134 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 SDGlinked criteria into early investment screening, feasibility assessment, and alternative selection, enabling the evaluation of sustainability trade-offs 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 address the recurring gap between global SDG metrics and locally material outcomes, thereby enhancing legitimacy and accountability in SDG-informed decision-making. 5. CONCLUSION This review analyzed 55 peer-reviewed papers to assess the application and localization
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2