Sustainable Development Goals in Management Research:A 20-years Analysis

This paper maps how management scholarship has taken up the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) across the past two decades,with a particular focus on how Management and Organization Review(MOR) compares to 18 flagship journals in accounting,finance,management,marketing,and operations. Building on a 55-year,18-journal dataset,the authors zero in on 2005—2024—the decade before and after the SDGs' 2015 launch—and add MOR as a 19th journal to assess whether Chinese management research has been especially receptive to SDG-oriented work. Methodologically,the team uses an ensemble of three AI systems—a keyword/semantic model from Rotterdam School of Management,OpenAI GPT-4.1,and Claude Sonnet 3.7—to score each article abstract against all 17 SDGs. Articles are tagged to a goal when at least two models concur (“majority rule”),allowing multi-label assignment. Inter-model agreement is high (most pairwise correlations>0.90),and the resulting SDG ratio—the share of a journal's output mapped to at least one SDG—serves as a transparent,scalable indicator of a journal's social-value orientation. Across the 20-year window,SDG engagement rises markedly after 2015. In the 18 journals,the SDG ratio climbs from a pre-2015 baseline of 9% to 31% in 2015—2024. MOR exhibits both higher levels and stronger growth:28.4% of its 2005—2014 papers are SDG-linked,jumping to 43.3% post-2015—about 14 percentage points above the contemporaneous 18-journal average. Aggregated over 2005—2024,36.7% of MOR's 365 articles map to at least one SDG,compared with 26.4% of the 24,508 articles in the comparison set,indicating a consistently stronger SDG orientation at MOR. Topic coverage is uneven but broadly aligned across journals. Four goals dominate in both MOR and the 18 journals:SDG08 (Decent Work and Economic Growth),SDG09 (Industry,Innovation & Infrastructure),SDG10 (Reduced Inequality),and SDG16 (Peace,Justice & Strong Institutions). MOR also shows attention on SDG12 (Responsible Consumption & Production),clearing the 1% threshold there,whereas the 18-journal group surpasses MOR on SDG03 (Good Health & Well-Being) and SDG05 (Gender Equality). Several ecology-focused goals (e.g.,SDG 13—15) remain comparatively underrepresented overall,underscoring opportunities to bind environmental stewardship more tightly to mainstream management theories of strategy,organizing,and innovation. The findings illuminate the agenda-setting power of editorial policy. MOR's mission—to advance theory from and about China while cultivating humanistic,stakeholder-oriented inquiry—appears to institutionalize stronger incentives for socially consequential work through topic selection,special issues,and review criteria. This suggests that journals can accelerate the field's pivot toward responsible research without sacrificing rigor,echoing the Responsible Research in Business and Management (RRBM) movement's dual mandate of credibility and usefulness. The paper also positions the SDG ratio as a complementary metric to citations—one that foregrounds societal relevance. While an SDG tag is not proof of real-world impact,systematic SDG mapping offers a common language for scholars,editors,and funders to monitor progress,identify blind spots (notably climate and biodiversity),and align resources and evaluations with global development priorities. Methodologically,the study endorses AI ensemble triangulation as a reliable,scalable approach for large-corpus content analysis,with the caveat that multi-model checks and transparency are essential. In sum,management research has shifted—unevenly but decisively—toward societal stewardship since 2015. MOR stands out as a field leader,demonstrating how editorial stewardship can galvanize SDG-relevant scholarship. The road ahead is clear:deepen coverage of neglected ecological and equity goals,maintain methodological pluralism,and use SDG-aligned incentives to translate rigorous scholarship into knowledge that advances the common good. The reconstruction of the valuation system with Chinese characteristics is an ongoing and lengthy process.It requires simultaneous efforts from the investment side and the corporate side to mutually cultivate capital and assets that recognize social value.Our policy recommendations include:Firstly,standardizing and strengthening the disclosure of information related to corporate social value.Secondly,enhancing investor education and leveraging the role of professional institutional investors to focus more on information related to social value.Thirdly,from the investment side,cultivating long-term capital for social value,such as insurance,pensions,social security,and annuities,and developing broad-based index products.Fourthly,encouraging Chinese enterprises to proactively strengthen their strategic and operational management capabilities in creating social value.Lastly,strengthening systematic research on the valuation system of Chinese characteristics.