Introduction

In 2015, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly marked a historic milestone by unanimously endorsing the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within the overarching framework of the comprehensive 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2020a). This set of 17 SDGs, each encompassing specific targets, meticulously crafted a comprehensive global action plan, totalling 169 targets in all, were conceived as a comprehensive global sustainability roadmap to be realised by 2030. Distinguishing themselves from prior international agreements, the SDGs stood out due to their unprecedented level of detail, inclusivity, and ambitious scope. Addressing a broad spectrum of urgent global challenges, the SDGs encompassed critical issues such as poverty reduction, gender parity, climate mitigation, and the promotion of equitable access to quality education.

Despite the SDGs’ promise, the 2022 SDG Impact Assessment (United Nations, 2022) and the 2023 Special Edition of the SDGs Report (UN, 2023b) reveal a stark reality, highlighting persistent disparities and urging renewed global commitment. The initial SDG implementation phase failed to trigger the envisioned transformative changes in political systems and societies, hindering objectives across regions due to various challenges. The report (UN, 2023b) identifies the deleterious effects of the climate crisis, the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation, a fragile global economy, and the aftereffects of the COVID-19 crisis that expose the vulnerabilities in the SDG progress. Notably, this lack of progress disproportionately affects impoverished and vulnerable populations, exacerbating global challenges. As a result, the international community is grappling with the realisation that achieving the SDGs by 2030 is an increasingly formidable challenge.

Societal and environmental risks have been identified as prominent global concerns over the next five years. In a statement released on 18 November 2022, the World Health Organisation has begun the process of identifying “Disease X”, an unknown pathogen that could cause the next international epidemic (WHO, 2022; Jones et al., 2008; Banerjee et al., 2023). Any global aggregate shock, such as a pandemic or armed conflict, can exacerbate adverse impacts on economies, lay bare vulnerabilities in public services and critical supply chains, deepen socioeconomic disparities, and impede social and psychological well-being. Non-pharmaceutical measures to curb the pandemic spread lead to disruptions, such as—nationwide lockdowns, restricted mobility and social distancing, which may further lead to supply chain disruptions, school closures, business shutdowns, etc. Additionally, such shocks can strain peace and solidarity across different geographic and political areas.

To examine the potential impact of such future shocks like “Disease X” on sustainable development, this study investigates the impact of the recent COVID-19 crisis on the progress of achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and derives lessons learnt. Specifically, we investigate the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the overall performance of Agenda 2030 to evaluate the negative or positive effect on each of the SDG targets. The analysis is based on a consensus-based expert-driven approach with a structured literature search, informed by previous studies that mapped SDG interlinkages (Fuso Nerini et al. 2018, 2019; Vinuesa et al. 2020; The Lancet, 2020; Bali Swain and Min, 2023). Gauging the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the SDGs is critical for shaping policy interventions aimed at achieving Agenda 2030 and ensuring the well-being of resilient societies. Sustainable societies are anticipated to display greater resilience in the face of various challenges, including pandemics, economic fluctuations, health crises, acute and chronic climate events, and conflicts. This enquiry thus assumes special relevance in light of the 2022 warning from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding the swiftly diminishing opportunity for fostering climate-resilient development.

The global research and international communities began investigating the pandemic’s effects on society, politics, the economy, and the environment early on during the pandemic. Numerous studies emerged, primarily examining the pandemic’s short-term impacts on critical sectors. The 2020 UN Sustainable Development Goals report (United Nations, 2020a) initially assessed the COVID-19 crisis’ effects on the SDGs and identified data requirements for tracking progress. However, this report could only measure the “initial impact of COVID-19 on specific Goals and targets“ (United Nations, 2020a). Recent research has also called for evaluating the SDGs’ resilience to crises and suggested potential revisions and prioritisations considering recent developments (Nature Editorial, 2020; Naidoo and Fisher, 2020). Previous research has explored the impact of COVID-19 and the responses to it on SDG progress. Some studies have examined the effects of specific pandemic responses (Lenzen et al. 2020; Fagbemi, 2021; Tan et al. 2021; Marco et al. 2020; Nundy et al. 2021; Phillips et al. 2020; Shan et al. 2021; Shuai et al. 2022; Elavarasan et al. 2022; Maire et al. 2022; da Costa et al. 2023; Bhattacharya and Bose, 2023a, 2023b). For example, Lenzen et al. (2020) noted reductions in global consumption, income, employment, greenhouse gas emissions, and air pollution resulting from pandemic-related movement restrictions (de León et al. 2021).

A few studies have quantified the effects of various pandemic responses on specific sustainability aspects, such as greenhouse gas emissions and employment. Li et al. (2023) have made a notable contribution by creating an adaptive multi-regional input–output model. They used this model to quantitatively evaluate the influence of pandemic responses on both global and national SDG progress. Their research revealed that COVID-19 crisis responses resulted in an overall reduction in SDG progress by 8.2%. Importantly, they found that socio-economic sustainability declined by 18.1%, while environmental sustainability showed an improvement of 5.1% compared to the business-as-usual trend. The study by Yuan et al. (2023) indicates that the COVID-19 crisis has significantly and adversely affected 13 out of the 17 SDGs, with the greatest impact observed on SDGs 1, 9, 3, 4, 7, 11, and 13, particularly through indirect consequences, which can be over thirty times more severe than the direct effects on average, making SDGs 1, 9, 11, and 13 the most affected. Other scholars have identified opportunities that the COVID-19 crisis has presented for the achievement of progress on the SDGs (Pradhan et al. 2021).

This paper reaches two main conclusions: first, that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly hindered progress on nearly 90% of the SDGs but also presents an opportunity to advance 66 targets if strategic decisions are made; and second, that a proactive, deliberate, collaborative global approach is essential for navigating the complex interplay of planetary and post-pandemic crises, with its contribution lying in providing evidence-based insights to guide effective policy interventions and international cooperation for a just and sustainable recovery in line with Agenda 2030.

The paper is structured as follows: section “Methods” describes the method employed in our analysis. Sections “Results” and “Discussion” present the results and the corresponding discussion, respectively. The final section offers concluding remarks, discussing the implications of the results for sustainable development, future pandemics, and the well-being of resilient societies.

Methods

In this section, we describe the method employed to obtain the results. The goal of the analysis was to answer the two questions: (A) What evidence of how the COVID-19 crisis can negatively impact the SDG target achievement is available? (B) What evidence of how the COVID-19 crisis can positively impact the SDG target achievement is available? for each of the 169 targets within the 17 SDGs?

The analysis was performed for each of the 169 targets of the 17 SDGs. Our evidence synthesis exercise is guided by a systematic mapping methodology (Haddaway et al. 2016) with a rapid review approach adopted for our analysis as a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information promptly (Tricco et al. 2015) The methods can be summarised as a rapid literature search conducted by experts followed by discussions to reach a consensus, as shaped by (Butler et al. 2015; Morgan, 2014). We recognise the aim of a rapid review based on an evidence synthesis approach as not to synthesise research findings but rather to describe the nature of an evidence base to highlight clusters of evidence that indicate the relationship between the COVID-19 crisis and the SDGs. We adapt the method initially developed for environmental and conservation sciences (Haddaway et al. 2018; Haddaway and Macura, 2018) and used in social sciences as it allows for contextual adaptation to transdisciplinary complexity. More specifically, the research process consisted of six steps: (1) defining the search strategy and eligibility criteria; (2) searching; (3) checking the corpus for comprehensiveness; (4) preparation of the final corpus; (5) screening of articles; (6) data extraction; (7) expert elicitation. The expert elicitation method was adapted from previous studies that assessed SDGs interlinkages (Fuso Nerini et al. 2018, 2019; Vinuesa et al. 2020). The methods can be summarised as a consensus-based expert-driven literature search, with discussions to reach a consensus (Butler et al. 2015; Morgan, 2014).

The search strings were agreed upon, tested, revised and adapted iteratively and regularly during team meetings of the primary investigators by examining preliminary search results. The compliance with initially agreed upon eligibility criteria and eligibility was evaluated at each data collection stage according to the study’s scope and objective.

Searches (completed June 2022) were conducted in Scopus to identify peer-reviewed evidence and in a web-based academic search engine, Google Scholar, to identify online grey literature sources (Haddaway et al. 2015) to deduce publications that described relations between the COVID-19 crisis and each SDG goal by the target. The literature search was supplemented by targeted internet searches used for identifying grey literature that satisfies inclusion criteria for identifying the evidence of literature discussing SDGs targets’ interaction with the COVID-19 crisis, as several relevant publications were produced by the international and national agencies that were not subjected to a conventional peer-review protocol.

The search strings for each SDG goal are summarised in Table 1. The generic keyword “COVID-19” was employed as a research criterion to collect evidence of the studies addressing COVID-19. The keywords for individual SDGs targets are summarised in Table 2 by the individual target.

Table 1 Search strings at SDG goal level.
Full size table
Table 2 Keywords used for the literature search in conjunction with COVID-19 for each SDG (a comma separates each keyword).
Full size table

Each SDG was first evaluated by one of the authors, depending on the area of expertise. The assigned author then carried out a first literature search for each target in that SDG and then filled the table with the found positive and negative impacts. A structured review process (explained further in the section) was adopted to reach a consensus on the results for questions A and B for all 169 targets. Another two authors were allocated to each SDG to evaluate and complement the impacts and reasoning presented by the author who developed the first assessment. The role of the reviewers was to bring up additional points of view and considerations while critically assessing the analysis.

The expert-driven literature search to support the identified impacts of COVID-19 included studies in academic journals and grey literature (e.g. UN and other national and international organisation reports). Given the novel nature of the COVID-19 crisis, information from reputable mainstream media outlets was also used when academic and grey literature was not found. Other sources of information, such as educated conjectures, public beliefs and social media posts, were not considered acceptable evidence.

In practice, for each target, the authors looked for references within these three groups (in order of search):

  1. 1.

    Peer-reviewed journals and preprint articles

  2. 2.

    Grey literature (international organisations, national and subnational agencies)

  3. 3.

    Mainstream news outlets and news articles from national and international agencies.

Material was collected using Google Scholar for groups 1 and 2 due to its rapid inclusion of new articles, preprints, and reports that other databases, like Scopus, might miss. A basic Google search was also employed to find evidence from group 2 not available in Google Scholar and articles from group 3. References from the third group were only used when those from the first two groups were unavailable. English was chosen as the exclusive research language, given its widespread use and recognition as the international academic language (Bailey et al. 1986). Results were chronologically filtered to be published after July 2019—given the appearance of the COVID-19 virus in the second half of 2019 (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: An assessment of the collected evidence.
figure 1

The figure presents the cumulative % of targets for each SDG for which we found at least: one academic or grey literature study assessing the effects of the COVID-19 crisis on the target achievement and with global applicability (dark blue); one academic or grey literature study that provides anecdotal or speculative evidence, or local evidence, of the COVID-19 crisis on the target achievement (light blue); one article in reputable news outlets that discuss the effect the COVID-19 crisis on the target achievement (yellow); or no evidence found on possible effects the COVID-19 crisis on the target achievement (purple). Note that the last category does not necessarily imply the absence of a relationship—but rather that the authors could not find relevant evidence with the methods described at the end of the analysis.

Full size image

Results from the search in Google Scholar were sorted by relevance. The authors looked at the first 30–50 results for each search described above, selecting and reading the articles and reports assessed as most relevant to the interlinkage. In the cases where several relevant articles on the interlinkage of interest were found within the first 30 results, the author stopped the search. Otherwise, it continued to up to 50 articles, as is the usual practice in literature. Given the vast range of studies on all the SDG areas, the literature search was not exhaustive. For instance, when inserting only the first combination of keywords in Table 2 in Google Scholar (COVID-19 + no poverty), over 17,000 results are returned. However, for nearly all targets, several references are provided, and the ranking by relevance in Google Scholar maximises both the reputability and topical relevance of the analysed articles. About 850 references were reviewed by the authors in total.

Furthermore, to assess the status of found evidence at the time of submission, the authors categorised evidence on interlinkages in the following categories (adapted from Vinuesa et al. (2020)):

  • References from groups 1 and 2 above and directly assessing the particular interlinkage and with global applicability are of type (A)

  • Anecdotal or speculative studies, or studies with only local applicability from groups 1 and 2 are of type (B)

  • Other references from group 3 are of type (C)

To avoid any bias associated with the different amounts of references in the various targets, we considered the highest-ranked reference only for assessing references for a target. Let us consider the following example: for a certain target, two references of types (A) and (C) document the impact of COVID-19 on the target, and the evidence on that target will be assessed with (A).

An a priori review protocol in alignment with the research questions was formulated and designed based on the updated methodological guidance for evidence mapping provided by Haddaway et al. (2018), which we adapted to conduct a rapid review. Following this, experts conducted a comprehensive literature search at the SDG goal level for each SDG objective. In cases where the literature was found to be incomplete for a particular goal, supplementary searches were conducted in Scopus to gather additional evidence regarding the positive or negative impacts on the SDG targets that lacked sufficient literature within that specific goal.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were systematically applied to select relevant studies. From each of these studies, information was extracted concerning references to the SDG target and its interaction with COVID-19. Subsequently, after meticulous data screening, extraction, and the elimination of duplicate entries, the final search results underwent a two-stage screening process. In the initial stage, two authors independently assessed the evidence by scrutinising titles and abstracts, followed by a thorough examination of full-text documents. In the subsequent step, all experts collaborated to summarise and deliberate upon the collected evidence until a consensus was reached regarding the results for questions A and B, encompassing all 169 targets.

Based on Fuso Nerini et al. (2018, 2019), the robustness of the results was further checked by adapting the taxonomy developed by Nilsson et al. (2016, 2018). This method proposes a 7-point scale for assessing the strength of the interlinkages between COVID-19 and the SDGs, from +3 (Indivisible) to −3 (Cancelling) (Table 3).

Table 3 Taxonomy adapted from Nilsson et al. (2016, 2018) for quantifying the strength of the interactions between COVID-19 and all 169 Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Full size table

Results

The widest research efforts have been focused towards understanding the direct health (SDG 3), subsistence-related (SDG 2), and economic implications (SDGs 1, 8 and 9) of the COVID-19 crisis. Also, other direct impacts of the measures used to fight the pandemic have been looked into, with a range of studies appearing on how the crisis affected livelihoods in cities (SDG 11) or how measures affected equality and household violence (SDGs 10 and 5). For certain SDGs, the dedicated analyses of international and topical organisations have helped advance the knowledge of the impacts—highlighting the value of these agencies in advancing the knowledge in certain disciplines. Notable examples are the role of FAO and the World Food Programme in understanding the implications of SDG 2 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020; World Food Programme, 2020), and the International Energy Agency’s analysis of impacts across the energy sector and SDG 7 (International Energy Agency, 2020a, 2020b). Furthermore, the UN, supported by appointed experts, is gathering data to quantify the impacts of the pandemic on the SDGs indicators (United Nations, 2020a). Since the onset of this analysis, the academic literature on the subject has grown significantly.

Negative impacts and challenges from the COVID-19 crisis on the SDGs

We find that nearly 90% of all SDGs targets are expected to be negatively affected by the crisis (144 targets) (see Fig. 2). With all SDG 1 targets on poverty negatively impacted by the crisis, the effects will be especially severe for daily earners, migrants, smallholder farmers, women, and children (United Nations, 2020a; IFPRI: International Food Policy Research Institute, 2020; UNU-WIDER, 2020; Da Costa Cunha et al. 2020). The World Bank estimated that COVID-19 could push up to 100 million people into extreme poverty in 2020 (The World Bank, 2020), leaving them increasingly vulnerable due to the loss of daily earnings and the absence of social security, such as health insurance and unemployment benefits.

Fig. 2: COVID-19 crisis impacts on the SDGs targets.
figure 2

Each block in the diagram represents a target, except under SDG 13, where PA represents the Paris Agreement. For targets highlighted in green or orange, we found published evidence that COVID-19 could affect such targets positively or negatively, respectively. The absence of highlighting indicates an absence of identified evidence. Note that this does not necessarily imply the absence of a relationship.

Full size image

The goals related to key food (SDG 2), water and sanitation (SDG6), energy (SDG7), and industrial (SDG9) services are directly affected. The COVID-19 crisis caused rampant supply chain disruptions, including vital manufacturing industries and agri-food chains (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020). All but one target of SDG 2 is affected negatively, as the COVID-19 crisis may add 83–132 million people to the ranks of the undernourished in 2020 (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2020) and worsen the nutritional status of most vulnerable populations due to the disruption of supply chains, loss of income, trade-related deficits and workers movement restrictions—also resulting in a rise in food prices, and food waste (against SDG Target 12.3).

As a health crisis, The COVID-19 crisis affected the delivery of most of the targets within SDG 3 on good health and well-being, with particularly severe cascading impacts on the poor, vulnerable and marginalised groups of society. Exposure to the virus has hit the global healthcare force hard, resulting in disproportionately high fatalities (The Lancet, 2020) and straining efforts towards health outcomes. In addition to the direct causes of exposure to the virus, the pandemic is associated with many other negative health outcomes, including a rise in mental health-related illnesses (Holmes et al. 2020). With more than 50 long-term COVID-19 symptoms documented in the literature, the full extent and long-term health impact of the condition known as “long COVID” or post-SARS-CoV-2 remains poorly understood and not fully accounted for (Lenz et al. 2024), impacting future progress on SDG 3.

The estimated loss of learning in three-quarters of the world (The Economist, 2020) will widen the global inequalities in access to education between children from different socioeconomic circumstances and jeopardise all targets in SDG 4. Epidemics deepen existing inequalities for women and girls (UNFPA—United Nations Population Fund, 2020; Wenham et al. 2020; UNDP, 2020), undermining SDG 5. The overload of domestic and caregiving responsibilities, coupled with quarantine measures and strained family finances, has significantly heightened gender tensions and violence (Kim and Royle, 2024; Rocha et al. 2024), threatening the achievement of SDG target 5.2 (UN Women, 2020; Bradbury‐Jones and Isham, 2020)

By affecting supply chains, infrastructure projects and incomes, the crisis affects the progress toward modern energy access (Target 7.1) and potentially compromises energy security (Birol, 2020). Economic consequences are dire, with most of the targets within SDG 8 on decent work and economic growth affected. Unemployment reached record heights, with sectors such as the travel industry, manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, and real estate and business activities most affected (United Nations, 2020b). These sectors are labour-intensive and employ millions of low-paid, low-skilled workers and a disproportionate number of young people. The International Labour Organisation warned that 1.6 billion workers in the informal economy—nearly half of the global workforce—risk losing their livelihoods (International Labour Organization, 2020). Additionally, the pandemic’s impact on skill loss during unemployment is likely to have significant and long-lasting scarring effects on the global economy, reducing labour productivity and contributing to a substantial decline in total factor productivity (Jackson and Ortego-Marti, 2024).

Furthermore, as a response to the crisis aftermath, economic growth priorities after the crisis might halt progress on water pollution and efficiency (Targets 6.1–6.5), on renewable and efficient energy systems (Targets 7.2, 7.3), and the sustainability of the industrial sector (SDG 9). The crisis is exacerbating inequalities (SDG 10) (IFPRI: International Food Policy Research Institute, 2020; UNU-WIDER, 2020), which have been linked to the increased COVID-19 spread (Ahmed et al. 2020), with a direct relationship between access to basic amenities and increased communicable diseases, including COVID-19 (Anser, 2020). The pandemic has also made migrant workers, refugees and minorities more vulnerable to discrimination and xenophobia (Hennebry and Hari, 2020; Mukumbang, 2021; Marchi et al. 2022; Elias et al. 2021). The pandemic’s impact was particularly severe in poor, densely populated urban areas, undermining efforts under SDG Target 11.1 to promote sustainable cities, safeguard natural and cultural heritage, and support conservation work SDG Target 11.4 (Foster et al. 2023).

There is a risk that the COVID-19 crisis and the resulting economic disruptions could be used to justify extending subsidies and government bailouts for carbon-intensive industries, thereby delaying progress on Targets 7.2, 7.3, and SDG 13. The pandemic has undermined Targets 12.4 and 12.5, which aim to manage waste responsibly and reduce waste generation. Increased medical waste has overwhelmed waste management systems, leading to more landfill overflow and increased marine pollution, undermining Target 14.1), setting back progress on these goals (Zambrano-Monserrate et al. 2020; Saadat et al. 2020). Furthermore, social distancing imperatives might boost individualised rather than public and shared modes of consumption against outcomes for SDG 12 (Cohen, 2020).

Despite some short-term gains (see below), the adverse impacts on environmental targets are causing concerns. The COVID-19 crisis has already diverted attention and delayed measures to address SDG 13 on Climate Action and the Paris Agreement. The COVID-19 crisis has hindered climate change mitigation and adaptation, specifically affecting SDG 13 (Filho et al. 2023) and the targets established by the Paris Agreement and recent decisions in Glasgow due to shifts in priorities and funding. The effects of the pandemic obstructed global environmental stewardship and leadership in combating multiple environmental crises, with negative impacts on ecosystem targets in SDG 14 and 15. The COVID-19 crisis delayed progress in crucial negotiation processes, with the UNFCCC COP 26 and CBD COP 15 postponed due to the crisis.

We found that the crisis negatively affects all targets across SDG 16 on peace, justice and strong institutions. While the UN has appealed for an immediate global ceasefire during the pandemic, there is no sign of a global truce yet (Financial Times, 2020). Moreover, the pandemic has disrupted peacekeeping efforts worldwide, with these operations becoming less prioritised as nations redirected resources to combat the crisis. Contributing member states are reluctant to deploy their forces to military operations because they need to ensure the safety of peacekeepers from pandemic exposure. Additionally, the crisis has enabled many leaders to accumulate or grab power at the cost of democracy and individual rights (harming Target 16.7). The pandemic was used by several governments to abuse state power and limit civic space (Makosso, 2020), creating a crisis of governance and restricting trade and commerce. In at least 55 countries, elections were postponed (International Institute For Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2020). Most countries compromised on democratic standards during emergencies, and many violated democratic norms during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet scholars found no direct evidence that these violations led to better public health outcomes, as there is no trade-off between democracy and an efficient policy response; rather, these violations should be carefully monitored as potential signs of autocratisation. The political response to COVID-19 is more likely to exacerbate existing conflicts and controversies rather than directly and permanently closing civic spaces, with indeterminate outcomes requiring further systematic research.

Positive impacts and opportunities from the COVID-19 crisis across the SDGs

While we found mostly negative effects, we also found that 67 targets could benefit from the current situation (ca. 40%). There has been an unprecedented level of collaboration in medical research with benefits across SDG 3 (except for some notable exceptions) while exemplifying the advantages of global cooperation. Medicines and vaccines have never been developed this rapidly (Lurie et al. 2020) advancing progress toward Target 3. b, which emphasises supporting research and development for vaccines and medicines, has benefited from unprecedented collaboration, setting a new standard for global cooperation and a clear precedent for the benefits of global collaboration. Evidence suggests that the COVID-19 spread has led to reductions in air NOx, PMX, SOX (Raza et al. 2023), water, and noise pollution, with NO2 emissions in cities dropping by an average of 30%, leading to improved health outcomes. Furthermore, studies suggested that human lockdown and its eventual relaxation can be viewed as a Global Human Confinement Experiment to understand the positive and negative effects of human presence and mobility on a range of natural systems (Bates et al. 2020). In the short term, COVID-19 caused the largest-ever annual fall in CO2 emissions in 2020, with daily global CO2 emissions decreasing by 17% by early April 2020 compared with the mean 2019 levels (Le Quéré et al. 2020).

Across the environment-centred goals, while we could find studies estimating the COVID-19 crisis’s short-term impacts on climate mitigation, local pollution and ecosystems, mostly speculative studies and opinions were available on some environmental aspects (e.g. climate adaptation or long-term effects on ecosystems). Finally, across most targets looking at international cooperation, peace, justice and strong institutions (SDGs 16 and 17), we found some available studies directly aiming at understanding the short and long-term effects of the pandemic (Li et al. 2023; UNDP and Southern Voice, 2022). Studies show that during the quarantine imposed, households reported a significant decrease in food waste (positive impact on SDG Target 12.3) (Vittuari et al. 2021; Iranmanesh et al. 2022). Some ecosystems may experience short-term benefits from reduced economic activity, tourism, and human movement, leading to temporary gains for SDGs 14 and 15. There are positive impacts on SDG 11, with an example of Milan, one of the hardest-hit cities by COVID-19, plans to leverage the crisis as an opportunity to reduce traffic long-term by installing bike lanes, aligning with SDG 11.2’s goal to promote sustainable transport systems (Milan Municipality Comune di Milano, 2020).

Robustness of results

To verify the robustness of our results, we further analysed the impact of COVID-19 on each of the 169 Targets of the 2030 Agenda, utilising an adaptation of the taxonomy developed by Nilsson et al. (2016, 2018). This taxonomy employs a 7-point scale to assess the strength of interlinkages among SDGs, ranging from +3 (Indivisible) to −3 (Cancelling) (Table 3). Our review, as depicted in Fig. 3, indicates that most synergies are weak (+1), while the majority of trade-offs are strong (at −2 or −3). These findings suggest that although some minor gains were achieved during the COVID-19 crisis, the overall impact was predominantly negative, leading to a setback in SDG progress.

Fig. 3: Synergies and trade-offs between COVID-19 and the SDGs.
figure 3

Each rectangle to the right of the relevant SDG logo in the diagram represents a Target. The highlighting represents the strength of interaction (scale in the legend at the bottom of the image adapted from Nilsson et al. (2016, 2018) and explained in detail in the “Methods” section). The absence of highlighting indicates the absence of identified evidence. The absence of identified evidence does not necessarily imply the absence of an interlinkage.

Full size image

Figure 3 illustrates the synergies and trade-offs between the COVID-19 crisis and the SDGs, revealing that most positive synergies are weak, while negative trade-offs tend to be strong. For instance, SDG 1 was significantly impacted by the pandemic, with strong trade-offs manifesting through increased unemployment and income loss, pushing millions into extreme poverty. Similarly, SDG 8 has faced severe setbacks as business closures, reduced productivity, and widespread job losses have hit vulnerable sectors like tourism and retail particularly hard. SDG 4 progress has suffered due to school closures and limited access to online learning in lower-income countries, further widening educational inequalities.

On the other hand, the synergies observed are generally weak. For example, SDG 13 has seen temporary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions due to reduced industrial activity and travel, but these synergies are not expected to be sustained as economies recover. Similarly, SDG 12 experienced minor positive effects such as reduced waste (food waste and food loss targets) generation during the pandemic, though these effects are unlikely to have a lasting impact without long-term changes in consumption and production patterns.

The interactions between SDGs like SDG 2 and SDG 16 present a mixed picture. While there was increased awareness and initiatives around local food production under SDG 2, supply chain disruptions have led to food shortages and higher prices, worsening hunger in vulnerable populations. For SDG 16, the pandemic has heightened both the need for strong institutions and the challenges in maintaining them, with some countries strengthening governance and public health systems, while others have experienced setbacks due to political instability, exacerbating existing conflicts and reduced public trust. These examples underscore the complexity of the interactions between the SDGs, with weak synergies often overshadowed by more significant and lasting trade-offs.

Limitations of the study

The analysis presented here has inherent limitations. There may be unaccounted impacts of COVID-19 on specific targets or unpublished evidence on these interlinkages. The literature review process involves a degree of subjectivity in selecting sources and references and interpreting results. However, the methodology, grounded in diverse literature, aimed to minimise this subjectivity for nearly all reported interlinkages, multiple papers, reports and news articles were analysed where available. Several references are provided to overcome the subjectivity of single-referenced studies and capture a broader picture. Furthermore, at least three authors assessed and reviewed the assessment for each of the 169 targets. Another limitation is that the presented study only provides qualitative insights on the targets based on available literature without analysing quantitative trends for the SDGs indicators. While this approach aligns with the current academic literature to which this study contributes (e.g., Fuso Nerini et al. 2018, 2019; Vinuesa et al. 2020; The Lancet, 2020; Bali Swain and Min, 2023; Thacker et al. 2019), future research should focus on quantifying the impact of the COVID-19 crisis (or other types of shocks) on individual SDG target indicators and their ongoing monitoring and evaluation as more data becomes available. Future work should also attempt to add interlinkages or evidence to the analysis as more studies become available. This analysis captures the global state of the evidence at the time of submission., but similar analyses at the local, national and sub-national levels would provide more case-specific insights and possibly be a valuable starting point to inform recovery plans in response to health or other socio-economic shocks.

Discussion

The nature of the pandemic has two inherent characteristics: first, no one can be left behind; even if a small group is left exposed, the pandemic will resurge; second, it requires cooperation and solidarity in action and response at the local, national, regional and the global level. While this is a major challenge, it is also the core objective of the SDGs, which is a global universal commitment. Depending on short- and medium-term decisions, the COVID-19 crisis may push critical actions on the Global Agenda by months or years or present a window of opportunity for rebuilding our societies towards sustainable development.

The pandemic has had significant negative impacts across various SDGs. The catastrophic loss of human life and severe health impacts for societies worldwide are compounded by significant economic consequences, with the IMF projecting negative economic growth in 2020 in 170 countries, leading to the worst downturn since the Great Depression (Gopinath, 2020) So far, the main focus of the pandemic response at the national level has been on SDG 1 and SDG 2 (short-term cash transfers, food and social security), SDG 3 (pandemic response), SDG8 (short to medium-term monetary and fiscal interventions for economic recovery) and SDG9 (innovation for COVID-19 vaccine and drug development). The crisis has likely exacerbated existing inequalities, disproportionately affecting different groups. This widening disparity in individuals’ ability to cope with the crisis undermines several targets under SDG 10, including 10.1, 10.3–10.5, and 10.7–10.c. Meanwhile, the financial responses have been inadequate. While the World Bank had initially made 160 billion dollars available for the low-income countries for the pandemic response (World Bank, 2020) and the UN has called for a 2.5 trillion Corona package for developing countries (United Nations, 2020c), only a limited debt moratorium was agreed upon for low-income countries, and no agreement was reached on expanded Special Drawing Rights from IMF. Additionally, attempts to maintain economic growth, such as supporting low oil prices, have undermined the cost-competitiveness of low-carbon solutions (International Energy Agency, 2020a). Regulatory actions in response to the crisis, such as subsidies and stimulus to carbon and resource-intensive sectors, along with rollbacks in environmental regulations, will most likely delay the integration of climate action into policies and strategies. International cooperation, targeted decision making and democratic processes are crucial for a sustainable recovery. However, for the last 17 years, there has been a significant decline in democracies around the globe (Yana et al. 2023; Edgell and Lachapelle, 2021; Sorsa and Kivikoski, 2023) and crises like COVID-19 have further expedited this process due to the cancellation of elections, limits on public gatherings, and, in some cases, complete lockdown. In this context, the other SDG targets are also likely adversely affected by increasingly non-democratic policy-making. Unlike the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, which the UN Security Council formally declared as a threat to international peace and security, COVID-19 was not designated as such a threat. There is a lack of unanimity amongst global powers, resulting in indecision on expanded Special Drawing Rights, debt moratorium, global truce and lifting of international sanctions.

Despite the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, several positive impacts on the SDGs have emerged, offering opportunities for innovation and progress across various sectors. The crisis allows for rethinking the sustainability and resilience of food, water and energy supply chains (SDG 2, 6 and 7). The pandemic presented an opportunity to gain experience and adapt to the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) across various sectors, such as education (SDG 4) (Iranmanesh et al. 2022), e-commerce, and remote work, leading to positive impacts on SDGs 8 and 17 (Kumar et al. 2020). While some industries will be set back, others can innovate and flourish—with examples in the medical and online services and communications industries (SDG 9). The COVID-19 crisis might also catalyse the transformation of global supply chains towards shortened, more circular and local models (SDG 12)—presenting an opportunity to reduce the prevalence of lifestyles premised on large volumes of energy over the longer term and material throughput (Cohen, 2020). Recognising the importance of a functioning water and sanitation system to address the pandemic supports advances across SDG 6. Cities are already rethinking mobility, public spaces, and service provisions, contributing to progress on SDG 11. While the adaptation of ICT across various sectors and SDGs (SDG 4, 8, and 17) has shown positive impacts, these must be approached with caution due to the persistent digital divide across countries and socio-economic classes (Katz and Jung, 2021). Similarly, claims that the dramatic changes could mark the beginning of a sustainable recovery benefiting both climate and biodiversity (SDG 13, 14, and 15) should also be considered cautiously (International Energy Agency, 2020b; Pearson et al. 2020). The environmental benefits described above have proven to be short-lived and are rapidly disappearing as economies recover. Yet, the zoonotic origin and transmission of the virus have highlighted the impact of human activities on ecosystems and the fragility of the interdependent global socio-economic and environmental systems. This emphasizes the need for effective institutions and governance that integrate efforts across sectors and levels of government, supported by scientific expertise, to mitigate systemic risks and build a sustainable future (Breuer et al., 2023a). Potentially contributing to advances on SDGs 13, 14 and 15.

Sustainable recovery plans have the potential to support climate action while boosting the economy (International Energy Agency, 2020b). However, counterproductively, the responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have most likely led to a decline in climate and sustainable finance flows to developing nations, negatively impacting Target 17.3 under SDG 17, which is intended to mobilise additional financial resources for sustainable development in these regions. Additionally, GDP losses in rich countries (OECD, 2020) risk undermining the necessary official development assistance flows to developing countries—while projected falling remittances will remove an economic lifeline for many households. The resulting economic crisis in high-income countries will force an inward-looking approach, limit their overseas aid budget (impacting Target 17.2), and reduce their willingness and ability to ease the debt burden of indebted countries (against Target 17.4). The broad impact of the pandemic, combined with the narrow focus of national responses, threatens the availability of international financing essential for implementing Agenda 2030, particularly the overseas financial and technical aid to developing and emerging economies.

Yet, the greatest risk the world faces is that, as all socio-economic crises deepen, countries may prioritise short-term economic gains, carbon-intensive investments, and isolated national interests over planetary health and well-being. Such a strategy would have detrimental effects on most targets of the 2030 Agenda, with the targets related to strengthening the means of implementation and revitalising the global partnership for sustainable development (SDG 17) expected to face significant setbacks. While the increased North-South and South-South cooperation, alongside global technology facilitation and coordinated efforts to contain and find a cure for COVID-19 (benefiting SDG 17), have yielded valuable lessons for the future of the SDG 17 implementation, the post-pandemic world presents an open landscape where decisions made at local, national, and international levels will determine whether we seize the opportunities presented by the COVID-19 crisis or drift further from achieving the SDGs. Instead of fragmented efforts that undermine collective financial responsibility, the international community must come together to coordinate recovery efforts that address environmental crises—climate change, pollution, ecosystems and biodiversity loss—or else a critical window of opportunity to avoid their worst impacts will be irreversibly lost (World Economic Forum, 2020). Shared recovery strategies should focus on vulnerabilities and increase the resilience of socio-economic systems while addressing preparedness responses and disaster risk reduction for future crises (UN Climate UNFCCC, 2020). It is crucial that crisis-driven policies, particularly those aimed at promoting and sustaining economic growth (SDG Target 8.1), are carefully designed to avoid unintended negative spillover effects on SDGs focused on sustaining ecosystems.

This initial assessment of the literature, while showing the unprecedented advancements in science during the first half of 2020, helps understand some of the gaps to be assessed in the future. Across most disciplines, the focus has been on the short-term effect of the pandemic, while mostly speculative and opinionated studies were available looking at the long-term effects. Studies quantitatively studying the effect of the pandemic on the SDGs outcomes are limited to date for two main reasons. First, the data challenges encountered due to COVID-19. The global indicator framework for the SDGs is revised annually and followed by data updates. The lack of basic health, social and economic data has always been a challenge, but the COVID-19 crisis has worsened the situation by disrupting routine operations in the global statistical and data system, with delays in planned censuses, surveys and other data programmes and large geographical disparities. Although the statistical community has adapted by setting up mechanisms to ensure operational continuity, further investments and support for data innovations (especially integrated geospatial and statistical information and non-traditional data) are urgently needed (United Nations, 2020a). Second, the spread of the pandemic is at different stages in different continents and countries. Any global quantitative analysis of COVID-19’s impact on SDGs will thus provide an inaccurate spectrum of impacts. However, with passing time, more data becomes available and quantitative analyses will be direly needed to understand the real impacts of the pandemic on all SDGs (United Nations, 2023a).

Conclusions

This analysis leads to two primary conclusions: first, the COVID-19 pandemic and responses to it have significantly hindered progress on nearly 90% of the SDGs, yet it also presents an opportunity to advance 66 targets if strategic decisions are made; second, a proactive, collaborative global approach is essential to navigate the complex interplay of planetary and post-pandemic crises. The contribution of this paper lies in providing evidence-based insights to guide effective policy interventions and international cooperation for a just and sustainable recovery in line with Agenda 2030. The discussion in this paper carries significant implications for both the ongoing implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the evolving conversations about the post-2030 development framework. Analyses like the one presented here are crucial at regional, national, and local levels to inform comprehensive recovery plans that address all SDGs and their interconnectedness (Bali Swain and Min, 2023). Shocks like pandemics highlight the systemic risks and vulnerabilities inherent in hyperconnected transport networks, globalised and high-risk production systems, ecosystem services, consumption patterns, and lifestyles. Furthermore, the understanding of crises and shocks enables us to rethink how to redirect investments and subsidies toward climate-compatible and nature-based development strategies. In the aftermath of crises, we must acknowledge that when these complex systems are disrupted or not fully comprehended, they can facilitate the emergence and intensification of future pandemics, like COVID-19 or other potentially catastrophic events such as “Disease X”.

We align with scholars who advocate for decision-makers and policymakers to go beyond the concept of ‘building back better’ by embedding development within social and environmental developmental domains. Researchers emphasize that to effectively implement the SDGs and shape future sustainable development frameworks to be fit for purpose, it is crucial to prioritise these goals in planning for sustainability—particularly environmental sustainability within planetary boundaries—while ensuring a just transition that creates quality jobs and garners political support. Economic development must be embedded within social and environmental domains, serving as a means to secure the health and well-being of people and the planet, rather than being an end in itself (de León et al. 2021; Elder, 2024; Breuer et al. 2023b). We need to intentionally craft policies that create the fiscal room necessary to enhance human well-being and support societal transformations.

If the past progress in delivering the SDGs had been more substantial, we would now live in a more resilient and better-prepared world for the pandemic-induced crisis and other large-scale catastrophic events. There is a need to meet this challenge with greater and coordinated action proportional to such threats rather than maintaining a convenient status quo. Irrespective of the monumental challenges, this decade of action has the potential for global cooperation and solidarity without leaving anyone behind

International multilateral cooperation needs to rise to the challenge, with increased support for less developed and developing economies to build resilient systems that are socially and economically inclusive. Strengthening social and physical infrastructure, creating equal opportunities for all, enforcing environmental laws and regulations, enabling technology transfers, and removing trade barriers for low-income countries can be part of the solution. In the times to come, we cannot afford to lose track of the medium and long-term global visions of all goals in the Agenda 2030.