127 closure decision-making tools (Clifford, 2022a; Kinyondo & Huggins, 2021; Maconachie & Conteh, 2021a). The literature often positions the SDGs as a normative benchmark or an evaluative framework for governance performance. For instance, the Sustainable Development Licence to Operate (SDLO) extends the concept of legitimacy beyond the traditional Social Licence to Operate by aligning expectations and coordination with SDG principles (Pedro et al., 2017). Additional research explores how SDG alignment is advanced through policy and legal mechanisms, such as environmental governance and institutional reforms, rather than through structured project-level decision-making tools (Benites & Ubillús, 2022a; Clifford, 2022b; Maconachie & Conteh, 2021b). The SDGs are also used for benchmarking and comparison through national or sectoral indices, cross-country governance assessments, and sustainable finance or ESG screening processes. However, evidence of their integration into site-level planning and closure practices remains limited (Dmitrieva & Solovyova, 2024; Janikowska & Kulczycka, 2021; Liu et al., 2024a). Gender-focused studies indicate that SDG 5 is often cited in reform agendas, yet practical integration is frequently constrained by limited implementation capacity and accountability mechanisms (Buss et al., 2021; Hilson, 2025b; Yakovleva et al., 2022a). 3.1.4 Social and community-based localization A fourth category of studies applies the SDGs primarily to assess community impacts, facilitate monitoring, and enhance accountability, focusing on lived outcomes and justice rather than corporate reporting or internal mine planning. For instance, SDG-based resettlement assessments operationalize SDG 1 by translating it into locally measurable outcomes, such as access to services, resources, and livelihood resilience, and by evaluating these outcomes through household surveys, focus groups, and interviews (Korah et al., 2019). Additional research employs SDGs to analyze the effects of local mining activities on poverty and ecosystems, emphasizing trade-offs between SDG 1 (poverty reduction) and SDG 15 (ecosystem protection) (Tougma et al., 2025), and develops local evaluation frameworks to track progress toward SDG targets and indicators at the community level (Laing & Moonsammy, 2021a). Methodologically, these studies utilize locally grounded indicators and evidence, frequently incorporating Indigenous and community knowledge to capture impacts that global indicator sets may overlook (Izquierdo et al., 2025). They also conduct health, safety, and livelihood assessments, along with structured measurements of development conditions in mining host communities using SDG-relevant local indicators (Boadi et al., 2024a; Cole & Broadhurst, 2020, 2021). Justice-oriented research applies the SDGs as an accountability framework to interpret distributional harms and governance failures, prioritizing equity and lived experience over corporate contribution narratives (Essah, 2022a). Similarly, environmental exposure-based studies employ SDGs, such as SDG 6, to evaluate local water impacts and participation outcomes (Arthur-Holmes et al., 2022).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2