World’s leading electric car manufacturers are failing to adequately demonstrate how they address risks in their mineral supply chains

BYD, Mitsubishi and Hyundai scored worst, while Mercedes-Benz and Tesla ranked highest

Risks leave communities exposed to potential exploitation, health dangers and environmental harm

‘It’s time to shift gears and ensure electric vehicles don’t leave behind a legacy of human rights abuses’ - Agnès Callamard

A new assessment tool created by Amnesty International has exposed how the world’s leading electric vehicle manufacturers are failing to adequately demonstrate how they address human rights risks in their mineral supply chains - potentially leaving communities exposed to exploitation, health risks and environmental harm caused by the rapid expansion of mines required for the metals used in batteries.

In its new report, Recharge for Rights: Ranking the Human Rights Due Diligence Reporting of Leading Electric Vehicle Makers, Amnesty used criteria based on international standards to comprehensively assess the human rights due diligence policies and self-reported practices of 13 major electric vehicle manufacturers, issuing each one with a scorecard. The scorecard breaks down whether these car brands are meeting their human rights responsibilities and highlights which of them are failing to show that they are addressing human rights concerns.

Amnesty’s scorecard, which is marked out of 90, assesses companies’ performance on criteria including commitment to human rights policies, risk identification process, supply chain mapping and reporting and remediation. None of the companies scored higher than 51 on Amnesty’s human rights due diligence assessment. At the bottom of the list was Chinese company BYD Auto, which scored a dire 11/90. German company Mercedes-Benz scored highest with 51/90.

The car manufacturers scored as follows:

·         Mercedes Benz (51)

·         Tesla (49)

·         Stellantis (42)

·         VW Group (41)

·         BMW (41)

·         Ford (41)

·         General Motors (32)

·         Renault (27)

·         Nissan (22)

·         Geely Auto (22)

·         Hyundai (21)

·         Mitsubishi (13)

·         BYD Auto (11)

While companies like Renault and General Motors have stated commitments to human rights due diligence and rank higher than some of the lowest-scoring companies, they still provide limited evidence over fully integrating these commitments into their supply chain operations, with limited information about their risk assessments and stakeholder engagement and lack of transparency when it comes to the supply chain.

Agnès Callamard, Amnesty’s International’s Secretary General, said:

“While some progress was made, across the board the scores were a massive disappointment.

“BYD, one of the largest and fastest-growing electric vehicle companies, ranked at the bottom of our assessment. Its disclosures show a serious lack of transparency on human rights diligence in its battery supply chains.

“Other low-scoring firms, such as Hyundai and Mitsubishi, lack the necessary depth and information about implementation across key human rights due diligence areas. The commitments these companies report on are often vague and provide little evidence of meaningful action, showing they have a long way to go to meet international standards.

“The lack of transparency around supply chains demonstrated by these companies is a serious problem considering the likelihood that they may be sourcing batteries made with minerals such as cobalt or nickel mined in conditions that could harm people’s human rights.”

Soaring demand: Impact on Indigenous communities

Although a rapid transition from fossil fuel-powered to electric vehicles is urgently needed to accelerate decarbonisation and help slow the rate of global temperature rise, it comes with a hidden cost. Mining for the minerals used in electric vehicles can entail huge risks for people and the environment. For example, Amnesty research has shown how industrial cobalt is linked to forced evictions in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Amnesty is calling on car companies to use their massive leverage as global minerals buyers to influence upstream mining companies and smelters to mitigate these human rights risks.

In terms of supply chain mapping disclosures, companies like BYD, Geely Auto, Hyundai, General Motors and Mitsubishi Motors scored the lowest, failing to provide detailed information about their supply chains. Furthermore, BYD does not disclose smelter, refiner, or mine site names. Geely Auto provided only general supplier locations without specifying mineral extraction sites. Hyundai and Mitsubishi Motors demonstrated a similar lack of transparency, with no evidence of comprehensive supply chain mapping or mine site identification for cobalt, copper, lithium or nickel, making it difficult for stakeholders to verify how these operations affect nearby communities.

Agnès Callamard added:

“The huge rise in demand for the metals needed to make electric vehicle batteries is putting immense pressures on mining-affected communities.

“The human rights abuses tied to the extraction of energy transition minerals are alarming and pervasive and the industry's response is sorely lacking. Communities are suffering from forced evictions, health issues caused by pollution and difficulties accessing water. As demand for electric vehicles increases, manufacturers must ensure people’s human rights are respected.”

Moving forward

All companies, including those involved in the electric vehicle battery supply chain, have a responsibility to respect all human rights wherever they operate. To meet their responsibility to respect human rights, as outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies must implement a human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address adverse human rights impacts that they may cause, contribute to, or be directly linked to through their operations, products or services. While some of the companies assessed have taken positive steps to acknowledge their human rights responsibilities and align corporate policies with international human rights standards, a lot more needs to be done. For example, BMW, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, Tesla and VW Group were among the higher scorers, yet they could still do more to show how they’re actually implementing their policies through addressing human rights risks and providing effective remedy to affected people.

Agnès Callamard added:

“As the global transition to electric vehicles gains momentum, drives global competition and allows for huge profit, Amnesty International is calling on all car makers to improve their human rights due diligence efforts and bring them in line with international human rights standards. We are also calling on governments to strengthen their own human rights due diligence regulation over the companies incorporated on their territories or their exports and import licences.”

“It’s time to shift gears and ensure electric vehicles don’t leave behind a legacy of human rights abuses - instead, the industry must drive a just energy future that leaves no-one behind.”

Notes to editors:

The companies were assessed against criteria based on internationally-recognised frameworks, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct. They were assessed against the following criteria: Human Rights Policy and Commitments; Commitment to Due Diligence in Supply Chain; Gender Perspective and Inclusivity in Due Diligence; Engagement with Stakeholders; Commitment to Respect Indigenous Peoples’ Rights; Risk Identification Process; Comprehensive Supply Chain Mapping and Mine Site Identification; Use of Diverse Information Sources; Risk Mitigation Steps; Leverage Over Suppliers; Responsible Disengagement; Tracking and Evaluating Due Diligence Activities; Public Reporting on Due Diligence; Description of Remediation Actions; Operational-Level Grievance Mechanism.

Amnesty’s assessment was based on the company’s publicly available reports, policies and filings. All companies named in the report were given an opportunity prior to publication to respond to the findings and present further publicly available evidence. This assessment does not capture all actions that companies may undertake, as it relies only on publicly available information provided by the companies themselves in their public disclosures and to which they drew attention in their responses to Amnesty’s inquiries. The report evaluates the quality and detail of companies’ policies and reporting on how they say they implement human rights due diligence, but it does not seek to assess the actual effectiveness of such practices. 

Amnesty is calling for governments to introduce and enforce mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation covering companies’ global operations and supply chains; ensure access to effective remedies for human rights harms linked to the impacts of EV manufacturers’ global operations; require companies to implement environmental safeguards and rehabilitation plans; ensure protections for workers’ rights; as well as take action to address gaps and failures identified in the report and publicly disclose measures taken to mitigate human rights risks in the battery mineral supply chain.