1716 Distinct patterns of selective prioritization are evident. Across reporting studies and expert assessments, SDGs associated with economic growth, infrastructure, responsible production, and climate transition, particularly SDG 8, SDG 9, SDG 12, SDG 13, and increasingly SDG 7, predominate in corporate narratives and technical prioritization exercises (Deveci et al., 2022; Haywood et al., 2026; Perdeli Demirkan et al., 2021b; Saenz, 2023b). Conversely, SDGs related to local health (SDG 3), water security (SDG 6), poverty and food outcomes (SDG 1 and SDG 2), inequality and gender inclusion (SDG 5 and SDG 10), and biodiversity and ecosystem resilience (SDG 15) are less consistently operationalized, despite often representing the most significant impacts at the mine-site level (Essah, 2022b; Mancini & Sala, 2018; Tost et al., 2018). SDG 14 is typically ranked low in mining-specific prioritization due to the terrestrial orientation of most operations (Deveci et al., 2022). At the community and ASM levels, however, prioritization shifts toward immediate local concerns, with water (SDG 6) frequently the primary focus and spillover effects on health and livelihoods (Arthur-Holmes et al., 2022; Tougma et al., 2025). These patterns are shaped by structural factors, including reporting incentives, indicator feasibility, decision complexity, and governance constraints, which collectively determine which SDGs are integrated and which remain peripheral. The review identifies practical pathways for achieving stronger alignment. Transitioning from a narrow Social License to Operate to a broader Sustainable Development License to Operate reframes projects as long-term development partners rather than short-term extractive entities (Pedro et al., 2017). Integrating SDGs into Creating Shared Value strategies enables companies to address societal needs, such as water infrastructure or energy access, while enhancing operational resilience (Fraser, 2021). Strengthening supply chain traceability, local procurement systems, and shared infrastructure design facilitates better alignment with SDG 8, SDG 9, and SDG 12 (Deveci et al., 2022; Endl et al., 2021; Pedro et al., 2017; Perdeli Demirkan et al., 2021b; Saenz, 2023b; Selmier & Newenham-Kahindi, 2021). Co-designing indicators with Indigenous and local communities enhances legitimacy and bridges the gap between global metrics and local realities (Boiral et al., 2019; Izquierdo et al., 2025; Sternberg & Ahearn, 2023). Accelerated decarbonization, adoption of circular economy practices, and Scope 3 accountability are essential for credible alignment with SDG 12 and SDG 13 in the context of the energy transition (Baninla et al., 2025; Haywood et al., 2026; Mvile & Bishoge, 2024; Negrete et al., 2024). Engagement with ASM through formalization and partnership supports poverty reduction and safer working conditions (SDG 1 and SDG 8) (Arthur-Holmes et al., 2022; Hilson, 2025b), while increased transparency and site-level data disclosure are necessary to prevent selective reporting and strengthen accountability (Cole & Broadhurst, 2021; Haywood et al., 2026). Finally, treating closure as a development transition, through deliberate post-mining land-use planning and asset succession, anchors SDG alignment in long-term regional outcomes (Simpson et al., 2025). The evidence indicates that the effectiveness of SDG localization in mining is determined less by the specific goals referenced and more by the extent to which they are integrated into measurable indicators, structured decision-making processes, and accountable governance mechanisms throughout the project lifecycle. Embedding SDGs into appraisal, operational, and closure systems can significantly enhance project resilience and improve long-term community outcomes. In contrast, when SDG alignment is primarily rhetorical, it risks remaining symbolic rather than achieving substantive transformation. Multiple directions for future research extend beyond the evidence synthesized in this review. First, ex ante, project-level SDG appraisal frameworks should be developed to move beyond retrospective SDG mapping in disclosures. These frameworks should embed SDG-linked criteria into early investment screening, feasibility assessment, and alternative selection, enabling the evaluation of sustainability tradeoffs before major capital commitments and ensuring consistent management across the project lifecycle, including exploration, operations, closure, and post-mining land use. Second, the persistent site-level data gaps identified in the reviewed studies necessitate methodological advances that enhance localization precision. Approaches such as spatial measurement, remote sensing, and other data-enrichment techniques can translate SDG concepts into decision-ready indicators that reflect local baselines rather than national aggregates. Third, stronger empirical validation is required through comparative case applications across diverse governance contexts to assess implementation feasibility and clarify the effects of lifecycle-stage integration on sustainability trade-offs and long-term regional outcomes. Finally, future research should prioritize the development of participatory and locally co-designed indicator systems. This includes the explicit integration of community and Indigenous priorities into appraisal and monitoring processes to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2