In the practice of international organizations, the effects of the Sustainable Development Goals have been largely discursive.

First, the literature suggests a mismatch between the formal aspirations of the United Nations to promote the Sustainable Development Goals as central guidelines in global governance and the limited transformative outcomes. Research indicates that even though the goals might have helped create a few new institutional arrangements and that many organizations have formally aligned their work with the global goals, actual reforms in the operations of international organizations since 2015 have been modest. Changes are largely discursive with limited practical effects thus far (e.g., Schnitzler, Seifert and Tataje Reference Schnitzler, Seifert and Tataje2020). While the governance principles that underpin the Sustainable Development Goals – such as universality, coherence, integration, and ‘leaving no one behind’ – have changed the discourse in multilateral institutions, there is no strong evidence that the Sustainable Development Goals have had a transformative impact on global governance practices (e.g., Kloke-Lesch Reference Kloke-Lesch, Chaturverdi, Klingebiel, Sidiropoulos, Li, Janus, de Mello e Souza and Wehrmann2021; Pérez-Pineda and Wehrmann Reference Pérez-Pineda, Wehrmann, Chaturverdi, Klingebiel, Sidiropoulos, Li, Janus, de Mello e Souza and Wehrmann2021; Rudolph Reference Rudolph2017). Specifically, the literature provides little evidence that the Sustainable Development Goals have had transformative effects on the mandates, practices or resource allocation of international organizations and institutions within the United Nations system (Weinlich et al. 2022).

The High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development has not lived up to expectations of becoming an ‘orchestrator’ in global governance.

As part of a larger reform following the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, governments decided to terminate the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development and to establish in its place a High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. This new forum was meant to function as a regular meeting place for governments and non-state representatives to assess global progress towards sustainable development and, after 2015, to review the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. The creation of this overarching institution for sustainability governance, involving high-level government representatives, was also expected to enhance system-wide coherence in the follow-up and progress reviews under the 2030 Agenda.

The literature indicates that the High-level Political Forum has not lived up to these expectations. The forum has failed to act as an orchestrator to promote system-wide coherence. The reasons for this include its broad and unclear mandate combined with a lack of resources and a lack of political leadership owing to divergent national interests (e.g., Amanuma et al. Reference Amanuma, Koike, Zusman, Hengesbaugh, Fujjino and Sussman2019; Beisheim Reference Beisheim and Bernstein2020; Brimont and Hege 2020; Monkelbaan Reference Monkelbaan2019). The forum has not provided political leadership and effective guidance for achieving the 2030 Agenda (e.g., Beisheim Reference Beisheim2018; Dimitrov Reference Dimitrov2020; Hege, Chabason and Barchiche Reference Hege, Chabason and Barchiche2020). Recent reform discussions did not change this (Beisheim 2021).

The United Nations sought to build on the 2030 Agenda by providing system-wide guidance to the United Nations development system and by authorizing normative reforms and initiating institutional changes. Some of them are far-reaching but not transformational, mostly because of governments’ incoherent signals in the governing bodies and funding practices that impede integrated approaches at scale (e.g., Golding Reference Golding, Browne and Weiss2021; Gruener and Hammergren Reference Gruener, Hammergren, Browne and Weiss2021; Samarasinghe Reference Samarasinghe, Browne and Weiss2021; Weinlich et al. Reference Weinlich, Baumann, Lundsgaarde and Wolff2020).

The United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Environment Assembly, formally mandated to catalyse cooperation for environmental policies, have also not been able to expand their leadership following the adoption of the 2030 Agenda. The polycentric nature of global environmental governance, with more than one thousand multilateral environmental agreements, continues to limit institutional change in this field and system-wide coherence, especially regarding transboundary environmental problems (e.g., Chasek and Downie Reference Chasek and Downie2021; Elder and Olsen Reference Elder and Olsen2019; Ivanova Reference Ivanova2020; Urho et al. Reference Urho, Ivanova, Dubrova and Escobar-Pemberthy2019).

The Sustainable Development Goals initiated peer-learning among governments.

Some studies suggest that the Sustainable Development Goals and the High-level Political Forum initiated, and served as a platform for, peer-learning among governments. They also offered some new opportunities for non-state and sub-national actors to become involved in global sustainability governance (e.g., Amanuma et al. Reference Amanuma, Koike, Zusman, Hengesbaugh, Fujjino and Sussman2019; Beisheim Reference Beisheim and Bernstein2020; Beisheim and Bernstein Reference Beisheim and Bernstein2020). At the annual sessions of the High-level Political Forum, for instance, governments present Voluntary National Reviews on their measures to implement the Sustainable Development Goals. This process has enabled some non-confrontational peer-learning among governments (Beisheim Reference Beisheim and Bernstein2020). In addition, non-governmental organizations, which are invited as observers to these meetings, perform public review functions by delivering statements or posing questions to government delegates, and by publicly disclosing their critique through their networks. Yet, there is no robust evidence that peer-learning and voluntary reporting has steered governments and other actors in the direction of structural and transformative change towards sustainable development.

Some evidence suggests that the Sustainable Development Goals influence multilateral development organizations and finance and trade institutions beyond the United Nations. One mechanism to involve international organizations is the ‘custodianships’ through which international organizations have agreed to lead the development and review of some of the 231 indicators set to operationalize the global goals. For example, it seems that a joint custodianship of international organizations increases cooperation among these organizations and augments policy coherence (van Driel et al. 2021).

Observable changes often reflect long-term trajectories not causally linked to the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Certain ambitions of the Sustainable Development Goals have been part of reform debates in global governance for a long time, for example, the reform of the United Nations development system and the need to increase institutional integration and policy coherence for sustainability. Yet, it is difficult to identify in the literature robust change in long-term trends that could be causally related to the launch of the global goals in 2015. The goals had some discursive effects, and reform processes are now often justified and legitimized by referring to them. Nevertheless, studies hardly ever detect clear, unidirectional causality that any major reform processes have been initiated because of the goals.

The degree of policy change at country level varies, with sub-national authorities and non-state actors often assuming pioneering roles.

There is some evidence indeed that diverse actors at multiple governance levels have become active in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. The performance of national governments varies, however, and most countries lag behind in implementing the global goals. Some evidence suggests that sub-national authorities, and especially cities, are sometimes more pioneering and progressive than their central governments in building coalitions for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. We see indications of an increased interest and participation of corporate actors in sustainable development through public–private partnerships, even though the effectiveness of such arrangements is still uncertain. In several national political systems, civil society actors have begun to hold public actors accountable for their commitments to realize the vision of ‘leaving no one behind’. The growing role of actors beyond national governments suggests an emerging multifaceted and multilayered approach to implementing the 2030 Agenda (e.g., Björkdahl and Somun-Krupalija Reference Björkdahl, Somun-Krupalija and Cheema2020; Horn and Grugel Reference Horn and Grugel2018; Valencia et al. Reference Valencia, Simon, Croese, Nordqvist, Oloko, Sharma and Versace2019).

Domestic steering effects are observable largely at the discursive level.

Evidence suggests that political effects of the Sustainable Development Goals have remained largely at the discursive level. For instance, governments increasingly refer to the goals in official policy documents and take part in the voluntary review of their performance in the High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (Bexell and Jönsson Reference Bexell and Jönsson2019). Sub-national authorities refer to the Sustainable Development Goals in their communications; corporate actors use language of the 2030 Agenda in their reports, and civil society organizations emphasize the goals in their campaigns (e.g., Banik and Lin Reference Banik and Lin2019; Francis, Henriksson and Stewart Reference Forestier and Kim2020; Horn and Grugel Reference Horn and Grugel2018). We also found some relational effects, in particular in new or strengthened public–private partnerships and in terms of local collaborative governance (Mawdsley Reference Mawdsley2018).

These references to the Sustainable Development Goals in the political debate over the last seven years could be a first step towards more far-reaching transformational changes. Examples in some countries are the creation or reform of institutions to promote the global goals or the formation of new relationships and partnerships. In the coming years, this slowly changing discourse could lead to accelerated public and private funding for the implementation of the goals. As of the time of writing, however, it remains uncertain whether the observable discursive effects of the Sustainable Development Goals signal a first phase of deep transformation towards sustainable development or whether their impact will remain mainly at the discursive level until 2030.

Institutional change often replicates existing priorities and trajectories.

Many countries have begun to integrate Sustainable Development Goals in their public administrative system. Some governments have designated bodies or formed new units and departments that are responsible for implementing the goals. Many of these institutions, however, seem to merely reproduce earlier structures and priorities of governments or lack institutional power to bring about transformative changes towards sustainable development (e.g., Morita, Okitasari and Masuda Reference Morita, Okitasari and Masuda2020; Tosun and Leininger Reference Tosun and Leininger2017). Evidence suggests a selective implementation of those global goals that governments had previously prioritized in their political agendas (e.g., Forestier and Kim Reference Biermann and Kim2020), with the result that the 2030 Agenda merely reproduces existing agendas without engendering transformative change. This underlines the importance of actors outside national governments to work towards a more holistic and more transformative implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, for instance, by showing examples of how to innovative realize the goals locally.

There is limited evidence for the mobilization of additional funding.

There is hardly any evidence that governments significantly reallocate funding to implement the Sustainable Development Goals, neither for national implementation nor international cooperation. The global goals do not seem to have changed public budgets and financial allocation mechanisms in any significant way. There is evidence, however, for limited resource effects of the Sustainable Development Goals in some local governance contexts (e.g., Valencia et al. Reference Valencia, Simon, Croese, Nordqvist, Oloko, Sharma and Versace2019; Wang, Yuan and Liu Reference Wang, Yuan and Lu2020). Lack of funding could prevent genuine steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals and indicate that the discursive changes that we identified above will not lead to transformative structural change and policy reform.

There is growing evidence that some corporate actors, including banks and investors, engage and invest in sustainability practices, promote green finance, facilitate large-scale sustainable infrastructure projects or expand their loan portfolios to environmental and social loans (e.g., Consolandi Reference Consolandi, Phadke, Hawley and Eccles2020; Denny Reference Denny2018; Lee Reference Lee2020; Liaw et al. Reference Liaw, Marcelo, Narasimhan, Ashraf and Ray2017). Such practices are often discursively linked to the Sustainable Development Goals. Some studies warn here of ‘SDG washing’ by corporate actors, selective implementation of the goals, and the political risks linked to private investments in the context of continued shortage of public funding (Bebbington and Unerman Reference Bebbington and Unerman2018). Overall, a more fundamental change in incentive structures to guide public and private funding towards sustainable pathways seems still to be lacking.

There is limited empirical data on interlinkages, integration and coherence.

Substantial academic work has been devoted to the conceptualization of governance fragmentation, institutional interlinkages and integration, and policy coherence. This has enhanced theoretical understanding and terminological clarity (Biermann and Kim Reference Biermann and Kim2020). Yet there are limited empirical insights on how these concepts play out in the national implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Several case studies on Bangladesh, Belgium, Colombia, Germany, India, the Netherlands, Sri Lanka and small island developing countries suggest that synergies and trade-offs in the 2030 Agenda manifest differently across national systems and governmental levels (e.g., Breuer, Leininger and Tosun Reference Breuer, Leininger and Tosun2019; de Zoysa, Gunawardena and Gunawardena Reference De Zoysa, Gunawardena and Gunawardena2020; Scobie Reference Scobie, Klöck and Fink2019; Yunita et al. 2022). However, broader comparative assessments on the impacts of the interlinkages of global goals on national politics are lacking.

The institutional integration for the Sustainable Development Goals varies.

Evidence suggests that some governments have taken measures to align their institutions towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Some countries like the Netherlands have established coordination bodies within central agencies, and others like Germany have promoted inter-ministerial exchanges to bring their public administrative systems in line with the holistic vision of the 2030 Agenda (Breuer, Leininger and Tosun Reference Breuer, Leininger and Tosun2019; Yunita et al. 2022). These attempts, however, differ from country to country, leading to a huge variation of institutional integration for the Sustainable Development Goals at national level. Moreover, the responsibility for the goals lies in some countries in ministries and in others with the head of state or government. The impact of either strategy remains uncertain and warrants further investigation.

Policy coherence is lagging.

Despite modest advances in institutional integration in some countries, governments overall fall short of enhancing policy coherence to implement the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. While some governments have begun to integrate the goals in national development strategies and action plans, this has rarely led to the formulation of (cross-)sectoral policies and programmes that cohere with one another (e.g., de Zoysa, Gunawardena and Gunawardena Reference De Zoysa, Gunawardena and Gunawardena2020; Trimmer Reference Trimmer2019). Most governments seem to be stuck in traditional divisions of tasks between line ministries without effective mechanisms to formulate policies that aim to exploit synergies across policy domains and address trade-offs. Experts are divided in their expectations as to whether stronger policy coherence for the Sustainable Development Goals will emerge until 2030.

Barriers to institutional integration and policy coherence remain.

Evidence points to many barriers in public administrative systems to institutional integration and policy coherence (e.g., Allen, Metternicht and Wiedmann Reference Allen, Metternicht and Wiedmann2019). These include cumbersome bureaucracies, lacking political interest, short-term political agendas and waning ownership of the Sustainable Development Goals. Admittedly, breaking down such barriers will take some time and require political leadership, continuous efforts by progressive policy-makers and pressure by civil society organizations. So far, however, there are few indications that the adoption of the 2030 Agenda has significantly reduced such barriers.

Rhetoric and action do not match.

Evidence suggests a mismatch between rhetoric and action when it comes to the impacts of the Sustainable Development Goals on inclusiveness within and between countries. On the one hand, vulnerable people and vulnerable countries are often discursively prioritized in the implementation of the goals, as evidenced by the broad uptake of the principle of ‘leaving no one behind’ in pronouncements by policy-makers and civil society activists. On the other hand, the normative or institutional effects of such discursive prioritization remain limited.

Within countries, the steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals in reducing inequalities vary significantly and seem to be bound by domestic politics (e.g., Gehre Galvão, de Almeida Gontijo and Antunes Martins 2020; Siegel and Bastos Lima Reference Siegel and Bastos Lima2020). The literature suggests that the goals have not brought additional normative or institutional steering that promotes inclusiveness. Instead the Sustainable Development Goals have been leveraged, if at all, as an overarching international normative framework to legitimize existing national policies and institutions for the promotion of inclusiveness (Abualghaib et al. Reference Abualghaib, Groce, Simeu, Carew and Mont2019; Banks et al. Reference Banks, Hameed, Kawsar Usman and Kuper2020; Dhar Reference Dhar2018). In some countries we even see counterproductive effects as political elites capture the goals to overlay exclusive institutional settings and add legitimacy to entrenched marginalization.

Internationally, there is no evidence that the launch of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 has advanced the political or economic position of the world’s poorest countries in global governance (Biermann and Sénit Reference Biermann and Sénit2022). These countries are as vulnerable, politically and economically, as they were before 2015. There are no indications that the Sustainable Development Goals have steered global governance structures towards more inclusiveness, especially regarding least developed countries (e.g., Choer Moraes Reference Choer Moraes2019; Fioretos and Heldt Reference Fioretos and Heldt2019). Some studies doubt whether the Sustainable Development Goals will ever be able to transform legal frameworks towards an increased political participation of vulnerable countries. The constant lack of compliance with longstanding norms that seek to support least developed countries, such as special commitments on aid from the Global North, further indicates the lack of steering effect of the goals on the inclusion of these countries in the global economy (Biermann and Sénit Reference Biermann and Sénit2022). There is some evidence, however, that emerging economies in the Global South increasingly frame their aid and investment commitments to poorer countries as promoting the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., Banik Reference Banik, Dwivedi and Pandey2018).

The Sustainable Development Goals offer a novel accountability mechanism for civil society.

There is some evidence that civil society organizations increasingly use the Sustainable Development Goals as a reference framework to hold governments to account (e.g., Alade and Oyatogun Reference Alade and Oyatogun2020; Chancel, Hough and Voituriez Reference Chancel, Hough and Voituriez2018; Goegele Reference Goegele2020; Lynes Reference Lynes2020). Even if this does not provide evidence of normative, institutional or discursive steering effects as defined in this assessment, this trend might be important to prevent policy backlash against inclusiveness, especially in countries that are less welcoming to civil society influence. More research is needed here to assess the steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals in domestic institutions and how citizens use the goals as a tool to enhance the democratic quality of national policy-making.

Research evidence is strikingly limited.

Overall, the academic literature on the relationship between the Sustainable Development Goals and national and global inclusiveness and inequality is very limited. There is also not much research on Sustainable Development Goal 10, which seeks to reduce inequalities within and among countries. This lack in knowledge might reflect postcolonial structures of a predominantly Global North-based science community. More research is needed to understand the varying impact of the Sustainable Development Goals on inclusiveness and the conditions under which the goals may steer inclusion nationally and internationally.

There is limited additionality, ambition and coherence for planetary integrity.

The literature raises doubts about the steering effects of the Sustainable Development Goals towards planetary integrity on three grounds: lack of additionality, lack of ambition and lack of coherence.

First, there is little evidence of whether normative and institutional change towards planetary integrity would not have materialized without the Sustainable Development Goals. Experiences from international governance reveal that while the global goals seem to have shaped discussions around the climate and biodiversity regimes and have consolidated support for specific concerns and interlinkages (e.g., Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project 2015; Deprez, Vallejo and Rankovic Reference Deprez, Vallejo and Rankovic2019), many such changes had been part of negotiations well before 2015 (e.g., Johnsson et al. Reference Johnsson, Karlsson, Rootzén, Ahlbäck and Gustavsson2020; Rantala et al. Reference Rantala, Iacobuta, Minestrini, Tribukait, Honkonen and Romppanen2020).

Second, most studies concur that when it comes to planetary integrity, the Sustainable Development Goals lack ambition and do not call for drastic changes that would be transformative enough (e.g., Adelman Reference Adelman, French and Kotzé2018; Craig and Rhul Reference Craig, Ruhl, Owley and Hirokawa2020; Eisenmenger et al. Reference Eisenmenger, Pichler, Krenmayr, Noll, Plank, Schalmann and Gingrich2020; Kotzé Reference Kotzé, French and Kotzé2018).

Third, some studies suggest that the Sustainable Development Goals lack coherence to foster a meaningful and focused push towards planetary integrity. There are indications that this lack of ambition and coherence partially results from the design of the goals (e.g., Gasper, Shah and Tankha Reference Gasper, Shah and Tankha2019). For example, economic growth as envisaged in Goal 8 might be incompatible with some environmental protection targets under Goals 6, 13, 14 and 15 (e.g., Hickel Reference Hickel2019). Some studies argued that the focus of the goals on neoliberal sustainable development is inevitably detrimental to planetary integrity and related justice concerns (e.g., Kotzé Reference Kotzé, French and Kotzé2018). As a result, experiences from the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals in domestic, regional and international contexts reveal little evidence of steering effects towards advancing planetary integrity, as countries in both Global South and Global North largely prioritize the socio-economic Sustainable Development Goals over environmental ones, following their earlier national development policies (e.g., Forestier and Kim Reference Biermann and Kim2020; Zeng et al. Reference Zeng, Maxwell, Runting, Venter, Watson and Carrasco2020).

The goals raise concern but do not motivate transformative change.

Recent studies suggest a limited role of the Sustainable Development Goals in facilitating the clustering of international agreements or in serving as collective ‘headlines’; however, they are not yet a radical game-changer in global governance to advance planetary integrity. At the global level, there is evidence that the Sustainable Development Goals have had some impact on advancing environmental regimes on biodiversity, climate change or ocean protection (Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project 2015; Delabre et al. under review; Deprez, Vallejo and Rankovic Reference Deprez, Vallejo and Rankovic2019; Watson Reference Wang, Yuan and Lu2020). At the regional level, while it seems that the Sustainable Development Goals have fed into policies and programmes of regional governance bodies and steered the creation of new institutions, in practice the steering effects of the goals towards better environmental protection remain limited (e.g., Corrado et al. Reference Corrado, Rydberg, Oliveira, Cerutti and Sala2020; Hirons Reference Hirons2020; Hickel Reference Hickel2021; Páez Vieyra Reference Páez Vieyra2019). Within countries, there is little evidence that the Sustainable Development Goals have strengthened environmental policies (e.g., de la Mothe Karoubi et al. Reference De la Mothe Karoubi, Dushime, Fuller, Nyorekwa Twinoburyo, Simkolo and Verburg2019; Haywood et al. Reference Haywood, Funke, Audouin, Musvoto and Nahman2019). Some recent studies highlight implementation challenges relating to interdependencies and underlying conflicts (e.g., Nunes Reference Nunes2020) and that the goals led to only tactical linkages rather than substantive changes (Mahadi Reference Mahadi2020). Overall, scholars tend to agree that while the Sustainable Development Goals may help highlight environmental protection as an important concern, their rationale and content are structurally incompatible with efforts to steer towards a more ambitious programme for planetary integrity. More research is needed to understand variation in the impacts of the goals.

Combining methods is key to gain a complete picture.

Both types of methods are needed for a clear picture of the overall impact of the Sustainable Development Goals, and it is important to build bridges across methodological communities that often work in isolation from each other. Building such bridges is not easy, yet nonetheless essential to gain a full understanding of the steering effects of the global goals. While there is some pioneering work that uses mixed methods, more interdisciplinary collaboration is warranted. Particularly we need a better understanding of how the effects of the Sustainable Development Goals on different actors and institutions influence progress towards achieving the goals, and vice versa.

Data gaps and unequal coverage of Sustainable Development Goals remain.

Despite the growing number of researchers who study the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals, we still lack data (Fukuda-Parr and McNeill Reference Fukuda‐Parr and McNeill2019; MacFeely Reference MacFeely2018). This is particularly evident for data on the local level and data on least developed countries (Engström et al. Reference Engström, Destouni, Howells, Ramaswamy, Rogner and Bazilian2019). Problematic is also the disjunct of language communities; many scientists rely on publications and data published in English, which underreports findings from regions where English is not the common working language. Comparative in-depth studies of steering effects of global goals in local governance are laborious, time-consuming and require adequate funding. Nevertheless, insights from field research are of utmost importance to assess the usefulness of globally agreed policy goals. Similarly, studies tend to focus on a limited number of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and their interactions. As a result, some goals are under-researched, and comprehensive models that cover all 17 goals are lacking. More efforts are needed to understand interlinkages between global goals.

As highlighted throughout this assessment, at the centre of the 2030 Agenda is the ambition to address at the same time economic, ecological and social goals and to break down silos in policy-making at all political levels and societal scales. To overcome silos in decision-making and open windows of opportunity for more coherent policies towards sustainable development, we need to gain a deeper understanding of the complexity of the interlinkages across the goals (Breuer, Leininger and Tosun Reference Breuer, Leininger and Tosun2019; Pradhan Reference Pradhan2019; van Vuuren et al. Reference Van Vuuren, Zimm, Busch, Kriegler, Leininger, Messner and Soergel2021). In line with key findings from Chapter 4 of this assessment, while a few recent studies have shed light on interactions between goals, we still need more research on what policies best reflect the synergies and trade-offs in the interplay of the goals (e.g., van Soest et al. Reference Van Soest, van Vuuren, Hilaire, Minx, Harmsen, Krey and Luderer2019).

Scientists need to engage more in science–policy–society interactions.

The Sustainable Development Goals are the outcome of complex intergovernmental negotiations. Civil society groups, corporations and science organizations were able to bring in their views. Yet in the end, the 2030 Agenda and the 17 global goals were adopted by governments as a political agreement marked by countless political compromises and bargains. To what extent are these goals then based on insights from science and scientific data? While scientists have informed the Sustainable Development Goals through various channels, some scholars argue that this has not been enough and now call for having a stronger voice in the implementation and operationalization of the goals (Roehrl, Liu and Mukherjee Reference Roehrl, Liu and Mukherjee2020). Others again warn of an overly technocratic approach that would give too much room for scientists, who are generally based in the Global North, to decide what are essentially global conflicts of value and interests (Hartley Reference Hartley2020). And yet, many science communities are also still absent in debates on the 2030 Agenda. More involvement of scientists, especially those from the Global South, is needed to help advance the global transformation towards sustainable development.