1712 outcomes (Arthur-Holmes et al., 2022). The diverse landscape of SDG application in mining, spanning from high-level corporate strategies to site-specific technical tools, is summarized in Table 2. This table outlines the primary purposes and inherent limitations of each approach. Table 2 – Summary of SDG Application Types in Mining Projects SDG Application Type Primary Purpose Tools / Approaches Challenges & Limitations Reference Reporting & Strategy Disclosure, ESG alignment, reputation, legitimacy Sustainability reports, ESG mapping, narrative alignment Risk of "SDGwashing" without operational integration. (Perdeli Demirkan et al., 2021; Haywood et al., 2026; Baninla et al., 2025) Quantitative & Technical Appraisal, monitoring, risk assessment, closure planning Indicators, LCSA, SDAG, GIS, multi-criteria tools Often lacks integration into standard project management systems. (Agusdinata et al., 2023b; Villeneuve et al., 2017a) Qualitative & Institutional Policy reform, governance design, benchmarking Licensing reforms, policy alignment, governance indices Less effective for direct site-level operational implementation. (Dmitrieva & Solovyova, 2024; Liu et al., 2024a; Maconachie & Conteh, 2021a) Social & CommunityBased Assessing community impact, accountability, and promoting justice. Participatory indicators, surveys, local monitoring Primarily diagnostic; focuses on social risk and community equity. (Cole & Broadhurst, 2021; Essah, 2022a; Korah et al., 2019) 3.2 Practical outcomes and value of SDG localization in mining sector The reviewed studies indicate that SDG localization provides the greatest practical value when Sustainable Development Goals are translated into decision-relevant indicators, assessment tools, operational criteria, or governance mechanisms applicable at project, community, or policy levels. Reported outcomes typically fall into four categories: economic efficiency and operational optimization, environmental restoration and post-mining transition, community health, safety, and inclusion, and governance and stakeholder engagement. Nevertheless, the literature underscores that these benefits depend on institutional capacity, enforcement quality, and meaningful participation. In contexts with weak governance, SDG localization often serves primarily as a diagnostic tool that exposes implementation gaps rather than as a catalyst for measurable improvement (Buss et al., 2021; Clifford, 2022b; Maconachie & Conteh, 2021a; Perdeli Demirkan et al., 2021a). 3.2.1 Economic efficiency and operational optimization Economic and operational benefits are most pronounced when SDG localization is integrated into planning, monitoring, and investment decisions, rather than being limited to disclosure purposes. Projectlevel assessment tools translate sustainability goals into prioritized mitigation and monitoring actions, thereby enhancing implementation focus and follow-up (Villeneuve et al., 2017a). SDG localization also contributes to operational continuity by reducing social and conflict risks. Shared-value investments and locally aligned initiatives can enhance legitimacy and minimize disruptions (Boiral et al., 2019; Fraser, 2021; Saenz, 2023b). At organizational and sectoral levels, SDG performance assessments facilitate the identification of gaps and the prioritization of investments, even when site-level outcomes are not directly measured (Baninla et al., 2025; Kruk et al., 2025). Additionally, some studies suggest that SDG-linked
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2