The rapid expansion of the critical minerals sector has placed ESG firmly at the centre of project approvals, investment decisions, and supply chain scrutiny. Environmental performance is often the most visible and measurable part of this conversation. Yet across complex mining and infrastructure developments, it is frequently social and governance factors less visible, less quantified, and often addressed later that shape whether projects progress smoothly, stall, or fail altogether. From the earliest stages of project development, governance structures influence how decisions are made, risks are prioritised, and trade-offs are managed. In Australia, this includes not only regulatory and corporate governance, but also Traditional Owner-led governance and planning frameworks (for example, strategic and community plans, established decision-making structures, and other Traditional Owner instruments). These frameworks should be an explicit and deliberate point of alignment in project delivery. Experience across critical minerals projects in Australia and internationally highlights how social and governance considerations are woven through every phase of the project life cycle. Traditional Owner frameworks sit alongside and directly inform project ESG/sustainability, cultural heritage management, and ‘on Country’ activities, and should be treated as integrated delivery inputs rather than a parallel or adjunct stream. Regulatory frameworks, corporate sustainability policies, and project-level execution do not operate in isolation; they intersect daily in decisions about land access, procurement strategies, workforce planning, and engagement approaches. In practice, EPCM and project delivery engagement is often standardised and process-driven (for example, oriented to approvals, workflows, and discrete deliverables), rather than embedded early through authentic, place-based collaboration. This can limit understanding of local priorities and the opportunity to co-define what ‘good’ looks like with Traditional Owners and host communities. A common constraint is that implementation is often limited by local Traditional Owner or Indigenous community capability and resourcing, which can inhibit effective collaboration even where intent exists. Where appropriate, projects can support access to capability and resourcing such as specialist support and capacity-building mechanisms to improve the quality of engagement, clarify priorities and focus areas, and build enduring trust across phases. The legacy of critical minerals projects is shaped well before closure. Without early investment in social performance and specialist Indigenous engagement capability (and sustainability capability), projects risk missing the opportunity to co-define priorities with Traditional Owners and communities weakening an integrated social licence to operate approach and diminishing legacy outcomes. Decisions about land use, governance responsibilities, and stakeholder involvement during development and operations often determine whether post-mining outcomes support long-term community aspirations or become a source of ongoing contention. By drawing these threads together, the discussion reframes social and governance performance as enabling capabilities rather than compliance functions. Recognising and strengthening these often overlooked dimensions of ESG is increasingly central to navigating complexity, maintaining trust, and delivering resilient outcomes in the critical minerals sector.