126 In this capacity, SDGs tend to reinforce legitimacy and accountability within corporate social responsibility (CSR), shared value, and license-to-operate frameworks, rather than directly influencing site-level planning or operational control (Boiral et al., 2019; Saenz, 2023a; Selmier & Newenham-Kahindi, 2021). Findings from content analysis and text-mining research demonstrate that firms selectively emphasize specific SDGs and present their contributions in ways that position SDGs predominantly as a reporting mechanism rather than an operational framework (Haywood et al., 2026). The use of SDG framing is also evident in corporate descriptions of sustainability and community investment initiatives, where SDGs serve to categorize expenditures (such as health, education, infrastructure, and employment) rather than being integrated into operational controls or closure planning (Kumi et al., 2020; Mutale et al., 2019b). At the sectoral level, SDGs are similarly employed for broad benchmarking of contributions and gaps, aligning more closely with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) narratives than with implementation at the mine or project level (Baninla et al., 2025; Monteiro et al., 2019; Mvile & Bishoge, 2024). 3.1.2 Quantitative and technical localization Several studies demonstrate that SDGs can be operationalized by translating them into measurable indicators, weighted objectives, and structured decision-support tools. The Sustainable Development Analytical Grid (SDAG) exemplifies this approach by embedding SDGs into project appraisal through stakeholder-weighted objectives, site-specific indicators, and prioritized actions. This framework supports ex-ante evaluation, identifies sustainability gaps, structures regulatory dialogue, and informs closure and post-mining land-use planning (Villeneuve et al., 2017a). In addition to SDAG, technical localization is advanced through tools that generate site-specific evidence to inform decision-making. Geographic Information System (GIS)-based methods map issues such as mining-related water hazards to support operational mitigation planning (Li et al., 2015). Remote sensing employs satellite imagery to monitor landscape changes and mining footprints, thereby enhancing accountability (Brown et al., 2022). Further, some studies integrate SDGs into Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment (LCSA) to compare alternatives and assess trade-offs in critical mineral projects (Agusdinata et al., 2023b). SDGs are also incorporated into ecosystem-service and land-transition evaluations to guide restoration priorities and closure decisions (Ferrer et al., 2021a; Zeng et al., 2022), as well as into multi-criteria decision methods to rank sustainability priorities for mining (Deveci et al., 2022). In remediation research, SDGs inform eco-restoration planning and the evaluation of recovery outcomes (Ghosh & Maiti, 2021). 3.1.3 Qualitative and institutional localization Numerous studies indicate that SDGs are primarily implemented through governance, regulatory, and policy reforms rather than through daily mine management practices. Within this context, SDGs serve to justify and structure reforms such as licensing and formalization programs, decentralization initiatives, environmental regulations, and benefit- or revenuesharing policies. Consequently, SDGs are more prominent in the development of rules and institutions than in routine site planning, operational monitoring, risk management systems, or
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2