend of articles on sustainability reporting as a governance tool in the SDG framework, indicating a steady increase over the years. Interest in this research domain began in 2017, with five articles published. Rapid growth is seen from 2020 onwards, with the number of publications increasing to 13, 18, 21, 34, and 47 between 2020 and 2024. This trend was primarily influenced by the declaration of the United Nations “Agenda 2030” in 2015, which raised the importance of the SDGs. The exponential increase in scientific publications confirms the need to systematize the results and conduct more in-depth research to fully utilize the scientific potential to achieve the SDGs, specifically examining how sustainability reporting could play a key role as a governance mechanism in SDG achievements.

3.2. Most Impactful Publications and Authors Based on Citations

Table 1 presents the bibliometrix output for the most impactful publications (based on citations) and reputable authors on sustainability reporting as a governance tool in the SDG framework. A standard metric for assessing a publication’s scholarly impact and influence within a particular research community is its citation count. Reputable scholars with high citations tend to influence scholarly discussion, contribute towards extant literature, and open pathways for future investigations. In that context, these publications (as listed in Table 1) collectively enhance our understanding of the complex correlation between sustainability reporting, corporate practices, corporate sustainability, governance, and SDGs. Refs. [26,27] are among the top publications in this sphere of study. They examine the dominant factors affecting sustainability reporting within the SDG framework. The authors documented that institutional and organizational factors are critical in sustainability reporting and the SDG framework. Additionally, refs. [28,29] discussed the impact of institutional investors (specifically foreign investors) and “sell recommendation” by analysts as factors contributing to enhancing corporate transparency and governance, effectively contributing towards sustainability reporting within the SDG framework.
According to [30] research results, contemporary sustainability reporting practices influence reporting entities’ cognitive framework (a.k.a. integrated thinking), strengthening governance via board scrutiny and helping organizations manage complexity and accountability. The authors further suggested that corporate reporting and governance models could contribute to the SDGs. Ref. [31] used Italian-listed companies to examine the roles of sustainability reporting and SDG alignment. They documented that the assessment of SDG implementation has been integrated into information disclosure practices, influencing corporate governance by enhancing transparency and accountability. [32] contributed significantly to this study domain by developing a methodological framework (based on disclosure topics from GRI) for assessing the quality of information published in sustainability reports and its alignment with SDGs. Nevertheless, the authors further iterated that the exact nature and requirements of the SDGs and the specific KPIs related to these goals are still unclear. Ref. [33] research in the Journal of Cleaner Production examines corporate engagement with the SDGs, recognizing the growing interest in aligning business strategies with the SDGs.
Together, these articles emphasize the evolving landscape of sustainability reporting and its pivotal role in advancing corporate sustainability and SDG agendas.
Table 1. Most impactful publications and authors based on citations.
Table 1. Most impactful publications and authors based on citations.
ArticleSourceArticle TitleCitation
[26]Journal of Cleaner ProductionAddressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: The relationship with institutional factors428
[27]Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental ManagementBusiness contribution to the Sustainable Development Agenda: Organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting209
[32]Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental ManagementNew challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals129
[30]Accounting, Auditing & Accountability JournalConceptualizing the contemporary corporate value creation process387
[33]Journal of Cleaner ProductionCorporate involvement in sustainable development goals: Exploring the territory92
[34]Finance and CreditThe role of accounting in providing sustainable development and national safety of Ukraine54
[28]Business Strategy and the EnvironmentDo institutional investors drive corporate transparency regarding business contribution to sustainable development goals?61
[35]SustainabilityMapping the sustainable development goals relationships112
[29]Journal of Cleaner Production“Sell” recommendations by analysts in response to business communication strategies concerning the Sustainable Development Goals and the SDG compass.47
[31]SustainabilityThe challenge of sustainable development goal reporting: The first evidence from Italian-listed companies67
Source: Own elaboration based on Bibliometrix output using the Web of Science database.

3.3. Most Significant Sources and Publishers

Table 2 shows the prominent journals (sources) that have published articles on sustainability reporting as a governance tool in the SDGs framework, focusing on accounting, environmental management, and business ethics. The Journal of Cleaner Production (publisher: Elsevier), Journal of Business Ethics (publisher: Springer), Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (publisher: Wiley-Blackwell) are some of the top journals renowned for publications on environmental sustainability and its reporting, governance, ethical issues, and sustainability and issues related to corporate social responsibility and environmental issues. Publication by these journals and publishers is an endorsement of the importance of this research domain. Additionally, Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., has several top journals (Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Meditari Accountancy Research, and Critical Perspectives in Accounting) publishing quality articles in sustainability reporting and SDGs. The Academy of Management Review (part of the Academy of Management) and Business Strategy and the Environment (Wiley-Blackwell Publishing) are also key journals that influence the academic discussion on sustainability reporting, governance, and SDG alignment. In conclusion, the contribution and publication commitment of these renowned sources from established publishers attests to the importance and significance of this study area.

3.4. Country Collaborations

Table 3 shows countries with the highest citations on publications related to sustainability reporting as a governance tool in the SDG framework. These diverse contributions enrich the global academic discourse on this area of study. The United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy indicate the strong influence of authors from these countries in the research area analyzed. In the Asian region, China and Japan show significant interest and contribution to studies related to SR and SDG achievements. Notably, the European countries (i.e., Netherlands, Germany, France, Sweden, etc.), Australia, and the USA have actively contributed to this study area, signaling the importance and significance of this study domain. Based on this analysis, the absence of involvement from the Asia Pacific (except China and Australia) and Central America region in this study domain is rather conspicuous and could be due to several factors. Different countries have very different institutional and regulatory frameworks that support sustainability disclosures. Academics may be less interested in SDG-related reporting in countries with looser governance or less investor pressure. Their underrepresentation in the dataset could also be explained by language barriers and a preference for publishing in regional or non-English journals.
Thus, more collaborative studies between the European and American continents and the Asia Pacific region are needed. It should contribute significantly to the academic literature and, more importantly, to forming a sustainable business environment. In addition to the USA, Spain’s noteworthy involvement in this field, on the other hand, may be attributed to its robust policy environment that promotes ESG transparency and corporate accountability, early adoption of SDG-aligned frameworks, and strong academic networks rooted in sustainability governance. Sustainability reporting is probably encouraged and structured by Spain’s public policy alignment with EU directives such as the CSRD, creating an ideal environment for related academic research.

3.5. Thematic Map

Figure 3 presents the thematic map, describing the standing of key research areas. According to [36], the circles’ sizes show how much these topics have been studied or whether they still require more research. Additionally, the thematic map organizes themes based on two measurements: centrality and density [24]. Using Callon’s centrality, the map can determine the level of interaction and connection among different themes [37]. Additionally, density shows the internal links or strengths between keywords of the themes.
Figure 3 displays the thematic map, which shows four main quadrants:
(1)
The motor theme—high centrality and density, in the upper right quadrant;
(2)
The core theme—low density but high centrality, in the lower right quadrant;
(3)
The niche theme—high density but low centrality, in the upper left quadrants;
(4)
The emerging or disappearing theme—low density and centrality, in the bottom left quadrant.
The Motor Theme in the top right quadrant has a high outer and within its quadrant association. Its wide presence and interactions highlight the importance of studies in the specified areas. The significant keywords under this theme include Sustainability Reporting, Sustainable Development Goals, Corporate Governance, and Sustainability. Sustainability Reporting holds the highest centrality for external connections (5.005) and the highest Density for internal connections (56.377). It ranks 16th in terms of Centrality and 13th in Density. It has the highest cluster frequency of 246, indicating its prevalence. These themes are crucial and central in this research domain.
In the upper left quadrant, “Niche Themes” are research areas that are highly focused but not as connected to the Motor Theme. These topics may not be widely linked to other domains yet, but they are still essential within this subject. One key feature of this domain is that it focuses on specialized interests or expertise in this field. Board gender diversity, female directors, and external assurance are examples of terms within this quadrant. External assurance, gender diversity on the board, and female directors improve sustainability reporting by encouraging openness, moral supervision, and transparency. In order to facilitate more successful alignment with the SDGs, these elements fortify governance frameworks and raise the legitimacy of disclosures. Thus, more academic work, investigation, and collaboration must be channeled to this domain of study. Themes in the lower right quadrant, with high centrality but low density, indicate essential themes that are still developing and need more investigation. These themes show areas that are gaining attention in research and potentially becoming critical research areas. The keywords in this quadrant are governance, disclosure, SDG 12, multinational enterprises, and transparency.
“Emerging or Declining Themes” is located in the lower-left quadrant, with low centrality and density, indicating little research activity or interest in this cluster. Research in this quadrant may be starting to gain attention or lose its importance in the academic world. Some keywords in this quadrant are accounting, higher education institutions, and bluewashing. However, Emerging Themes could become more significant in the future, so it is essential for scholars to monitor the key areas within this quadrant closely.

3.6. Network Visualization—Critical Analysis of Key Themes

The network visualization of the keyword map from VOSviewer (Figure 4) illustrates the relationships among key concepts in sustainability reporting, corporate social responsibility (CSR), governance, sustainable development, and SDGs. The clustering of terms suggests three dominant themes: (1) sustainability reporting as a governance mechanism, (2) the intersection of sustainable development goals (SDGs) and corporate sustainability, and (3) the performance-accountability paradox in sustainability disclosure. While these themes are widely acknowledged in the literature, a critical examination reveals inherent contradictions, gaps in practice, and challenges in achieving genuine sustainability.

3.6.1. Sustainability Reporting as a Governance Mechanism

The red cluster in Figure 4 with the following interconnected keywords: sustainability reporting, corporate social responsibility, governance, Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and sustainability indicates that the reporting frameworks are acting as governance tools and are becoming more institutionalized [26,30]. As suggested by [38], businesses reveal their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) commitment and performance data via sustainability reporting, and it is a crucial tool for businesses to show their accountability to all stakeholders [39]. Similarly, there is an association between sustainability reporting and CSR, and firms widely use reporting frameworks like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to gauge their nonfinancial performance. Though the ultimate goal of sustainability reporting is to increase stakeholder engagement and corporate transparency [28,35,40] documented that their efficacy depends more on corporate commitments than mere disclosure.
One of the main drawbacks of sustainability reporting is greenwashing, where companies continue to use a great deal of discretion in their reporting [32,41,42], which results in discrepancies and a lack of comparability even in the face of regulatory improvements like the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) [26,43]. Furthermore, there is a substantial oversight in the view that mere reporting results in sustainable business practices. Empirical research indicates a relatively inadequate relationship between sustainability disclosures and real environmental or social impact [31,44]. This suggests that while sustainability disclosures may enhance transparency, they do not always translate into substantive changes in corporate practices or measurable improvements in environmental and social outcomes. Thus, while sustainability reporting is theoretically positioned as a governance tool, it remains a strategic instrument for corporate self-preservation rather than genuine accountability.
In conclusion, despite efforts to frame sustainability reporting as a governance mechanism to enhance transparency and accountability, its vulnerability to greenwashing, discretionary reporting, and weak enforcement mechanisms raises concerns that it often serves more as a strategic tool for corporate image management and preservation of reputational capital than as a driver of meaningful environmental and social change.

3.6.2. The Intersection of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Corporate Sustainability

The green cluster (Figure 4) reveals several interconnected words: sustainable development goals (SDGs), corporate sustainability, sustainable development, integrated reporting, and nonfinancial reporting. These keywords represent the United Nations’ SDG framework presented in 2015 [27]. The framework strongly recommends that countries incorporate sustainability efforts into corporate strategic planning initiatives. Companies are encouraged to be at the forefront in directing responsible and sustainable SDG initiatives and sustainable reporting of the initiatives [45]. As suggested by [46], by integrating SDG and ESG initiatives into the main corporate strategies, companies can achieve long-term corporate sustainability, and the execution of the initiatives could be reported based on the EU Sustainable Report Directive (CSRD) [47].
However, research also documents a fundamental detachment between SDG objectives and business actualities [30,46]. Although companies reveal their sustainability reports and map them to SDG indicators, studies show that superficiality precedes genuine commitments [33,48]. For example, companies claiming to participate in SDG 13 (climate action) are often unable to explain the full scope of emissions, especially in the case of supply chains and indirect business activities [34,49], thus affecting corporate sustainability. Furthermore, though the nonfinancial reporting framework is gaining traction, it is still plagued by the fact that it is voluntary and not mandatory, in addition to inconsistencies in reporting [29,50]. More profound criticism also occurs regarding the concept of corporate sustainability. Many companies tend to implement sustainable initiatives that impact financial protection rather than environmental and social requirements, leading to what some researchers call weak sustainability, where business survival precedes corporate sustainability [35,51].
In conclusion, though regulatory bodies continuously invest time and effort to encourage companies to integrate sustainability into corporate strategies and align them with SDGs, a tenacious misalignment exists between SDG commitments, dashes of realism, and corporate sustainability. This is further exacerbated by voluntary and inconsistent reporting practices, which raise concerns about the depth of corporate sustainability efforts and the risk of prioritizing financial resilience over genuine environmental and social transformation.

3.6.3. The Performance-Accountability Paradox in Sustainability Disclosure

The blue cluster highlights keywords such as performance, legitimacy, social responsibility, and accountability as critical determinants of sustainability reporting. Ref. [50] define sustainability performance as financial and nonfinancial performance, i.e., being profitable and contributing to environmental, social, and governance issues. Financial performance is measurable in that context, while nonfinancial performance is relatively subjective [33]. Thus, companies employ manipulative strategies to showcase positive achievements while downplaying the negatives [34,52]. For instance, many firms highlight reductions in direct carbon emissions while omitting Scope 3 emissions, which often constitute the bulk of their carbon footprint [32,53].
This is further supported by the Legitimacy theory, which suggests that firms engage in sustainability reporting more to protect their social and reputational capital than genuine efforts that could contribute towards SDGs [54,55]. Refs. [27,43] document that firms operating in industries with significant environmental impacts tend to use sustainability reporting as a platform to showcase their ‘accountability.’ Conversely, accountability is the principle that companies should be answerable for their sustainability claims [56], and recent trends indicate a move from voluntary to mandatory disclosures of sustainability initiatives. It is also pivotal to note that companies could face regulatory scrutiny and action [57] if they fail to report on their sustainability risks. The underlying paradox in this domain is that while sustainability reporting enhances corporate accountability, the reverse is achieved when firms control the narrative and frame performance metrics in their favor [29,57].
Based on the outcome of the above themes, future research could be undertaken in the following realms:
(1)
Comparative studies between emerging and developed countries on the mechanisms used to integrate SDGs into companies’ strategic plans and how effectively it is reported. The results could shed light on the possibilities of sustainability reporting acting as a governance tool across diverse markets.
(2)
Studies on how artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and machine learning could be leveraged to enhance the availability and accuracy of sustainability reporting and the challenges faced throughout the supply chain. This could facilitate corporate sustainability efforts and alignment with the SDGs.
(3)
Examine how cultural norms, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) across different economies shape the integration of SDGs into their strategic planning framework and what governance mechanisms are set in place to ensure the execution of such plans and their eventual sustainability reporting.
(4)
Identify industry-specific challenges companies face when integrating SDGs within organizational frameworks and sustainability reporting in different economic contexts.
(5)
Determine factors contributing to greenwashing in sustainability reporting in different industries, economic contexts, and cultural settings, and propose strategies to mitigate such circumstances.
In conclusion, while sustainability reporting has evolved into a widely accepted business practice, its effectiveness remains deeply contested. Although positioned as a governance mechanism, sustainability reporting is often instrumentalized for reputational management rather than substantive change [29,35]. Similarly, corporate claims to advance SDGs frequently amount to strategic alignments lacking measurable impact [31]. Finally, the paradox of sustainability performance underscores the inherent tension between corporate accountability and the strategic use of reporting to shape legitimacy.
Moving forward, greater regulatory oversight, standardized reporting frameworks, and increased stakeholder scrutiny are essential to bridging the gap between sustainability discourse and real-world impact [32]. Without these reforms, sustainability reporting risks remain an exercise in optics rather than a genuine driver of corporate transformation.

4. Conclusions

This study was conducted with a central focus on governance as the key theoretical and practical lens underpinning sustainability reporting practices aligned with the SDGs, using an inclusive analysis of bibliometric data and content analysis. The study results directly answered the research questions by examining the publication trends, notable authors, publishers, documents, and countries. The findings showed a steady increase in publications by reputable authors in prominent journals. Europe and North America seem to have the highest research output and citation impact in this domain, further suggesting the need for more collaborative studies with other regions. The keywords and content analyses highlight three crucial themes, suggesting that sustainability reporting is evolving as a governance mechanism through which firms align with SDGs, manage stakeholder and institutional pressures, and navigate the tension between performance outcomes and symbolic accountability to maintain legitimacy. These insights, interpreted through the lenses of stakeholders, institutional, and legitimacy theories, shed new light on the complex dynamics driving contemporary corporate sustainability practices.
This study makes several significant practical contributions. First, the findings should shed light on the current practices and their implications for the broader sustainability objectives, contributing to further research on reporting practices that can effectively support and contribute to proper governance and corporate sustainability within the SDG framework. Second, the findings can potentially enlighten policy decisions, whereby policymakers could establish targeted actions and strategies that accelerate the achievement of the SDGs by comprehending the role of sustainability reporting. Third, this study’s results could highlight and provide a guide to business practices. It could provide a helpful road map for businesses that want to incorporate appropriate sustainability reporting as a governance tool into their operational frameworks. This will allow them to strengthen their reporting processes and align them with the SDGs. Fourth, the findings could contribute to the mobilization of collective efforts. The study results have the potential to catalyze fostering collaboration and collective effort among a wide range of stakeholders, including governmental entities, commercial enterprises, civil society organizations, and academic institutions. Stakeholders may collaborate to solve common sustainability issues by understanding how sustainability reporting affects SDGs. Hence, this scholarly endeavor serves as a driving force for progressing theoretical knowledge within the domain under consideration.
This study has some drawbacks. Determining which publications and databases to include might create some bias, depending on the keywords and database used, which could lead to excluding some important studies. Also, since the field is constantly changing, there may be rapid developments that the bibliometric data might not capture. Additionally, how various sources report information can differ in quality and consistency, affecting data analysis. Also, this research may not consider differences in regions or specific industries, which could limit the generalizability of the study findings.
In conclusion, this study indicates that SDG implementation may be strengthened by implementing a standardized SDG-focused reporting framework and corporate governance mechanisms as critical motivators to adopt practices aligned with the SDGs.

Author Contributions

Conception and design: S.S.; analysis and interpretation of the data: S.S., U.R. and B.Z.-D.; drafting of the paper: S.S., U.R. and B.Z.-D.; revising it critically for intellectual content: U.R. and B.Z.-D.; final approval of the version to be published: S.S.; Usha Rajagopalan, B.Z.-D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The author would like to thank Prince Sultan University for their financial support. The study is co-financed by the Minister of Science under the “Regional Initiative for Excellence” Programme.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Awuah, B.; Yazdifar, H.; Elbardan, H. Corporate reporting on the Sustainable Development Goals: A structured literature review and research agenda. J. Account. Organ. Change 2024, 20, 617–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Guarini, E.; Mori, E.; Zuffada, E. Localizing the Sustainable Development Goals: A managerial perspective. J. Public Budg. Account. Financ. Manag. 2022, 34, 583–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/ (accessed on 16 May 2025).
  4. Zyznarska-Dworczak, B. Corporate governance in ensuring the quality of financial and sustainability reporting in times of uncertainty. Theor. J. Account. 2023, 47, 99–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rizzato, F.; Tonelli, A.; Fiandrino, S.; Devalle, A. Analysing SDG disclosure and its impact on integrated thinking and reporting. Meditari Account. Res. 2024, 32, 803–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Diab, A.; Eissa, A.M. ESG performance, auditor choice, and audit opinion: Evidence from an emerging market. Sustainability 2023, 16, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shahrour, M.H.; Arouri, M.; Rao, S. Linking Climate Risk to Credit Risk: Evidence from Sectorial Analysis. J. Altern. Invest. 2024, 27, 118–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moussa, A.S.; Elmarzouky, M. Sustainability reporting and market uncertainty: The moderating effect of carbon disclosure. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, Y.; Lu, Y.; He, G.; Wang, C.; Yuan, J.; Cao, X. Spatial variability of sustainable development goals in China: A provincial level evaluation. Environ. Dev. 2020, 35, 100483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Moussa, A.S.; Elmarzouky, M.; Shohaieb, D. Green Governance: How ESG Initiatives Drive Financial Performance in UK Firms? Sustainability 2024, 16, 10894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Idowu, S.O.; Dragu, I.M.; Tiron-Tudor, A.; Farcas, T.V. From CSR and sustainability to integrated reporting. Int. J. Soc. Entrep. Innov. 2016, 4, 134–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Permatasari, I.; Tjahjadi, B. A closer look at integrated reporting quality: A systematic review and agenda of future research. Meditari Account. Res. 2024, 32, 661–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Turzo, T.; Marzi, G.; Favino, C.; Terzani, S. Non-financial reporting research and practice: Lessons from the last decade. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 345, 131154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sarkar, S.; Moolearambil Sukumaran Nair, M.; Datta, A. Role of Environmental, Social, and Governance in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals: A special focus on India. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2023, 42, e14204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Raman, R.; Nair, V.K.; Shivdas, A.; Bhukya, R.; Viswanathan, P.K.; Subramaniam, N.; Nedungadi, P. Mapping sustainability reporting research with the UN’s sustainable development goal. Heliyon 2023, 9, e18510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Effah, N.A.A.; Wang, Q.; Owusu, G.M.Y.; Otchere, O.A.S.; Owusu, B. Contributions toward sustainable development: A bibliometric analysis of sustainability reporting research. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 104–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ansari, Y.; Arwab, M.; Subhan, M.; Alam, M.S.; Hashmi, N.I.; Hisam, M.W.; Zameer, M.N. Modeling socio-economic consequences of COVID-19: An evidence from bibliometric analysis. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 941187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ejaz, H.; Zeeshan, H.M.; Ahmad, F.; Bukhari, S.N.A.; Anwar, N.; Alanazi, A.; Sadiq, A.; Junaid, K.; Atif, M.; Abosalif, K.O.A.; et al. Bibliometric analysis of publications on the omicron variant from 2020 to 2022 in the Scopus database using R and VOSviewer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Khan, O.; Daddi, T.; Iraldo, F. The role of dynamic capabilities in circular economy implementation and performance of companies. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 3018–3033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dumay, J.; Bernardi, C.; Guthrie, J.; Demartini, P. Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. Account. Forum 2016, 40, 166–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Van Eck, N.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cobo, M.J.; Martínez, M.A.; Gutiérrez-Salcedo, M.; Fujita, H.; Herrera-Viedma, E. 25 years at knowledge-based systems: A bibliometric analysis. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2015, 80, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bellucci, M.; Marzi, G.; Orlando, B.; Ciampi, F. Journal of Intellectual Capital: A review of emerging themes and future trends. J. Intellect. Cap. 2021, 22, 744–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rosati, F.; Faria, L.G. Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: The relationship with institutional factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 1312–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rosati, F.; Faria, L.G.D. Business contribution to the Sustainable Development Agenda: Organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 588–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Garcia-Sanchez, I.M.; Aibar-Guzmán, B.; Aibar-Guzmán, C.; Rodriguez-Ariza, L. “Sell” recommendations by analysts in response to business communication strategies concerning the Sustainable Development Goals and the SDG compass. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. García-Sánchez, I.M.; Rodríguez-Ariza, L.; Aibar-Guzmán, B.; Aibar-Guzmán, C. Do institutional investors drive corporate transparency regarding business contribution to the sustainable development goals? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 2019–2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Adams, C.A. The Sustainable Development Goals, Integrated Thinking and the Integrated Report; ICAEW Thought Leadership: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  31. Izzo, M.F.; Ciaburri, M.; Tiscini, R. The challenge of sustainable development goal reporting: The first evidence from Italian listed companies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tsalis, T.A.; Malamateniou, K.E.; Koulouriotis, D.; Nikolaou, I.E. New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1617–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Van der Waal, J.W.; Thijssens, T. Corporate involvement in sustainable development goals: Exploring the territory. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 252, 119625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Akimova, L.M.; Levytska, S.O.; Pavlov, K.V.; Kupchak, V.R.; Karpa, M.I. The role of accounting in providing sustainable development and national safety of Ukraine. Financ. Credit Act. Probl. Theory Pract. 2019, 3, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Fonseca, L.; Carvalho, F. The reporting of SDGs by quality, environmental, and occupational health and safety-certified organizations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rao, P.K.; Shukla, A. Sustainable strategic management: A bibliometric analysis. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 3902–3914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Callon, M.; Courtial, J.P.; Turner, W.A.; Bauin, S. From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Soc. Sci. Inf. 1983, 22, 191–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Adams, C.A. The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2004, 17, 731–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kolk, A. Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs. J. World Bus. 2010, 45, 367–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Milne, M.J.; Gray, R. W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 13–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sundarasen, S.; Zyznarska-Dworczak, B.; Goel, S. Sustainability reporting and greenwashing: A bibliometrics assessment in G7 and non-G7 nations. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2024, 11, 2320812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lyon, T.P.; Montgomery, A.W. The means and ends of greenwash. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 223–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Boiral, O. Sustainability reports as simulacra? A counter-account of A and A+ GRI reports. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2013, 26, 1036–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cho, C.H.; Laine, M.; Roberts, R.W.; Rodrigue, M. Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Account. Organ. Soc. 2015, 40, 78–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lozano, R. A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dyllick, T.; Muff, K. Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 156–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. European Commission. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/ (accessed on 12 January 2025).
  48. Spangenberg, J.H. Hot air or comprehensive progress? A critical assessment of the SDGs. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 25, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bebbington, J.; Unerman, J. Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: An enabling role for accounting research. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2018, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Eccles, R.G.; Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Manag. Sci. 2012, 60, 2835–2857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hahn, T.; Figge, F.; Pinkse, J.; Preuss, L. A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability. Organ. Stud. 2014, 35, 697–727. [Google Scholar]
  52. Stubbs, W.; Higgins, C. Integrated reporting and internal mechanisms of change. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2014, 27, 1068–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Andrew, J.; Cortese, C. Accounting for climate change and the self-regulation of carbon disclosures. Account. Forum 2011, 35, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Suchman, M.C. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cho, C.H.; Patten, D.M. The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Account. Organ. Soc. 2007, 32, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gray, R.; Owen, D.; Adams, C. Accounting & Accountability: Changes and Challenges in Corporate Social and Environmental Reporting; Prentice Hall: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  57. Deegan, C. Introduction: The legitimizing effect of social and environmental disclosures–a theoretical foundation. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2002, 15, 282–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 04784 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA table. Source: [17]. The * in the keywords is a command used in databases to retrieve word variants, including both singular and plural forms, ensuring broader coverage of relevant literature.
Figure 1. PRISMA table. Source: [17]. The * in the keywords is a command used in databases to retrieve word variants, including both singular and plural forms, ensuring broader coverage of relevant literature.
Sustainability 17 04784 g001
Sustainability 17 04784 g002
Figure 2. Number of articles published between 2017 and 2024 based on Web of Science database. Source: own elaboration based on the Web of Science database.
Figure 2. Number of articles published between 2017 and 2024 based on Web of Science database. Source: own elaboration based on the Web of Science database.
Sustainability 17 04784 g002
Sustainability 17 04784 g003
Figure 3. Thematic map of sustainability reporting, governance, and SDGs research themes. Source: Biblioshiny R-package.
Figure 3. Thematic map of sustainability reporting, governance, and SDGs research themes. Source: Biblioshiny R-package.
Sustainability 17 04784 g003
Sustainability 17 04784 g004
Figure 4. Keyword map. Source: Biblioshiny R-package.
Figure 4. Keyword map. Source: Biblioshiny R-package.
Sustainability 17 04784 g004
Table 2. Most significant sources and publishers.
Table 2. Most significant sources and publishers.
SourcesABDC RankingABS RankingSJR RankingPublisher
Journal of Cleaner ProductionA3*Q1Elsevier (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Journal of Business EthicsA3*Q1Springer (Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany)
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental ManagementB2*Q1Wiley-Blackwell Publishing (Hoboken, NJ, USA)
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability JournalA3*Q1Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. (Leeds, UK)
Sustainability--Q2MDPI (Basel, Switzerland)
Business Strategy and the EnvironmentB3*Q1Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy JournalC-Q2Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Accounting, Organizations, and SocietyA*4*Q1Elsevier Ltd.
Academy of Management ReviewA*4*Q1Academy of Management (Valhalla, NY, USA)
Meditari Accountancy ResearchA1*Q1Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Critical Perspectives on AccountingA3*Q1Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Accounting ForumB3*Q2Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Source: Own elaboration based on Web of Science database.
Table 3. Countries with high publications and citations.
Table 3. Countries with high publications and citations.
CountryTotal CitationsAverage Article CitationsCountryTotal CitationsAverage Article Citations
USA166220.02Canada29512.83
Spain154411.35Brazil2718.21
Italy97113.87Romania2698.97
China65810.12Belgium26838.29
Australia65617.26Switzerland25122.82
The Netherlands64135.61Austria24919.15
Germany58317.15Ireland24524.50
France51937.07India2366.21
Sweden33520.94Denmark22420.36
Japan29629.60
Source: Own elaboration based on Web of Science database.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sundarasen, S.; Rajagopalan, U.; Zyznarska-Dworczak, B. Sustainability Reporting as a Governance Tool for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Bibliometric and Content Analysis. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114784

AMA Style

Sundarasen S, Rajagopalan U, Zyznarska-Dworczak B. Sustainability Reporting as a Governance Tool for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Bibliometric and Content Analysis. Sustainability. 2025; 17(11):4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114784

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sundarasen, Sheela, Usha Rajagopalan, and Beata Zyznarska-Dworczak. 2025. "Sustainability Reporting as a Governance Tool for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Bibliometric and Content Analysis" Sustainability 17, no. 11: 4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114784

APA Style

Sundarasen, S., Rajagopalan, U., & Zyznarska-Dworczak, B. (2025). Sustainability Reporting as a Governance Tool for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A Bibliometric and Content Analysis. Sustainability, 17(11), 4784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17114784

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop