1714 governance levels, SDG-aligned indicator sets and composite indices are commonly used to benchmark sustainability performance and identify policy gaps, even in the absence of direct improvements at the minesite level (Li et al., 2024). Nevertheless, institutional reform pathways—including licensing, enforcement, and benefit-sharing mechanisms—yield mixed outcomes. Limited capacity, overlapping mandates, and regulatory fragmentation frequently constrain implementation, so SDG localization may reveal governance shortcomings rather than resolve them (Maconachie & Conteh, 2021b; Pedro et al., 2017). Consequently, stakeholder engagement outcomes are most effective when SDG localization is integrated with robust monitoring, clearly defined roles and accountability, and mechanisms that convert stakeholder input into enforceable commitments, rather than remaining at the stage of consultation or reporting narratives (Haywood et al., 2026; Perdeli Demirkan et al., 2021b). The localization of SDGs in the mining sector yields the greatest benefits when global objectives are translated into measurable, site-specific indicators and integrated into technical monitoring, structured decision-making tools, and participatory governance frameworks. Under these circumstances, localization can enhance operational prioritization and continuity, facilitate more robust restoration and closure decisions, render community impacts measurable and actionable, and reinforce transparency and accountability. Nevertheless, outcomes remain inconsistent and highly context-dependent. When localization efforts are primarily rhetorical, weakly enforced, or misaligned with community priorities, they serve mainly as diagnostic tools that reveal governance gaps, priority misalignments, and implementation failures, rather than generating measurable improvements in environmental performance or community well-being (Clifford, 2022b; Maconachie & Conteh, 2021b; Perdeli Demirkan et al., 2021a). 3.3 SDGs prioritization and identified gaps in mining sector A review of 55 studies indicates that SDG prioritization in the mining sector is selective. Goals that are more readily measurable, reportable, and compatible with corporate strategies receive the greatest emphasis. At the corporate level, SDG 8 (Decent Work), SDG 13 (Climate Action), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 9 (Industry and Infrastructure), and, increasingly, SDG 7 (Clean Energy) are most frequently highlighted (Baninla et al., 2025; Deveci et al., 2022; Endl et al., 2021; Haywood et al., 2026; Kumi et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2024b; Negrete et al., 2024; Perdeli Demirkan et al., 2021a; Saenz, 2023b). These SDGs closely align with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics, as well as pressures related to the energy transition, innovation, and operational efficiency. Expert surveys and reporting analyses consistently identify SDG 8 as a top priority, while the prominence of SDG 13 has increased in response to decarbonization efforts and heightened investor scrutiny (Deveci et al., 2022; Haywood et al., 2026). Within structured assessment frameworks, economic and system-oriented SDGs, particularly SDGs 8, 9, 12, 13, and 16, are most operationalized through indicators and scoring systems (Villeneuve et al., 2017b). Comparable trends are evident in sustainable finance and policy debates, where objectives related to economic growth, infrastructure, and transition minerals are prioritized above community wellbeing and ecosystem protection (Dmitrieva & Solovyova, 2024; Negrete et al., 2024). In contrast, several SDGs remain insufficiently integrated into mining operations. Goals pertaining to health and safety (SDG 3), local water security (SDG 6), poverty and food security (SDGs 1 and 2), inequality and gender (SDGs 5 and 10), and biodiversity (SDG 15) receive less consistent operational focus, despite often representing the most significant local impacts. SDG 14 is typically deprioritized because most mining activities are land-based, although it remains relevant in certain contexts (Baninla et al., 2025; Deveci et al., 2022; Haywood et al., 2026, 2026; Mancini & Sala, 2018; Perdeli Demirkan et al., 2021a; Tost et al., 2018). At the community level, priorities frequently shift toward addressing immediate local concerns, particularly water security (SDG 6), with associated links to health (SDG 3) and livelihoods (SDGs 1 and 8) (Haywood et al., 2026; Laing & Moonsammy, 2021b; Tougma et al., 2025; Yakovleva et al., 2022b). Broader objectives, such as ecosystem restoration and institutional reform, are less consistently incorporated into routine decisionmaking processes. While gender equality (SDG 5) is widely acknowledged in policy discussions, its practical implementation remains limited in contexts where data availability and enforcement mechanisms are weak (Baninla et al., 2025; Buss et al., 2021; Hilson, 2025b; Yakovleva et al., 2022b).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2