1 Introduction

In response to intensifying environmental and social challenges, sustainability reporting (SR) has gained prominence as a mechanism for companies to communicate their corporate responsibility initiatives and contribute to global sustainability goals (Bebbington and Unerman 2020). This rise is accompanied by growing national and international regulatory frameworks, as well as increasing societal expectations that corporations have to contribute to sustainable development (Di Vaio et al. 2022; Adams 2017). Central to this expectation is corporate social responsibility (CSR), which has evolved to encourage businesses to consider not only their financial outcomes but also their long-term social and environmental impacts (Lepore and Pisano 2022). In this context, SR, whether voluntary or mandated, has become a critical mechanism for reducing information asymmetries, enhancing governance, and supporting informed decision-making by stakeholders and investors (Blowfield and Frynas 2005; Bushman and Smith 2001). Since the establishment of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) a decade ago, SR has acquired a new dimension as a relevant strategy to progress towards the achievement of the SDGs. Specifically, Target 6 of SDG 12 calls on companies to adopt sustainable practices and integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycles. Consequently, the alignment between corporate sustainability disclosures and the SDGs has become a key focus for scholars, practitioners, and international organizations (Lepore and Pisano 2022). Several scholars and organizations have proposed frameworks and methodologies to address the disconnection between SR and SDG reporting. The global reporting initiative (GRI), for instance, offers a set of guidelines that encourage companies to incorporate SDG-related indicators into their sustainability reports (GRI 2022). The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has also developed tools to help businesses align their CSR strategies with the SDGs, providing a roadmap for integrating sustainability targets into corporate decision-making processes (WBCSD 2023). These initiatives aim to standardize reporting practices and improve the quality of information disclosed by companies, thus enhancing transparency and accountability.

However, despite these efforts, significant gaps remain in the alignment between SR and the SDGs, particularly regarding the measurement of progress toward specific SDG targets. Most existing studies focus on policy recommendations, conceptual linkages, or qualitative assessments, with limited empirical evidence on how firms concretely align their enterprise-level sustainability indicators with SDG global targets (Malay 2021). Moreover, current approaches typically lack context-specific methodologies for measuring this alignment at the firm level, making it difficult to assess how companies are contributing to specific SDG outcomes in practice (Tsalis et al. 2020). Without consensus on indicator selection, firms risk cherry-picking SDGs or targets where they perform better or that are easier to report, undermining the robustness and credibility of their sustainability assessments (Gebara et al. 2024; Hák et al. 2016; Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. 2022). From here, a clear necessity emerges to systematically evaluate the alignment between companies SR and the SDGs targets.

This paper addresses this critical gap by applying a novel downscaling model that enables the systematic evaluation of how corporate sustainability indicators align with the SDGs. Using sustainability reports from 2010 to 2020 of ASIA s.p.a, a public utility company, as a case study, this research offers an empirical analysis of the extent to which the company's reports correspond to specific SDG targets. In doing so, the study pursues two central research questions: (1) to what extent do the sustainability reports of ASIA s.p.a effectively align with the SDGs? and (2) what are the main gaps or challenges in this alignment, and how do these affect the company's social, environmental, and economic performance? Our results indicate an increasing alignment between ASIA s.p.a SR and SDG targets. Yet, there is a clear imbalance favoring economic outcomes over socio-environmental aspects. Additionally, the lack of quantitative targets to reduce negative impacts minimizes the potential of these reports as strategic tools to materialize sustainability improvements.

To answer such questions, we first describe institutional theory as the theoretical ground of our analysis (Section 2) and the legislative framework surrounding CSR and SR and their linkage with SDGs (Section 3). In Section 4 we outline the data collection process and provide background information on ASIA s.p.a as a case study and it presents the methodology employed in this study, including a detailed description of the downscaling model used to evaluate the firm's indicators. We present the limitations of our analysis in Section 5, and, in Section 6, we describe the main findings of our study. In Section 7, we discuss the main implications of both our methodological approach and findings. Finally, Section 8 summarizes the main findings of this study.

2 Background

Over time, scholars have used different theories to explain environmental disclosure ranging from stakeholder and legitimacy, institutional, agency, and signaling theories (Lepore and Pisano 2022). Early frameworks focused on the ethical responsibilities of corporations, beginning with Bowen (1953), who emphasized duties beyond profit-making. This led to the rise of stakeholder theory, formalized by Freeman (1984), which argued that companies must respond to the needs of all stakeholders, employees, communities, and governments, to ensure long-term success. In this light, CSR is seen as a strategic approach that aligns corporate actions with the broader social and environmental needs of these diverse groups (Alipour et al. 2019; Huang and Kung 2010; Deegan 2002; Ullmann 1985; Mitchell et al. 1997). Concurrently, agency theory (Jensen and Meckling 1976) framed disclosure as a tool to reduce information asymmetries between managers and shareholders. From this perspective, disclosures serve to mitigate potential conflicts (Barako et al. 2006). The 1980s and 1990s saw increased attention to environmental crises, prompting the development of legitimacy theory (Suchman 1995), which interpreted sustainability disclosures as efforts to maintain public approval. This social contract compels firms to operate in ways that reflect societal expectations, with non-compliance creating a “legitimacy gap” that may hinder resource access or marketability (Lindblom 1993; Tilling and Tilt 2010; Lu and Abeysekera 2014). Through these disclosures, companies aim to enhance their visibility, reinforce reputation, and gain stakeholder support (Cormier et al. 2004).

However, CSR disclosures are not always indicative of substantive CSR commitments; rather, companies may engage in symbolic legitimacy, using CSR information as a means of impression management to meet external expectations without making genuine operational changes (Chelli et al. 2018). Legitimacy theory therefore distinguishes between strategic legitimacy, aimed at achieving or restoring legitimacy, and institutional legitimacy, which emphasizes maintaining legitimacy by adhering to established norms and standards (Chelli et al. 2014). Emerging in this context, institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell 1983) gained traction by explaining how companies adopt similar behaviors within specific regulatory and cultural environments, driven by institutional pressures that encourage conformity, a process known as isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). As global sustainability frameworks like the GRI and UN Global Compact became dominant, institutional theory proved useful in explaining the global diffusion of SR practices. This framework is especially relevant following the 2015 adoption of the SDGs and the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive (Directive 95/2014/EU). While the SDGs provide a global roadmap, companies often engage in selective isomorphism, focusing on SDGs that align with their existing operations (Perello-Marin et al. 2022). Empirical studies across the energy and utilities sectors consistently highlight a gap between SDG rhetoric and implementation. Arena et al. (2023) found that oil and gas firms selectively report SDG contributions to enhance reputation rather than drive change. Buniamin et al. (2021) observed that Malaysian companies prioritize energy-related SDGs aligned with business interests over broader sustainability goals. In the utilities sector, D'Amore et al. (2024) reported fragmented SDG strategies, while Giacomini et al. (2025) noted that stakeholder engagement remains largely superficial. Leopizzi et al. (2023) revealed that electric utilities often reference SDGs without integrating them into performance frameworks. Similarly, Makarenko et al. (2023) showed that transparency claims around SDG 7 often lack accountability. Manes-Rossi and Nicolò (2022) concluded that SDG language is frequently symbolic, lacking substantive commitment.

Furthermore, while the SDGs provide a critical framework for guiding global sustainability efforts, they have also faced significant criticism. One key critique centers on the emphasis on economic growth as a central tenet of development, particularly in SDG 8, which promotes “sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth.” While this goal aligns with the aim of improving global living standards, separating economic growth from environmental degradation (Parrique et al. 2019). Critics argue that pursuing SDG 8 in its current form risks perpetuating an economic system that extracts, consumes, and disposes of resources at an unsustainable rate, thereby undermining broader SDG objectives such as climate action, life on land and water, and the reduction of inequality (Hickel 2019). Scholars have raised concerns about the SDGs' implicit assumption that economic growth is a prerequisite for human development (Esquivel 2016). As Hickel (2019) pointed out, “the document does not specify whether it is an end in itself, or a means to an end.” Szirmai (2015) suggested that the assumed link between growth and human development is employment in Target 8.5 impling that growth should create more jobs. However, empirical evidence radically challenges the feasibility of absolute decoupling. Parrique et al. (2019) highlight key barriers, including rebound effects, resource depletion, and insufficient technological advancements, which undermine the possibility of sustaining growth without exacerbating environmental pressures. Moreover, problem shifting occurs when solutions to one ecological issue create new challenges, such as increased resource extraction for green technologies like electric vehicles (Parrique et al. 2019). Recycling limitations, the structural dependence of services on material consumption, and cost shifting to lower-income nations further complicate the green growth narrative (Parrique et al. 2019). In their assessment of the SDGs, the International Council for Science and the International Social Science Council (2015) highlight that the goals lack a strong theoretical foundation and exhibit inherent contradictions between development and sustainability objectives, though they do not elaborate on the specifics of these contradictions. For instance, targets such as 8.4 aim to decouple growth from environmental degradation, yet they lack clear thresholds for material footprint reduction (Dittrich et al. 2012; Hoekstra and Wiedmann 2014; Bringezu 2015). Based on this theoretical aspect, this study employ an evaluation of SDGs in decoupling terms showing the difference of considering economic growth separated from environmental impacts.

3 Legislative Framework

To enhance corporate SR, the European Union introduced Directive 2003/51/EC, which mandated environmental information disclosure for companies. This requirement was further extended by Directive 2014/95/EU (Non-Financial Reporting Directive) to cover large public-interest entities, including listed companies, banks, and insurance firms, with over 500 employees. This directive aimed to improve transparency and accountability by requiring these companies to disclose information on environmental, social, employee-related, human rights, anti-corruption, and bribery matters. Despite these efforts, issues with the comparability and reliability of SR persisted due to the lack of standardized reporting formats and detailed guidelines. To address these challenges, the European Commission proposed the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) in April 2021. The CSRD aims to expand the scope of reporting obligations to more companies, including smaller and medium-sized enterprises, thereby enhancing the overall quality and consistency of sustainability information. To achieve these objectives, the European Commission tasked the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) with developing comprehensive and standardized SR standards. These standards are designed to ensure that SR are consistent, comparable, and aligned with the EU's sustainability goals and the SDGs. The new directive is expected to significantly improve corporate transparency, enabling investors and stakeholders to make more informed decisions based on reliable and comparable sustainability data.

4 Data and Methods

5 Limits

During the research process, we have encountered several limitations that should be noted. As previously mentioned, a primary limitation when analyzing sustainability reports is the heterogeneity of indicators used to measure corporate performance compared to those employed as targets for the SDGs. Specifically, the possibility of using a single indicator to contribute to the achievement of multiple SDGs weakens the connection between the GRI standards and the metrics established as targets. Furthermore, the significant flexibility granted by legislation in the preparation of SR makes these indicators difficult to compare. While it can be argued that the use of GRI standards can be compared statistically, as demonstrated through the representativity index, the task of aligning these standards with the target objectives presents a more complex challenge. These aspects warrant greater attention from both legislators and researchers, particularly in identifying parameters that allow for robust and effective comparisons.

Moreover, the presence of outlier data due to the COVID-19 pandemic further complicated the assessment. To mitigate this issue, data most affected by the pandemic—such as waste production—were carefully managed, and discrepancies across years were addressed in the corresponding sections. Notably, throughout most of the pandemic period, ASIA s.p.a was classified as an essential sector and operated in accordance with safety protocols, as reported in the 2020 Sustainability Report. As a result, the core functionality of the organization remained largely unaffected. This study, therefore, focuses on assessing the impacts of this operational continuity. Finally, SDGs 2 (Zero Hunger) and 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) are not included in this study. The former relates to land consumption, while the latter concerns international partnerships. Although the down-scaled model proposed specific targets for these SDGs, the assessment faced two key challenges. First, the company did not evaluate these goals using specific GRI indicators. Even when attempting an independent assessment, it became evident—as previously discussed—that the company had not allocated investments in these areas, making it impossible to evaluate these indicators. Second, assessing land consumption would require a specialized methodology for measuring land coverage over the years, which falls beyond the scope of this research.

6 Results

6.1 ASIA s.p.a Reporting Results

The company has consistently employed the primary accounting system GRI, just like 73% of the companies analyzed in the 2018 SDGs Reporting Challenge at the international level (PwC 2018). Before the change in standards that took place in 2016, the distinction between indicators was based on the following categories: (i) strategy and analysis; (ii) report parameters, governance, commitments, stakeholder engagement; (iii) environmental performance; (iv) economic performance; (v) social performance; (vi) human rights; and (vii) product responsibility. From the first publication of SR in 2010 to the last using this method in 2015, ASIA s.p.a consistently used all indicators for the first three categories, while gradually increasing the number of indicators for environmental and social performance each year. Specifically, environmental indicators increased from 1 in 2010 to 8 in 2015, while social indicators grew from 9 to 13. Economic indicators saw the most significant increase, rising from 2 to 30 over the 5 years considered. Finally, indicators on human rights and product responsibility were introduced only in 2011, reaching their peak at 11 and 17, respectively, in the final year (see Supporting Information S2 for more information). Following the publication of the 2030 Agenda and the corresponding SDGs, GRI updated its standards, providing more tools for aligning reporting with these goals. The first sustainability report reflecting this change was in 2017, where the initial three categories were consolidated into two sections called: (i) general disclosures and (ii) management approach. Simultaneously, the categories related to economic, environmental, and social performance remained as materiality aspects. From this perspective, the first categories included 56 indicators in the first 2 years and 58 in the last two, with the only increase due to the addition of general disclosures. On the other hand, performance indicators increased from 9 to 31, and it is on these that we will focus on the following analysis.

Figure 1 shows the number of targets that can be linked to the indicators used in the SR. As mentioned earlier, an indicator can refer to one or more targets, which explains why 31 indicators covered as many as 68 over 305 targets in 2020 (Supporting Information for more details). From our analysis, there is a consistent increase in the use of GRI standards and the corresponding representation of SDG. Specifically, the GRI standards used have increased from 9 in 2016 to 68 in 2020, representing 9 and 40 SDG targets, respectively. As a result, the SDGs included in the reports have expanded from 4 to nearly all 15, with the only exceptions being SDGs 2 and 17 in 2020. Looking at this year, we found that the majority of the SDGs were addressed to some extent. In fact, 15 out of the 17 SDGs, accounting for 88%, were covered in the company's report. However, out of the total 169 SDGs targets, only 40 were covered in the company's report. Moreover, there is an unequal distribution of coverage across the various targets. Economic targets exhibited a higher degree of exposure compared to environmental or social targets, with only three (14.3, 15.2, and 3.9) out of the top ten mentioned targets pertaining to environmental issues and all referring to emissions. This can also be observed in the SR prior to 2020, where Goal 8 accounts for 5 out of 9 of the cited objectives. The specific targets and their respective references in the 2020's report are detailed below (Tables 3 and 4):

TABLE 3. The frequency with which Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their specific targets are addressed in ASIA s.p.a's 2020 Sustainability Report. It highlights the level of attention given to each SDG and its corresponding targets, reflecting the company's focus on various sustainability aspects. The frequency values indicate the number of times each SDG or target is referenced within the report.

SDGs	Frequency	SDGs—Target	Frequency
8—Decent work and economic growth	21	8.8—Protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment	6
3—Good health and well-being	10	5.1—End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere	5
5—Gender equality	8	8.5—By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value	5
16—Peace, justice, and strong institutions	7	14.3—Minimize and address the impacts of ocean acidification, including through enhanced scientific cooperation at all levels	5
12—Responsible consumption and production	6	15.2—By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally	5
13—Climate action	6	3.9—By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination	4
9—Industry, innovation, and infrastructure	5	12.4—By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment	4
14—Life below water	5	8.2—Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation, including through a focus on high-value added and labor-intensive sectors	3
15—Life on land	5	10.3—Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard	3
4—Quality education	3	16.5—Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms	3

TABLE 4. The performance index scores for various Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their specific targets.

SDGs	Target	Degree	Score
1	x%	x%	132.20% (score)
1.1	16%	30%	189% (mean)
1.2	16%	17%	106% (men)
1.2	16%	12%	75% (women)
2	20%	27.5%	137.50%
3	−25%	−22.69%	77.90%
4	20%	31%	154.76%
5	x%	x%	−17.29%
5.1	−100%	−35%	35% (−31% if managers are excluded)
5.2	50%	6%	13%
5.3	1	0	−100%
6	−25%	25%	−99.57%
7	−20%	20%	−102.35%
8	X%	X%	−69.39%
8.1	20%	−33%	−163%
8.2	15%	10%	66%
8.3	25%	21%	83%
8.4	30%	−22%	−75%
9	2.50%	1.23%	41.08%
10	X%	X%	95.55%
10.1	20%	34%	170%
10.2	−15%	1%	−5%
10.3	25%	51%	122%
11	−25%	−13%	56.67%
12	X%	X%	−35.40%
12.1	−15%	16%	−106%
12.2	1	1	100%
12.3	1	0	−100%
13	X%	X%	−85.38%
13.1	−55%	39%	−71%
13.2	1	0	−100%
14	−15%	32%	−214.73%
15	X%	X%	X%
16	X%	X%	−23.64%
16.1	15%	2%	14%
16.2	−20%	12%	−61%
17	0.7%	0%	0%

• Note: The Degree column represents the achieved percentage relative to the target, while the Score column quantifies performance based on the average results. For SDGs 1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 16 we presented both the overall score of the goal and the score of each subtarget. Figure 2 summarizes the findings of this study by visually combining the Representativity Index and Performance Scores for each SDG. As can be observed, the data points are distributed almost evenly across the four quadrants of the graph, providing a clear representation of the relationship between the two variables.

7 Discussion and Implications for Corporate Sustainability Reports

The publication of sustainability reports has increased the amount of public information provided by ASIA s.p.a, thereby increasing the awareness of its social, economic, and environmental impacts by the public, sectoral stakeholders, and the company itself. The substantial increase in the indicators used over the period under consideration reflects the company's growing alignment with global objectives and societal demands (Lepore and Pisano 2022). However, has the increasing publicly available information materialized in improved economic, social and environmental performance? We observed that, as raised in previous studies (Bebbington and Unerman 2020; Unerman et al. 2018; Di Vaio et al. 2022), the reporting process itself influences the outcomes. This influence commonly takes place as an overlap of economic data as an inevitable consequence of materiality assessments related to stakeholders, whose interests are aligned with the company for economic reasons, whether profits or wages (Di Vaio et al. 2022; PwC 2018). The overlap of economic data is consistent with a significant portion of the literature. Specifically, it can be noted that the top five most cited SDGs in ASIA's report align with four out of five (SDG 8, 13, 3, 9) of those identified in cross-sectoral meta-analyses. Similarly, three out of five SDGs—namely 1, 2, and 6—are confirmed to be underrepresented (PwC 2018).

Additionally, the positive outcomes observed in socio-economic data, as well as those related to the company's core business (i.e., waste collection), suggest a positive but narrowly focused impact of sustainability report publication. From this perspective, the company appears to perform well in terms of reducing workplace injuries and addressing the gender gap, despite the company has never had a female manager, and its environmental performance (which affects health outcomes) is not progressing in the desired direction. This confirms the intrinsic ambiguity of sustainability reports, which can obscure actual behavior through selective metrics, presenting changes that are either non-existent or significantly less substantial than they appear (Haffar and Searcy 2020). This partial alignment aligns with prior research (e.g., Bebbington and Unerman 2020), which highlights economic targets' dominance in CSR reporting, often at the expense of environmental objectives.

Our findings provide partial answers to the research question. ASIA s.p.a demonstrates alignment with several SDGs, particularly those linked to economic growth (SDG 8) and social well-being (SDGs 1, 4). However, the company's environmental performance remains misaligned with SDGs 6, 7, and 13. This highlights a structural weakness in integrating sustainability metrics across all relevant dimensions. Furthermore, when analyzing strictly environmental data, it becomes apparent that the company deviates, to varying degrees, from its own targets. A particularly emblematic case is SDG 13, related to greenhouse gas emissions, which, despite being the most frequently mentioned goal (in relation to the available indicators) in SR, shows a significantly negative trend in its evolution. Similarly, water consumption (SDG 6), plastic use (SDG 14), waste production (SDG 12), and energy consumption (SDG 7) exhibit the same negative pattern. This trend is masked by SDG 8, which measures green growth. As previously mentioned, when considered purely in terms of economic growth, the company shows an increase in both revenue and financial/operational solidity during the period under review, as evidenced by EBIT and EBITDA indicators (more information in Supporting Information S4). However, this economic growth is not accompanied by a proportional reduction in the company's environmental consumption. Thus, it can be concluded that the company represents a case of relative decoupling (Vadén et al. 2020; Parrique et al. 2019), where economic growth continues to be driven by an expansion of negative environmental impacts, even if at a relatively lower intensity. To improve alignment with environmental SDGs, ASIA s.p.a should adopt specific mitigation plans for climate action (SDG 13), including quantifiable targets for emission reductions and water consumption.

To bridge this gap, the parametrization approach outlined herein serves as a means to redefine corporate sustainability strategies in a way that is both quantifiable and internationally comparable. By integrating both quantitative and qualitative indicators directly linked to SDG 13 and SDG 6, companies can move beyond symbolic sustainability commitments and develop actionable strategies that align with local and global environmental priorities. To enhance alignment with SDGs, particularly in environmentally vulnerable cities like Naples, ASIA s.p.a should implement strategic measures that integrate sustainability into its core operations. First, the company must establish clear, quantifiable targets and align them with financial reporting, ensuring sustainability indicators (e.g., carbon footprint, water usage) are embedded in decision-making. Transparency can be improved by strengthening data disclosure and introducing external audits for accountability. Stakeholder engagement is crucial; collaborating with local governments, NGOs, and communities can help tailor sustainability efforts to urban challenges. Additionally, promoting gender-inclusive leadership and implementing sustainable supply chain practices will enhance corporate responsibility. To address SDG 13 (climate action), ASIA s.p.a should adopt science-based emissions reduction targets and increase investments in green technologies, such as the production of renewable energy. Finally, by reinforcing accountability mechanisms, ASIA s.p.a can move beyond symbolic commitments and create measurable, long-term sustainability impacts.

8 Conclusions

The results discussed in this paper lead to the conclusion that the publication of the SDGs has provided a significant impetus for the quantitative and qualitative improvement of sustainability reports. This influence is expected to grow in the coming years due to the increase of laws constraining, as theorized by institutional theories (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). However, the relationship between SR and the achievement of the SDGs is not as straightforward. As stated, the process of drafting sustainability reports risks aligning them too closely with financial reporting, where environmental and social accounting are treated merely as additional components. More critically, there is a risk that these reports are used primarily to gain public credibility rather than to enhance environmental performance. In other words, without a comprehensive environmental management plan based on systematic data collection, sustainability reports may become mere tools for corporate greenwashing. From this perspective, legitimacy theory can help explain the relation between SR and CSR in achieving SDGs (Suchman 1995).

Beyond the immediate context of waste management in Naples, this study offers broader implications for both academic inquiry and practical implementation. For scholars, the findings underscore the utility of integrating SR with the UN SDGs as a methodological framework to assess environmental governance at the urban level. Practitioners, particularly municipal policymakers and waste management authorities, may draw from this case study to enhance accountability, transparency, and strategic alignment with global sustainability benchmarks. From a policy perspective, the results suggest the need for stronger regulatory mandates to ensure that sustainability reports are not merely symbolic but are actively used as tools for planning and evaluation. However, the study is limited by its single-case focus, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. Future research should consider comparative analyses across cities or regions to develop a more nuanced understanding of the institutional, cultural, and socio-political factors that shape the alignment between SR and SDGs. Furthermore, longitudinal studies could capture the evolution of this alignment over time, offering deeper insights into the dynamics of policy adaptation and organizational learning.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.