1715 These gaps are primarily attributable to business and governance constraints rather than inherent deficiencies within the SDGs. Reporting incentives often motivate companies to emphasize positive, quantifiable contributions, while negative externalities may be overlooked, thereby posing credibility risks (Cole & Broadhurst, 2021; Essah, 2022a; Haywood et al., 2026; Perdeli Demirkan et al., 2021a). Quantitative metrics such as emissions, energy consumption, and employment are more readily measured than complex social outcomes like poverty reduction or institutional quality, which contribute to data gaps and oversight (Agusdinata et al., 2023b; Brown et al., 2022; Cole & Broadhurst, 2020, 2021; Haywood et al., 2026; Izquierdo et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2024b). Furthermore, attempting to address multiple SDGs simultaneously can increase decision-making complexity and lead to inconsistent implementation unless structured prioritization tools are employed (Deveci et al., 2022; Simpson et al., 2025; Villeneuve et al., 2017b). Limited enforcement capacity, regulatory fragmentation, and institutional instability also frequently hinder the translation of SDG-aligned reforms into sustained operational change (Benites & Ubillús, 2022a; Clifford, 2022b; Kinyondo & Huggins, 2021; Laing & Moonsammy, 2021b; Maconachie & Conteh, 2021b). 4. DISCUSSION This review analyzed the localization of SDGs in mining projects, the practical outcomes associated with localization, and the prioritization or under-integration of specific goals in practice, Analysis of 55 studies reveals a consistent pattern: although SDG alignment is now prevalent in corporate reporting and policy narratives, integration into core project decisions such as planning, risk management, operations, and closure remains inconsistent and is strongly influenced by governance capacity and methodological rigor. The evidence indicates that SDGs are primarily utilized as strategic framing and disclosure tools rather than as integrated management systems. Corporate reports commonly highlight SDG 8 (Decent Work), SDG 9 (Industry and Infrastructure), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 13 (Climate Action), as these correspond closely with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) expectations and quantifiable business indicators (Haywood et al., 2026). However, outside of structured decision-support methodologies such as multi-criteria analysis, life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA), or SDAG-based frameworks, the translation of SDGs into operational controls and site-level monitoring remains limited (Agusdinata et al., 2023a). This results in a persistent disconnect between reporting and decision-making, where SDGs enhance legitimacy and investor signaling but do not consistently inform trade-offs, mitigation strategies, or closure planning. Consequently, the risk of “SDG-washing” increases, particularly when aggregated corporate data obscure local environmental and social impacts (Essah, 2022b). The review also identifies a subset of studies in which SDGs become operationally significant through methodological translation. When global goals are transformed into measurable indicators, weighted objectives, spatial risk maps, or structured appraisal criteria, localization has tangible effects. In these cases, SDGs facilitate ex-ante project evaluation, improve regulatory dialogue, and enable more coherent closure and restoration planning (Simpson et al., 2025). Environmental and post-mining research demonstrates that integrating SDGs into rehabilitation frameworks can guide ecosystem recovery and land-transition strategies in quantifiable ways (Ferrer et al., 2021b). These findings indicate that SDG localization is most effective when embedded within technical and governance systems, rather than limited to narrative alignment. The practical outcomes of localization remain conditional. Positive results are most consistently observed when SDGs are operationalized through clear indicators, structured decision-support tools, participatory governance mechanisms, or spatial monitoring systems. In these instances, SDG-based frameworks enhance transparency, clarify trade-offs, and strengthen stakeholder dialogue (Villeneuve et al., 2017a). However, in artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) contexts, localization frequently reveals institutional weaknesses rather than generating immediate improvements. Factors such as informality, limited enforcement, regulatory fragmentation, and political instability constrain implementation, leading SDG frameworks to serve primarily as diagnostic tools rather than drivers of change (Benites & Ubillús, 2022b). This underscores that SDG localization is highly dependent on institutional capability; without sufficient capacity and reliable data, integration remains largely aspirational.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2