REFLEXIVE GOVERNANCE: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, SOCIETY, RISK SOCIETY, AND THE 2030 AGENDA FOR GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY

Resumo

The complexity of contemporary global challenges—marked by unprecedented scientific‐technological advances alongside socio‐environmental crises—demands a profound understanding of the interactions among science, technology, and society. Although existing literature addresses Risk Society theory and the 2030 Agenda separately, it lacks an integrated, critical analysis exploring how reflexive modernity and manufactured risks impact sustainability governance. This study critically examines the intersections among Science, Technology, and Society (STS) studies, Anthony Giddens’s and Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society theory, and the 2030 Agenda—proposing an analytical framework for a more reflexive, equitable governance of global challenges. We hypothesize that reflexive modernity, by engendering intrinsic development risks, imposes fundamental obstacles to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Consequently, a critical approach to science and technology is required to address governance gaps. Employing a qualitative, application‐oriented methodology with an explanatory objective, the research centers on a critical, systematic literature review. Its corpus comprises seminal books and high‐impact journal articles in STS, Risk Sociology, and Sustainable Development, subjected to qualitative content analysis. Findings indicate that—despite their centrality to the SDGs—science and technology remain ambivalent, simultaneously serving as sources of manufactured risks that the 2030 Agenda, in its current formulation, fails to address structurally. The vagueness of the “Leave No One Behind” principle and the technocratic nature of indicator design limit the Agenda’s efficacy and perpetuate inequalities. We conclude that effective global sustainability governance requires a reflexive modernization of the 2030 Agenda itself—incorporating self‐critical evaluation, multi‐sector participation, and accountability mechanisms to manage inherent development risks. This entails moving beyond purely technocentric solutions toward a more politically and socially engaged approach to science and technology.