In May 2025, The Guardian reported on rising concerns among civil society organizations and environmental advocates regarding the United Kingdom’s newly unveiled 10-year Critical Minerals Strategy. The policy, which aims to secure a reliable supply of essential raw materials—such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements—has become the focal point of a growing ethical debate. At the heart of the controversy lies a deep unease about the potential for modern-day resource extraction to reproduce colonial patterns of exploitation in the Global South.
The UK government’s strategy, designed to insulate its green energy transition from supply chain disruptions, responds to intensifying global competition over mineral resources critical to the production of batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, and advanced electronics. As countries like China, the United States, and members of the European Union double down on strategic resource acquisition, the UK has sought to carve out its own sphere of influence, particularly in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia.
Critics, however, argue that the strategy pays insufficient attention to the social and environmental consequences of mining. While the policy framework emphasizes “resilience,” “security,” and “economic opportunity,” advocates for environmental justice warn that these buzzwords may obscure the real costs borne by communities living near mining sites. In particular, they raise alarm about a lack of safeguards to prevent human rights abuses, ecological degradation, and the displacement of Indigenous populations.
The Neo-Colonial Dilemma
At the core of the debate is the uncomfortable legacy of European resource extraction in the developing world. The UK, like many former colonial powers, has a long history of extracting wealth and raw materials from overseas territories. Critics argue that by pursuing bilateral mineral agreements and supply chain partnerships that largely benefit UK industries and investors, the new strategy risks perpetuating old inequalities under a new guise of environmental responsibility.
This concern was voiced most prominently by Global Justice Now and War on Want, two UK-based advocacy groups that issued a joint statement urging the government to prioritize “justice, transparency, and local sovereignty” over narrow geopolitical and corporate interests. They cautioned that the “race for minerals” could rapidly evolve into a form of green extractivism—one where ecological damage and labor exploitation are justified in the name of climate mitigation.
This is not merely theoretical. A significant portion of the UK’s proposed partnerships are with countries that have historically weak environmental regulation and limited labor protections. For example, recent Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) signed with resource-rich African nations have been negotiated with little public disclosure, raising concerns about the lack of democratic oversight or civil society involvement.
Strategic Autonomy or Strategic Amnesia?
UK policymakers have defended the strategy as a necessary step toward strategic autonomy in an era of geopolitical volatility. With supply chains disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and escalating tensions with China, many Western nations now view secure access to critical minerals as a matter of national security.
Minister for Business and Trade Kemi Badenoch described the initiative as “future-proofing the British economy” and emphasized its alignment with the UK’s industrial decarbonization and electric vehicle ambitions. According to government sources, the policy is not about exploitation, but about reducing dependency on authoritarian regimes and supporting democratic partners through mutual trade.
However, this framing risks ignoring the systemic issues embedded in global commodity markets. As the Financial Times has noted, the UK’s approach relies heavily on foreign direct investment and joint ventures with extractive companies that operate in fragile states. Without robust accountability mechanisms, such arrangements often exacerbate corruption, fuel local conflict, or result in environmental destruction.
Scholars have also weighed in. Dr. Angela Ortiz, an expert on green industrial policy at SOAS University of London, warned that the pursuit of “green growth” cannot justify opaque deals that mirror historical patterns of economic coercion. She pointed out that ethical mineral sourcing requires not just traceability, but also participatory governance models that center local voices and long-term environmental stewardship.
The Challenge of Transparency and Consent
One of the most glaring gaps in the UK’s current policy is the absence of binding human rights standards for British companies operating abroad. Although the strategy mentions “responsible sourcing,” it lacks specific mechanisms to enforce compliance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights or the OECD Due Diligence Guidelines for Responsible Mineral Supply Chains.
This gap is particularly worrisome given the UK’s past record on corporate accountability. British firms have been implicated in numerous controversies across the Global South, including cases of water contamination, land grabbing, and labor abuse in mining zones. Civil society groups argue that unless the government mandates environmental impact assessments, grievance redress systems, and community consent protocols, the strategy will amount to little more than greenwashing.
Moreover, the UK’s approach does not appear to support downstream value addition in partner countries. Rather than investing in local processing facilities or sustainable mining technologies, many deals focus on raw extraction and export. This limits the developmental benefits for host nations and undermines the broader goals of economic justice and self-determination.
Alternative Approaches: Just Minerals
There is a growing international movement to reframe the global race for minerals through a justice-oriented lens. The “Just Minerals” framework advocates for a paradigm that balances decarbonization goals with Indigenous rights, environmental protection, and fair trade principles. Some countries are already moving in this direction. For example, Chile and Indonesia have introduced measures to retain greater value from their mineral wealth by restricting raw exports and investing in domestic industrial capacity.
The UK has an opportunity to align with this movement by revising its strategy to include mandatory due diligence legislation, stronger environmental standards, and inclusive stakeholder consultation processes. It could also fund multilateral efforts that promote circular economy solutions and reduce primary extraction, such as battery recycling and mineral recovery from electronic waste.
As the world accelerates toward a low-carbon future, the sourcing of critical minerals has become a defining battleground of the 21st-century global economy. The United Kingdom’s Critical Minerals Strategy is a timely intervention, but it risks reproducing colonial-era patterns of exploitation unless it integrates ethical safeguards and redistributive frameworks.
True sustainability cannot be achieved through narrow economic nationalism. It requires a deep reckoning with historical injustice, a commitment to ecological responsibility, and a willingness to center the voices of those most affected by extractive industries. The UK still has time to transform its approach, not only to secure its energy transition, but to do so in a way that is genuinely just and sustainable.
Reference
Inman, P. (2025, May 15). UK urged not to exploit poor countries in rush for critical minerals. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/15/uk-urged-not-to-exploit-poor-countries-in-rush-for-critical-minerals