The Sustainable Development Goals: Ambitious Vision or Unrealistic Dream?

Susana Paola Navas
Feb 13, 2025
5 min read

As many could be familiar, the United Nations launched in 2015 the 2030 Agenda, a global action plan composed of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG are widely celebrated for their ambition and inclusivity. However they also face criticism and debate among experts.

Below is an analysis of their strengths, weaknesses, critical points raised by experts, and some unpopular opinions about the SDGs.

Strengths of Sustainable Development Goals

Comprehensive and inclusive framework

One of the greatest strengths of the SDGs is their holistic approach. As illustrated in the figure below, the SDGs cover a broad range of issues, from poverty and climate action to peace and justice. Their core objective is to ensure that, by 2030, all people enjoy peace and prosperity. This framework emphasizes progress for the most vulnerable populations, including marginalized communities, women, and people with disabilities.

Sustainable Development Goals - United Nations

All 17 SDGs are interconnected, recognizing that action in one area influences outcomes in others. Sustainable development is, therefore, an integrated process that balances social, economic and environmental sustainability. For instance, addressing climate action (SDG 13) also benefits life on land (SDG 15) and clean water (SDG 6)

The SDGs also provides a global classification system for the challenges humanity faces, establishing a common language for development. Each goal is accompanied by specific targets and 232 indicators in total - enabling progress tracking and accountability.

Global Consensus

The SDGs represent a rare international agreement, endorsed unanimously by 193 countries. Unlike other treaties or agreements, the SDGs outline a shared vision and objectives that transcend economic, political, and cultural differences.

The framework applies universally to both developed and developing countries. It was developed through extensive consultations with governments, NGOs, businesses, and civil society groups to ensure diverse perspectives and priorities were considered.

As a collective and voluntary commitment, the SDGs serve as a guiding agenda for governments, the private sector, and civil society, allowing them to tailor the goals to their local contexts and establish a roadmap for their own sustainable development.

Focus on Equity and Inclusion

“Leaving no one behind” is the core principles of the SDGs. This guiding philosophy seeks to reduce inequalities, particularly for vulnerable populations, including women, children, persons with disabilities, indigenous communities, and those living in poverty.

The particular approach on vulnerable populations can be show through the following figure:

Leaving no one behind - Equity and Inclusion - Sustainable Development Goals

Several SDGs are explicitly dedicated to reducing inequality and promoting inclusion, including No Poverty (SDG 1), Gender Equality (SDG 5), Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10), and Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16).

Weaknesses of Sustainable Development Goals

Overambitious and Unrealistic

While the SDGs provide a comprehensive framework that classifies the most pressing global challenges, critics argue that the sheer scale - 17 goals and 169 targets - makes the agenda overly ambitious and difficult to implement. Since the SDGs are not ranked based on urgency, it is unclear which goals require immediate action. Developing countries, for example, often face the most critical global issues, such as extreme poverty, climate change, and healthcare crises. The lack of prioritization risks spreading resources too thin across 17 broad goals.

Resource allocation is further complicated by the wide range of social, economic, and environmental issues covered by the SDGs. In 2015, The Economist published an article titled “The 169 Commandments”, arguing that the complexity of the framework makes it impractical and difficult to implement. The article highlights examples such as the goal of achieving full employment (SDG 8) and ending poverty (SDG 1), which may not be realistically achievable within the given timeframe. While the article does not dismiss the importance of global development goals, it suggest that they should have been more focused, measurable, and enforceable.

Lack of Clear Accountability

Unlike legally binding international agreements such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, the SDGs lack enforcement mechanisms for governments or corporations. Progress reports rely primarily on self-reporting, which can be biased or incomplete, as there are no penalties for failing to meet the targets.

Countries submit Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) to the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF), integrating SDGs into their national policies. However, without a global enforcement system, some government may choose to deprioritize or ignore them. A significant challenge is that many developing countries lack the capacity to collect reliable data, leading to gaps in monitoring and evaluation.

Moreover, large corporations may engage in “rainbow-washing” - using the SDGs visually appealing branding to improve their public image without implementing meaningful sustainability practices. Since there are not strict monitoring systems to hold them accountable, some firms may selectively highlight their contributions to certain SDGs while ignoring their negative impact on others. In extreme cases, companies may use the SDGs as a marketing tool without making any substantial changes to their business operations.

Trade-off Between Goals

Some SDGs may conflict with one another, creating trade-offs that make implementation challenging. For instance, while the SDGs promote economic growth (SDG 8), achieving climate action (SDG 13) and life on land (SDG 15) often requires limiting industrial expansion and resource extraction. Countries prioritizing economic development may increase industrial activities, leading to higher emissions and deforestation, which contradicts environmental sustainability goals. The absence of clear guidelines on how to balance these competing objectives allows countries to interpret the SDGs in ways that align with their short-term interests, sometimes undermining long-term sustainability.

Hickel (2019) argues that an over-reliance on economic growth is unsustainable on planet with finite resources. While resource efficiency - using fewer materials per unit of GDP - is improving, total resource consumption is still rising. He critiques the SDGs for not addressing the root causes of overconsumption and environmental destruction, instead relying on the existing economic system, which drives these unsustainable practices.

Conclusion

The SDGs represent an important step forward in global efforts to achieve sustainable development, but they are not without flaws. While they provide a valuable framework and have mobilized international collaboration, they face significant criticisms - being overly ambitious, lacking clear accountability, and sometimes presenting contradictions between goals. Critics argue that the SDGs do not go far enough in addressing the root causes of global challenges, such as unsustainable economic systems and resource exploitation.

A major concern is the funding gap, particularly for developing countries, which struggle to finance and implement all 169 targets effectively. Additionally, some argue that the SDGs focus more on addressing symptoms—such as poverty, inequality, and environmental degradation—rather than the underlying global economic structures that perpetuate these issues. Moving forward, a more radical approach may be needed to ensure that sustainable development is not just a goal, but a reality.

Reference