121 1. INTRODUCTION Contemporary mining projects face increased scrutiny and elevated expectations. The global mining sector is undergoing substantial transformation driven by population growth, urbanization, and the accelerating global energy transition. While mining remains essential for supplying critical minerals required for a low-carbon economy, mining operations are inherently intrusive, geographically immobile, and frequently situated in environmentally and socially sensitive areas (Li et al., 2024; Negrete et al., 2024). The rapid adoption of clean energy technologies has heightened demand for minerals such as copper, lithium, and cobalt, thereby exerting significant pressure on supply chains and the communities where extraction occurs (Hassanpourroudbeneh & Zangeneh, 2026; Li et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2022). As a result, project success is now assessed not only by production output or financial performance but also by environmental outcomes, social acceptance, and governance standards throughout the entire project lifecycle, including exploration, operation, closure, and post-mining land use (Dmitrieva & Solovyova, 2024; Haywood et al., 2026). The concept of “social license to operate” (SLO) has emerged as a critical business risk, since inadequate management of non-technical risks can lead to conflict, costly operational delays, reputational damage, and reduced investor confidence (Pedro et al., 2017; Perdeli Demirkan et al., 2021a). The impacts of mining are fundamentally local, visible, and enduring. Environmental degradation, water scarcity, land disturbance, ecosystem disruption, and negative effects on health and livelihoods manifest differently across regions, shaped by ecological sensitivity, governance capacity, and socio-economic context. Studies of coal, metal, and artisanal mining indicate that technically similar operations can yield significantly different sustainability outcomes depending on local conditions. Failure to address site-specific risks often leads to persistent liabilities and social conflict (Hilson, 2025a; Mazumder et al., 2021). This place-based reality highlights a disconnect between the global sustainability narratives promoted by the mining sector and the localized environmental and social challenges encountered at the project level. Additionally, it poses a substantial challenge for companies seeking to demonstrate sustainability performance through standardized, highlevel frameworks that may not adequately capture local conditions and priorities. In response to these pressures, the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have emerged as a widely adopted framework for articulating sustainability commitments. In the mining sector, the SDGs provide a common global language that aligns corporate sustainability strategies with international development priorities and strengthens credibility among investors, regulators, governments, and communities. Consequently, the SDGs are increasingly cited in ESG disclosures, sustainability reports, and corporate strategies across the extractive industries (Fonseca et al., 2020; Li et al., 2024; Pedro et al., 2017). Mining companies are drawn to the SDGs due to their strategic value. The SDGs provide a structured approach to balancing economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection, while also supporting risk management, stakeholder engagement, and alignment with policy and financing requirements (Haywood et al., 2026; Perdeli Demirkan et al., 2021a). Adoption of the SDGs is frequently perceived as a means of accessing capital, entering international markets, and transitioning from ad hoc or philanthropic sustainability
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2