Kritik minerallerde güvenli tedarik zinciri sorumlu üretime bağlı

Critical minerals need secure supply chains – increasingly that depends on responsible production

Critical minerals need secure supply chains – increasingly that depends on responsible production Expert comment sfarrell.drupa… 31 August 2026 More than half of critical minerals worldwide are located under or near Indigenous lands. Community protests have interrupted production, so the business case for taking human rights seriously is becoming stronger and stronger. Global trade wars, geo-economic competition and climate change are catalysing threats within minerals supply chains. The Business and Human Rights Centre recorded a 73% increase in human rights abuses linked to transition minerals between 2024 to 2025. Seven in ten implicated mines were tied to listed companies. When local socio-political sensitivities and vulnerabilities are overlooked by companies and governments driving the critical minerals juggernaut it jeopardises the ambitions for durable, reliable and resilient defence and energy systems. Governments have to avoid the pitfall of a ‘race to the bottom’ on responsibility The array of principles adopted in the 2000s to ensure responsible business practice remain an important tool to mitigate challenges, and the web of standards that has developed around them are vital for implementation. The intensity of geoeconomic competition and drastic upheaval of global supply chains is a systemic threat to these principles. It is also an opportunity for them to be applied in the interests of governments, companies and communities. Governments have to avoid the pitfall of a ‘race to the bottom’ on responsibility. They must ensure that there is sufficient protection in place for companies to uphold responsible performance and to protect the intangible – but at times material – social licence to operate. Changing risks Geopolitical instability is the dominant risk to international trade. Several scholarly studies and company surveys point to political factors as the biggest threat to global commerce as states reassert control over markets. Since the end of the Cold War, multiple standards, guidelines, and principles were defined, with the focus of responsible corporate action on the interface of globalised corporations and vulnerable communities in post-colonial or developing countries. To some extent, global standards were built upon the targeted mechanisms developed to restrict minerals funding proxy conflicts in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Companies now need to be more aware that governments are prioritizing supply chains as instruments of geopolitical and economic advantage, whether it be to reduce Chinese dominance over minerals supply chains, to avoid chokepoints or to disengage from abusive actors, often without considering the ecological and human rights risks incurred in producer states. Related work The water footprints of the global minerals trade Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 the imposition of sanctions by Canada, the EU, UK and USA, against Russia’s oil and diamond businesses especially, has prompted existing mechanisms to verify provenance claims in these markets. The sharp increase in demand for many materials increases downstream company exposure to upstream risk factors. In 2000 global demand for lithium carbonate equivalent was approximately 68,000 metric tonnes. By 2025, industry estimates had risen to 1.5 to 1.8 million tonnes. Such rapid increases in market scale are often in part filled with artisanal and informal production, increasing the possibility of involvement of child labour, environmental damage, illegal trading, and malign actors. This should focus the attention of companies and governments. International activists and the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have filed multiple legal actions against large tech companies for using DRC minerals in their supply chains, alleging downstream corporate complicity in human rights abuse and child labour at the point of mineral extraction. Verification schemes face a challenge as regulators desire total supply chain assurance, while companies are reticent to accept responsibility for due diligence beyond their immediate suppliers. Community protests have interrupted production, suspend operations and at times even curtailed if not cancelled entire projects Legal action is also targeting standards bodies that ostensibly validate companies’ claims that their operations do no harm, including one case involving Tanzanian gold workers that represents a new focus of liability on standards bodies that could have wide repercussions. There is a normative and ethical case for addressing the cases involving child and forced labour, displacement of Indigenous lands and communities, and exposure to security forces that may commit human rights abuses. There is also a strong business case to be made for responsible performance – community protests have interrupted production, suspend operations and at times even curtailed if not cancelled entire projects in Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Europe and North and Latin America. Evolving standards Faced with these changing risks, governments and companies need to refocus on universal adherence to responsible corporate action, and avoid politicising or weaponising standards to the detriment of the most vulnerable producing states. The original purpose of guidelines and standards was to provide operational tools to support activities in complex contexts. They still serve this important and practical purpose. Proponents of standards argue that responsible companies often enjoy lower capital costs, stronger risk management, better employee retention, and more stable long-term financial performance. And while critics highlight the cost and complexity of conformance, it remains an important shield in difficult operating environments. Companies and governments may think that corporate responsibility and accountability have gone out of fashion. Affected communities and environmental and human rights defenders may not have gotten the memo as protests and disruptions mount. Companies need a robust safeguard against accusations of malfeasance. Business and human rights frameworks are not ‘Western’. The UN Global Compact in 2000 provided guidelines for responsible business practice, and in 2011 the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights were unanimously agreed by the UN Human Rights Council. Reported abuses against Western companies show that the West does not have the competitive advantage that it thinks it has on ethical and responsible business practices. The Chinese government’s announcement of its new Mineral Resources Law, the International Initiative for Sustainability in the Resource Sector, and guidelines for responsible performance signify increasing attention, if not stringent implementation, by China. Partnered implementation The key factor to ensuring that companies uphold responsible performance is the buy-in of the political leadership of host countries. The UN Guiding Principle on Business and Human Rights has elevated human rights due diligence into operational practice. The undertaking of mandated National Action Plans by governments is a fundamental prerequisite. Related work To secure critical minerals supply governments need to take a stake in industry Similarly, the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, and its multi-stakeholder governance Initiative (VPI) has increasing membership from the governments of extractive dependent economies, such as DRC and Mozambique. Of course, implementation is vital. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the principle of free and prior informed consent (FPIC) are too often acknowledged, but not enacted. With over half of critical minerals worldwide located under or in close proximity to Indigenous lands, the business case for taking these communities and rights seriously is stronger than ever. Producer states are taking a stand, and they must be engaged with seriously. For example, the DRC’s revised mining code addresses most of the most important social and environmental risks, but the potential beneficial impact depends on enforcement. The UN Secretary General’s Initiative on Critical Energy Transition Minerals is a further example of producer nations pursuing universal standards, and the forum could be a global convenor to extend implementation. Geopolitics is reshaping supply chains, and the companies that are expected to deliver critical minerals are exposed to new socio-economic and human rights risks that, unless managed, will hit their bottom line. The open secret is that the standards and tools needed to prevent this are hiding in plain sight. A quarter century ago, these tools were devised to protect the developing world from the excesses of global extractive industries. Today, it is those countries who are now picking up these tools to defend themselves from the impacts of inter-state competition of great powers.