EV Sector Under Scrutiny for Human Rights Practices
A New Assessment Reveals Critical Gaps in the Electric Vehicle Industry
A recent report by Amnesty International has brought attention to significant human rights concerns within the electric vehicle (EV) industry, particularly in the supply chains of minerals essential for battery production. The report, Recharge for Rights: Ranking the Human Rights Due Diligence Reporting of Leading Electric Vehicle Makers, evaluates 13 major manufacturers against international standards, highlighting both progress and serious shortcomings.
The findings reveal that none of the companies assessed achieved more than 51 out of a possible 90 points. Chinese automaker BYD scored the lowest with just 11 points, while Mercedes-Benz led the group with 51. Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International, emphasized the severity of the issue, stating, “The human rights abuses tied to the extraction of energy transition minerals are alarming and pervasive, and the industry’s response is sorely lacking.” These abuses include forced evictions, pollution-related health harms, and violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights in mineral-rich regions such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Philippines.
Growing Demand and Increasing Risks
The rising demand for cobalt, nickel, lithium, and copper—key components in EV batteries—has placed additional pressure on mining-affected communities. Callamard warned, “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.”
Amnesty’s scoring system assesses companies based on their commitments to human rights policies, risk identification processes, supply chain mapping, reporting transparency, and remediation efforts. The methodology assigns 0, 1, 3, or 6 points depending on the level of alignment with international standards. The jump from moderate to adequate alignment requires significant effort, which many companies have yet to achieve.
Commitments vs. Actions
While some companies, such as Renault and General Motors, have articulated commitments to human rights due diligence, they often fail to provide evidence of integrating these principles into operational practice. Limited disclosure of risk assessments, weak stakeholder engagement, and opaque supply chain data remain common issues. Callamard noted, “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.”
Supply chain mapping proved to be a major weakness for several manufacturers. Companies like BYD, Geely Auto, Hyundai, General Motors, and Mitsubishi Motors scored poorly, with BYD failing to disclose smelter, refiner, or mine site names entirely. Geely offered only broad supplier locations without identifying extraction sites. Hyundai and Mitsubishi similarly lacked comprehensive mapping for key minerals, leaving stakeholders unable to verify potential human rights impacts.
Impact on Indigenous Communities
The implications for Indigenous communities are profound. Earlier research by Amnesty linked industrial cobalt mining in the DRC to forced evictions, emphasizing the need for automotive companies to use their purchasing power to influence upstream suppliers toward responsible practices. The absence of detailed supply chain transparency makes it difficult to track whether minerals are sourced from operations that respect human rights and environmental safeguards.
Higher-scoring companies such as BMW, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Stellantis, Tesla, and VW Group have made more visible commitments, yet they too fall short in demonstrating how policies translate into tangible protections for affected communities. Effective remediation and risk mitigation remain inconsistent across the industry.
A Call for Action
The report reiterates that all companies have a responsibility, under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, to implement due diligence processes that identify, prevent, and address adverse impacts linked to their operations, products, or services. Callamard urged both industry and regulators to act: “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.”
Amnesty is pressing governments to strengthen human rights due diligence regulations, ensuring that companies incorporated within their jurisdictions or operating under their export and import licenses meet international standards. The call is clear: the transition to electric mobility must not come at the expense of vulnerable communities, and transparency is a non-negotiable element of ethical innovation.
