MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417348245 · doi:10.1002/sd.70515

Mapping the Research Landscape of Sustainable Development Goals in Business, Management, and Accounting: A Bibliometric and Thematic Synthesis

2025· article· en· W4417348245 on OpenAlexaff
Ajay Chandel, Rohail Hassan, Anurag Pahuja, Sukhbir Sandhu

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic mapSustainable developmentSustainabilityMultidisciplinary approachThematic analysisContent analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Ongoing research related to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) agenda within business, management, and accounting has garnered significant scholarly attention due to its potential to address global sustainability challenges. This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric and content analysis of 1536 research articles published between 2011 and 2024. Using a bibliometric and thematic synthesis, the study unearths thematic trends, top contributors, and active research areas, including energy efficiency, circular business models, and sustainable reporting. The study unearths new empirical outlines in the field, revealing that SDGs such as No Poverty (SDG1), Zero Hunger (SDG2), Good Health and Well‐being (SDG3), and Life Below Water (SDG14) remain under‐researched in business and management scholarship, while SDGs 7, 8, 9, and 17 exhibit the broadest thematic diversity. Following an integrated approach that combines entropy analysis, bibliographic coupling, and content analysis, the study presents one of the first triangulated views of how SDG research in business disciplines has evolved from a CSR‐centric discourse toward multifaceted sustainability frameworks. These findings strengthen the theory and practice by identifying thematic blind spots, emergent multidisciplinary linkages, and implementable research directions for academia, policymakers, and industry.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.2240.254
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Review

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable DevelopmentSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingCategoryBibliometricsFrench-language works237,207