Over the last few years, I have noticed that conversations about the energy transition have become remarkably simple. We often describe it as a choice between clean energy and fossil fuels, as though one represents the future and the other the past.
The reality, as we will all agree, is more complicated.
Every electric vehicle, wind turbine, battery, and transmission network depends on minerals such as cobalt, lithium, nickel, and rare earth elements. These resources are essential if we are serious about decarbonisation. But they are also sourced through supply chains that, in many parts of the world, carry increased risks of forced labour, unsafe working conditions, and weak human rights protections. It is an uncomfortable reality that sits awkwardly alongside the narrative of a clean transition.
The first issue is that carbon has become the dominant lens through which we judge sustainability. That is understandable - climate change demands urgent action. But sustainability was never meant to be a single-issue discipline. It was built on the idea that environmental, social, and governance considerations should be examined together. When carbon becomes the only measure of success, we risk overlooking other impacts that are no less material.
The second issue is that demand is changing faster than supply chains. Governments want secure access to critical minerals. Companies are under pressure to build resilient supply chains. Geopolitical tensions are reshaping trade relationships, and friend-shoring has become part of the business vocabulary. Yet none of these developments automatically reduce labour risks. In some cases, they simply move them from one jurisdiction to another. Diversifying suppliers is not the same as improving working conditions.
Finally, I think boards and investors need to ask harder questions. We routinely assess the carbon intensity of products and portfolios, but how often do we evaluate the human rights intensity embedded within them? If two technologies deliver similar climate outcomes but rely on fundamentally different labour conditions, should that not influence how we define long-term sustainability? Decarbonisation and human dignity should not compete for attention - they should be considered together.
I am a strong supporter of the energy transition. We need it, and we need it quickly. But speed should not become an excuse for selective vision.
The transition will only deserve to be called sustainable if it succeeds on more than one dimension. Reducing emissions is essential. Ensuring that the people extracting the minerals behind the transition are treated with dignity is essential too. If we celebrate one while ignoring the other, we have solved only part of the problem.