1713 taxonomies and ESG screening improve financing clarity and investment transparency, although the supporting evidence is primarily conceptual and tends to emphasize access to capital over demonstrated operational gains (Dmitrieva & Solovyova, 2024; Sternberg & Ahearn, 2023). In rehabilitation contexts, SDG-aligned socio-environmental indicators have been associated with more efficient resource allocation and improved recovery budgeting (Kruk et al., 2025). 3.2.2 Environmental restoration and post-mining transition Environmental restoration and post-mining transition provide some of the most compelling evidence for the benefits of SDG localization, particularly when SDGs are integrated into restoration criteria, ecological indicators, or closure decision tools. For instance, SDG-oriented reclamation, such as biocharassisted restoration, demonstrates measurable improvements in soil and nutrient conditions and directly links these outcomes to SDG contributions, thereby enhancing monitoring and credibility (Ghosh & Maiti, 2021). Comparable rehabilitation initiatives report ecosystem recovery and increased ecosystem service value following restoration (Kruk et al., 2025). Additionally, studies employing ecosystem-service valuation indicate that SDG localization can enhance restoration planning by clarifying recovery pathways and supporting more robust investment prioritization (Ferrer et al., 2021a; Zeng et al., 2022). In the context of mine closure, SDG-informed frameworks facilitate the comparison of post-mining land-use options, align closure processes with long-term development objectives, and mitigate future liabilities. Case studies further demonstrate the viability of reuse options such as employment hubs or renewable energy sites (Simpson et al., 2025). Overall, environmental benefits are most consistently realized when the SDGs are embedded in technical monitoring and closure or restoration decision frameworks, rather than used primarily for symbolic reporting. 3.2.3 Community health, safety, and inclusion Community health, safety, and inclusion benefits are most evident when SDGs are translated into community-level indicators, participatory monitoring, or targeted programs that capture lived experiences. In resettlement studies, SDG-based assessments facilitate tracking of poverty and resilience outcomes, demonstrating improvements in areas such as water access, sanitation, and housing, while also documenting persistent challenges including farmland loss, increased household costs, and limited livelihood diversification (Korah et al., 2019). Another research links mining practices to water contamination and household health risks, underscoring the need for targeted monitoring and governance responses (ArthurHolmes et al., 2022). Localized mapping approaches have yielded practical benefits for vulnerable groups, including reduced time burdens and enhanced safety or well-being (Li et al., 2025). SDG frameworks are further employed to highlight occupational injury burdens and livelihood dependency, thereby increasing the policy relevance of targeted interventions (Boadi et al., 2024b). Some community programs have reported measurable benefits, such as reduced disease incidence or expanded services (Simpson et al., 2025). Nevertheless, inclusion outcomes remain inconsistent: inadequate design or enforcement can heighten vulnerability or exclude women, so localization efforts may primarily expose barriers rather than deliver clear inclusion gains (Buss et al., 2021; Hilson, 2025b; Yakovleva et al., 2022b). When corporate and community priorities diverge or benefits are distributed inequitably, perceived impacts may be limited or even exacerbate inequality (Kumi et al., 2020; Mutale et al., 2019a). 3.2.4 Governance and stakeholder engagement Governance and stakeholder engagement benefits are most pronounced when the SDGs are employed to structure participatory assessments, clarify trade-offs, and reinforce accountability among companies, regulators, and affected communities. Structured SDG-based appraisal processes enhance transparency by explicitly identifying priorities, exposing stakeholder disagreements, and facilitating more effective regulatory dialogue (Villeneuve et al., 2017a). Evidence-based monitoring tools, such as geographic information systems (GIS), satellite imagery, and spatial analysis linked to SDG indicators, further strengthen oversight by generating site-specific data on hazards, land disturbance, and cumulative impacts. These tools support both compliance monitoring and stakeholder communication (Brown et al., 2022). At broader
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2