We need a focus on human rights alongside a speedy net zero transition

17 10 2025 | 19:34Fiona David

In our race to net zero and the importation of the critical minerals we need for the transition, has Australia failed to grapple with a supply chain for these products rife with human rights risks?

The Australian government’s recent update to the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to set more ambitious targets for reducing emissions has been a much-needed step forward in the fight against climate change.

In the new iteration of the NDC, Australia has recommitted to producing 82 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030, up from 40 per cent in 2025. It’s a rapid and ambitious transition, and one that will require unprecedented scaling of renewable technology, new infrastructure, and massive increases in critical minerals. 

Yet in our race towards net zero, Australia has failed to grapple with its reliance on imported minerals and manufactured components from supply chains rife with human rights risks.

Though the government emphasises “affordable, reliable, secure and equitable supply of energy,” it is steadfastly ignoring the human rights abuses that are deeply embedded in global supply chains. And because renewables are integral to Australia’s energy transition, the problem will only get worse if policymakers don’t get their governance settings right.

The scale of the challenge

Much like the rest of the world, Australia’s ferocious demand for renewables has exacerbated a long standing issue that until now has been relatively unknown outside of the mining sector. Wind turbines, for example, rely on rare earth elements, many sourced from Myanmar and processed in China, while solar panels depend heavily on polysilicon from Xinjiang, where the UN has raised concerns about forced labour among Uyghur and other Muslim minorities.

Batteries require cobalt, of which 70 per cent comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where child labour and unsafe conditions are widespread. Then there’s nickel from Indonesia, which is extracted by people working under poor labour standards.

 Finally, there’s lithium from South America’s “lithium triangle” of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile, mined by workers operating in similarly poor working conditions.

The rising uptake of electric vehicles is likewise driving demand for rare earths, nickel, cobalt, and lithium, all of which extend our exposure to exploitative supply chains.

Meanwhile, Australia’s yearly solar panel installations are forecast to double, which in turn doubles demand for polysilicon.

Modelling has also shown that annual cobalt consumption could rise from 220 tonnes in 2025 to over 7000 tonnes in 2055, while demand for rare earth elements like neodymium will likely increase from less than 50 tonnes in 2025 to over 6000 tonnes in 2040. 

How the governance gap affects Australia’s green energy plans

Though Australia’s NDC and sectoral plans acknowledge the social risks of the green energy transition, the social risks are exclusively framed as issues that are confined within our borders. Though it touches on workforce stability, mental health, inequality, and Indigenous rights there is no explicit recognition of the well-documented human rights risks that exist in overseas supply chains.

This is not a call to abandon the transition. This is a call to get serious about building the regulatory and policy settings that will enable us to move fast, without embedding human rights abuses.

The National Climate Risk Assessment notes that governance is one of the key enablers (or failure points) in the transition.

At present, our governance frameworks for preventing and mitigating reliance on human rights abuses in supply chains are inadequate. Australia’s Modern Slavery Act, for example, requires large companies to report annually on modern slavery risks, but it does not apply to state or territory governments and does not require a focus on due diligence to identify clearly known risks or on remediation. 

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency voluntarily incorporates modern slavery risk into its due diligence, but it remains the exception rather than the norm. When met with allegations of links to forced labour in the supply chain of the Chinese firm behind a Victorian battery project, a Victorian government spokesperson simply said, “We expect any business operating in Victoria to comply with Australian law”.

Following in the footsteps of Victoria, Western Australia also recently agreed to a similarly large purchase from Trina Solar, a company whose supply chain has been identified in academic research as being linked to forced labour. 

Of course, the question is not whether Australia should or shouldn’t buy from particular companies, but whether our governance frameworks are equipped to ensure a just transition that doesn’t embed modern slavery into our climate response.

Practical steps forward

While it is tempting to think the energy transition is all about emissions, getting governance right is key to the success of the transition.

Thankfully, this is being recognised in some circles. The recent National Climate Risk Assessment highlighted that governance itself was at risk from poorly managed transitions. Only effective governance will help us chart the path between harmful inaction and harmful action.

In its accompanying Governance Technical Report, it’s noted that traditional approaches are not enough to get the job done. What we need is innovative, adaptive governance that is capable of responding to a complex, rapidly changing environment.  

So what does this look like in practice? First and foremost, we must close the loopholes that exist in the Modern Slavery Act. Legislators must also extend reporting obligations to state and territory governments to ensure stronger, clearer requirements that mandate human rights due diligence rather than vague, ad-hoc reporting.

At present companies are being left on their own to conduct human rights checks with no mandated guidance from the government to adhere to. Government support for pooled due diligence platforms and multi-stakeholder processes similar to those sponsored by the Dutch government would assist with risk management and side-step anti competition laws.

Current reporting requirements on modern slavery risk are inconsistent and weak. In contrast, Australia’s new corporate climate disclosure regime requires companies to detail governance, strategy, responsibilities, and progress. A similar, robust framework for human rights risks in supply chains would increase accountability.

The seriousness of the climate crisis requires urgency, but this speed can’t come at the cost of having human exploitation embedded in the very systems designed to safeguard our future. 

The choices we make now about where and how we source renewable technologies will shape Australia’s climate outcomes but also the wellbeing of people working in places far from our shores.

If we want a clear focus on the outcomes, we’d like for both climate change and human rights, we must make governance a central aspect of our race to net zero. Good governance is the only way Australia can build a system that allows us to achieve our climate targets and reflects the values of fairness, equity, and respect for human dignity everywhere.

Cover photo: By Fair Features

h