Methodology

1. Overview

The aim of this scorecard is to establish a new expectation – and competitive advantage – for what a clean car really is. Not just an EV, but an EV with a just, equitable, fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply chain.

As the transition to BEVs takes place, eliminating overall tailpipe emissions, it’s crucial to reduce GHG and toxic emissions throughout the supply chain, impacts on human health, biodiversity and resource depletion and ecosystem resilience, and human rights risks, to ensure a ‘just transition’ to EVs – and get ahead of irresponsible supply chain expansion potentially undermining the EV transition overall.

This scorecard has been designed to complement rather than duplicate existing EV scorecards. As such, it focuses specifically on companies’ EV supply chains NOT their own operations, given there are other scorecard initiatives on those topics. We note that this distinction is not always clear cut (for example, where auto manufacturers manufacture their own battery cells). However, as detailed below, this is addressed by designing indicators that are focused on capturing levers that buyers can use to affect change throughout their supply chain.

The following ambitions are built into the scorecard:

A clean car will have a fossil-free supply chain and the lowest possible negative impact on human health, biodiversity and resource depletion, and ecosystem resilience
A clean car will ensure justice for Indigenous people
A clean car will ensure justice for workers
A clean car will ensure justice for local and conflict-affected communities

This is the second year that the scorecard has been produced. Following feedback and to develop and strengthen its design there have been a few small amendments. These amendments are integrated into this document and reference is made where there have been changes.

2. Scorecard Design and Structure

The scorecard will be presented in two parts:

A summary scorecard with a “traffic light” (or similar) score against key themes to be published on the website and used as a campaign tool; and
A downloadable format with the full set of indicators and more detailed scoring assessment for partners and consumers seeking more background on how scores were derived.

The scorecard will be divided into the following themes:

Fossil-free and Environmentally Sustainable supply chains (climate and environment):

Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chains (General)
Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Steel
Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Aluminum
Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Batteries
Climate Lobbying

Human Rights & Responsible Sourcing:

Respect for Human Rights (General)
Responsible Sourcing of Transition Minerals
Respect for Indigenous Rights and Free Prior and Informed Consent
Respect for Workers’ Rights

Note: The “general” indicators measure commonalities across the other indicator themes, and are used to provide a baseline score. They will appear in the spreadsheet but not on the summary scorecard.

The grouping of the indicators under the Climate and Environment themes is derived from the SBTi report Value Chain in the Value Chain: Best Practices in Scope 3 Greenhouse Gas Management, namely:

Disclosure
Target setting and progress
Use of supply chain levers

Note: Although the SBTi report is exclusively focused on GHG emissions, their approach to how companies can achieve change in their supply chain is relevant to other environmental impacts. For this reason, we are adopting their structure to include “other significant air emissions”, water management, biodiversity and resource depletion.

The grouping of the indicators under the Respect for Human Rights theme is derived from the UN Guiding Principles, namely:

Commitment to human rights
Identify human rights risks in the supply chain
Prevent, mitigate and account for adverse human rights impacts
Remedy adverse human rights impacts in the supply chain

The full set of indicators is provided in appendix 1.

As provided in appendix 2, scoring has been weighted towards “implementation” indicators over “commitment” and “disclosure” indicators.

In addition to the above indicators, we have included human rights controversies that occur over the review period as “red flags” against each company, as well as “green flags” for more recent developments that indicate positive progress (see 6.3.5 for more details).

2.1. Exclusions and future developments

The scorecard is in its second year. Although there have been some minor amendments, this year’s methodology remains consistent with last year’s, not least to enable meaningful assessment of year-on-year progress. The methodology thus continues to be centred on the most salient environmental and human rights issues and supply chains, where there has been existing engagement, research and/or focus. Nevertheless, the ambition is for the scope of the scorecard to be extended in future iterations to include other material environmental and human rights related considerations.

This means that, in the 2024 edition of the Leaderboard, land use, resource depletion and biodiversity are included as emergent supply chain indicators but are not considered in isolation. We have addressed these issues by developing indicators that encourage reductions in the use of primary materials and increased use of secondary materials. Where possible, we have also looked for third-party certification models for materials that include more than GHG emissions and also take into account environmental and human rights metrics (e.g. ResponsibleSteel certification and IRMA).

Similarly, while environmental impacts are included under the existing human rights categories (e.g. the right to water), these have not been included as standalone categories.

One area where there will be future methodological development is deforestation and biodiversity. Given the importance of these issues and prevalence in the automotive industry supply chain, we have been developing additional indicators over the past year with a view to incorporating them in future iterations of the Leaderboard. These indicators are being designed to assess the extent to which automakers are managing issues relating to deforestation, conservation and biodiversity across the automotive supply chain. Companies were not assessed on these indicators during 2023, but will be in the future.

3. Indicator Development

When originally designing the scorecard methodology, PIRC conducted a review of existing benchmarking initiatives, reporting standards and best practice supply chain initiatives to develop the indicators.

We also reviewed current legislative requirements in two of the largest EV markets: the European Union and the United States. It was our assumption that while not all car manufacturers were headquartered in either of these locations, if they wanted to sell into these markets, they would either be required to comply with local regulation and legislation or be competing against companies with higher standards.

Where possible, climate indicators were aligned with advice from:

Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi)
Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
International Energy Agency (IEA)
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
Industry specific indicators or targets, as discussed below.

Environmental indicators were aligned with the following:

Global Reporting Initiative
CEO Water Mandate
CDP Water Survey
EU Taxonomy
UK Government’s Environmental Reporting Guidelines

Human Rights indicators were aligned with the relevant international norms, and their integration into existing benchmarking initiatives and guidelines. Including:

UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
OECD Guidelines for the Responsible Supply Chains from CHARAs
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (CHRB)
World Benchmarking Alliance
Know the Chain
Worker-Driven Social Responsibility Network’s principles for effective due diligence.

3.1. Related scorecard initiatives

In developing the scorecard and indicators, we considered, but did not adopt, the option of directly referencing the scores from existing scorecard initiatives. Doing so could have leveraged existing work and minimised potential duplication, but would have proven difficult for a number of important reasons. Firstly, at the time of evaluation, the data from other relevant scorecards was not yet updated with more recently published data and, given the rapid pace of change in the auto industry, evaluating the most up-to-date data was prioritised. Secondly, referencing existing scorecards would likely have resulted in different approaches for different categories (climate, environment, and human rights), and we determined consistency of the evaluation approach was necessary. Thirdly, given the extent of the existing auto supply chains and the rapidly growing EV supply chain, there were important indicators that warranted more explicit inclusion and categorisation, such as supply chain-specific indicators and Indigenous Rights indicators.

The only exception to this was InfluenceMap’s Automotive Climate Tool scorecard on the climate lobbying record of automakers which was directly integrated into our scoring methodology – see below for further details.

Nonetheless, in developing the indicators, we endeavoured to ensure our approach was aligned with and not conflicting with other scorecard and benchmark initiatives, such as those listed above, to ensure consistency across results, which we further validated as part of the company evaluations.

4. Updates and Amendments for the 2024 edition

This is the second iteration of the Leaderboard. To improve and strengthen the scorecard while also seeking to ensure consistency between years, a small number of minor amendments have been made. These changes are outlined throughout the rest of the methodology document but for ease of reference are brought together here. For an exhaustive record of updates and amendments please refer to text highlighted in red within appendix 1.

Climate and Environment

Definitions of “low—carbon” steel and aluminium have been equalized to align with the First Movers Coalition (FMC) and, in the case of steel, the IEA.
Precision added with regards to the differentiation between pre- and post-consumer scrap for the steel and aluminium recycling indicators. Achieving full points is contingent on the inclusion of post-consumer scrap within closed-loop processes.
Disaggregated indicators that include scoring criteria relating to industry certification schemes, in order to allow for the application of the point modifier related to third-party certification and accreditation schemes (see 4.1).
Indicators on battery recycling expanded to account for different methods of recycling batteries.
Explicit reference to smaller batteries as a way to score in the indicator related to reducing demand for minerals.
For greater clarity, added examples of specific environmental conditions that could be included in contracts with suppliers of lithium, cobalt and nickel: relating to water usage, biodiversity and tailings management.

Human rights

Multi-stakeholder initiatives other than IRMA no longer meet the threshold required to score under the mining supplier audit indicator. Research highlighted that currently only the IRMA audit standard can be considered robust enough to qualify.

4.1. Third-party certifications

It is common in various industries to use third-party certifications or similar to set standards for industry actors. However, certifications and assurance processes can vary in multiple ways. A recent report from Germanwatch¹ criticised existing voluntary standards, for being “marked by a series of systematic, content-related and methodological shortcomings.” Their study concludes that “industry initiatives contribute to very different extents towards implementing due diligence obligations, and … they can never be applied as a sole instrument to this end.”

Recognising the potential limitations of such schemes and given the differing efficacy of third-party certification / assurance initiatives prevalent in the automotive supply chain, during 2023 a methodology was developed to evaluate the robustness of the different schemes. These include an assessment of the governance of the standard, the veracity and transparency of the certification process, the role of impacted rights holders in the process as well as expectations relating to the content of the standard itself. This assessment is then used to apply a modifier to the respective scores in the Leaderboard related to these schemes, with the aim of raising awareness amongst automakers of the strengths and weaknesses of different schemes, and to encourage automakers to use more robust schemes.

Following the assessment of the initiatives and their respective certification schemes, it remains the case that the use of third-party certifications in indicators’ scoring criteria does not constitute an endorsement of that certification, but a recognition of existing certifications in use and their potential role in improving supply chains. Similarly, the inclusion of certifications does not constitute an endorsement of certifications over regulation.

Finally, while some certifications may currently lack broad civil society endorsement, it is also recognized that automakers can and should use their influence and participation to continually raise the standards of such initiatives. It is envisaged that this assessment can be utilised as a tool for automakers to be able to more effectively use their influence as members of third-party schemes to drive up standards and address the shortcomings of the different schemes that this assessment reveals.

The full methodology of this assessment can be found in Appendix 3 and the results can be found in sheet 8 of the Leaderboard dataset. The assessment was also published by Lead the Charge as a standalone briefing which can be found here.

5. Point deductions

The disclosure companies provide in their reporting can vary year-on-year. In instances where corporate disclosure reflects regression in ambition or implementation, points can and will be deducted in line with the scoring criteria. However, if the scoring threshold for an indicator is not met as a result of changes in disclosure related to an initiative that can be presumed to still be underway (such as investment in a new facility, or an offtake agreement that is still in force), the score will be maintained based on previous disclosures.

6. Analysis of Company Reporting

Companies have been scored solely on publicly available official reporting which has received board level sign-off. Company documents reviewed included (at a minimum):

Annual Reports
Sustainability Reports
TCFD reports
Supplier Codes of Conduct
Modern Slavery Statements
Human Rights Policies
Whistle-blower Policies

The cut-off date for information to be included in our analysis was 1 August 2023. Press releases and similar announcements do not qualify as official board-approved reporting but where relevant, have been included as “green flags” (see 6.3.5 for details). The companies evaluated were provided with an opportunity to comment on the analysis of their documentation. They were able to provide additional information to challenge our assessment of their policies and/or practices. However, this information was only used to revise a company’s score if it was in the public domain by the above cut-off date and qualified as official board-approved reporting.

Company controversies have been identified via a search of the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) company dashboards.² See below for more information.

7. Climate and Environment

7.1. Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chains: Background

“Clean cars” require more than a reduction in tailpipe emissions that will occur through the transition to electric vehicles. The production of EVs is emissions intensive, and may have other, significant environmental impacts. It is crucial that “clean cars” decarbonise and reduce toxic pollution and environmental impacts in their entire supply chain, from the point of extraction through to final production, as well as recycling and reuse.

Recognising that Scope 3 emissions often represent the largest portion of companies’ GHG inventories, SBTi produced best practice guidance for downstream companies on how they can reduce indirect emissions throughout their value chain. They identify a number of levers whereby buyers can influence their supply chain, we have identified the following as relevant to this scorecard:

Supplier Engagement
Procurement Policies and Choices
Product and Service Design

These levers are also very relevant to how companies can reduce the broader environmental footprint of their supply chain, including achieving improvements in water management, reductions in toxic pollutants, and reducing biodiversity and land use impacts in their supply chain.

7.2. Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chains: Areas of Focus

The research identified three areas in which the environmental and/or climate impact were significant, and the materials involved comprised large proportions of a final vehicle’s composition:

Steel manufacturing
Aluminium manufacturing
Battery manufacturing (including minerals extraction and smelting/refining), which is currently lower in overall emissions, but carbon-intensive and rapidly growing

As discussed below in section six, these areas may also be associated with significant human rights impacts.

Building on SBTi value chain guidance, we have grouped indicators into three groups:

Disclosure of GHG emissions, “other significant air emissions”, and water management.³ Note: this establishes the status quo of a companies’ emissions. This is not comparable between companies due to differences in how each company structures its operations and supply chain, and how they are disclosed or not.⁴

Target setting and progress towards fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply chains: this measures ambition and a company’s progress towards that ambition

Use of supply chain levers to achieve fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply chains: this measures the policies and practices that companies have put in place to achieve that ambition, for example through tendering practices and supplier engagement through to extraction.

In measuring company ambition and progress, we recognise that it is not enough to simply decarbonise mineral and metal production. A fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply chain would also need to reduce the use of primary materials in order to reduce (in addition to the impacts noted above) biodiversity and land use impacts. This is measured through attention to:

Recycling and increased use of secondary materials, particularly battery minerals, in order to create more closed loop supply chains and reduce continual extraction.

In furthering our assessment of biodiversity and land use impacts, new indicators were developed regarding deforestation and conservation. The additional indicators have been developed in line with other indicators which focus on disclosures, targets or commitments, and how supply chain levers are used. These new indicators were not counted towards the companies’ public scores, but will be in subsequent years.

7.3. Themes: Background, Overview of Indicators and Scoring Methodology

The following is a high level discussion of decisions underpinning the indicators and scoring methodology for each focus area or theme.

7.3.1. Fossil-free and Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chains (General)

These are baseline indicators that apply across all supply chains. They look for aggregate emissions (GHG and other significant air emissions) and water management data and targets. This section also establishes generic tendering practices that companies may adopt to engage and incentivise suppliers to improve their performance on climate and environment indicators. Supply chain levers are predominantly addressed under individual supply chains, as the more relevant actions and tiers for focused engagement may differ substantially between supply chains.

7.3.2. Fossil Free and Environmentally Sustainable Steel

The bulk of GHG associated with the production of steel occurs during smelting. As such, the decarbonisation of the electricity used during this process is critical in creating sustainable steel supply chains for the auto industry. The extent to which autos are supporting the investment of steel suppliers in clean and stable energy sources, such as hydro electricity generation, is critical. This could include long-term purchasing commitments for steel smelted using wholly renewable energy. In addition to the decarbonisation of electricity, the scorecard recognises the importance of shifting away from the use of metallurgical coal in the smelting process and moving towards fossil-free alternatives.

These indicators recognize that it is not enough to set targets; auto manufacturers must work together with upstream suppliers to encourage them to invest in fossil-free and environmentally sustainable steel.⁵ Auto manufacturers may do this individually (e.g. through purchase agreements) or together with other downstream buyers (e.g. participating in multi-stakeholder initiatives).

ResponsibleSteel is the primary multi-stakeholder initiative that covers the steel sector. ResponsibleSteel has in turn partnered with the Climate Group’s SteelZero, an initiative with the aim of accelerating the industry’s transition towards fossil-free steel. PIRC has used targets established by ResponsibleSteel to determine the procurement targets for scoring. Significantly, ResponsibleSteel is the only initiative that includes other environmental factors in addition to GHG emissions in their steel certification.⁶ In addition to alignment with ResponsibleSteel companies will receive additional credit for membership of SteelZero.⁷ Companies that comply with IEA targets will receive partial scores.⁸

The scorecard also recognizes membership of the First Movers Coalition (FMC) steel group, a coalition of companies levering their purchasing power to support and create early markets. Both SteelZero and the FMC group are viewed as complementary as they cover different elements of steel decarbonisation.⁹ Automakers that are members of the FMC commit that at least 10% of their annual steel procurement volumes by 2030 meet or exceed the First Movers Coalition definition for near-zero emissions.

The scorecard applies the following definitions of “low-carbon” and “near-zero emissions” steel:

“Near-zero emissions” steel: the FMC¹⁰ and IEA ¹¹ definition of 0.4 tCO2e/t for primary steel with 0% scrap and 0.05 tCO2e/t for secondary steel with 100% scrap.
“Low-carbon” steel: The SteelZero Low(er) Embodied Carbon Steel 2030 benchmark of 1.4 tCO2e/t for primary steel and 0.2 tCO2e/t for secondary steel.

These two definitions are brought together under the IIGCC Steel Purchaser Framework.¹² Automakers can be awarded points for disclosing the percentages of steel in their production cycle that meet either (or both) of these criteria – recognizing the complementary pathways of the SteelZero and First Movers’ Coalition initiatives. However, for the indicator on supplier agreements for the purchase of fossil free steel, only the definition of “near-zero emissions” steel is applied, given the critical role and need of automakers to incentivise investment in the breakthrough technologies needed to achieve truly fossil-free steel.¹³ Finally, it is important to note that purchases of low emissions steel that has been designated using so-called mass balance methodologies¹⁴ or include offsets will not receive any points as part of the scorecard.

Implementing effective means through which to recover and recycle scrap steel is an important consideration for autos in the decarbonisation of steel supply chains. Increasing the amount of secondary relative to primary steel used in the auto manufacturing process reduces the embodied carbon of the BEV. The IEA Guidance for Heavy Industry has recycling, re-use: scrap as a share of input in steel production as 54% by 2030. As such, the scorecard measures company target setting with regards to recycling. Additionally, the scorecard assesses the extent to which companies are integrating improved recyclability of steel into the design and manufacturing process. Finally, there is additional emphasis on the approach automakers take with regards the closed-loop processes regarding recycling and recovery of steel. A truly closed-loop process should include both pre- and post-consumer scrap. Scorecard indicators on this issue are therefore weighted towards recycling and recovery of steel processes including considerations for post-consumer scrap. However, companies will still be credited for closed-loop processes utilising recycling scrap from the manufacturing process, albeit to a lesser extent.

Indicator details provided in appendix 1.

7.3.3. Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Aluminum

As with steel, the bulk of the GHG emissions associated with the production of aluminium metal occur during smelting. As such, the decarbonisation of the electricity used during this process is critical in creating sustainable aluminium supply chains for the auto industry. The extent to which autos are supporting the investment of aluminium suppliers in clean and stable energy sources, such as hydro electricity generation, is critical. This could include long-term purchasing commitments for aluminium smelted using wholly renewable energy. As such, the scorecard aligns with the industry pathway outlined in the Mission Possible aluminum sector report¹⁵ and assesses commitments made by the auto industry to source aluminum produced using decarbonized power sources.

The process emissions resulting from the reduction of aluminium oxide in the presence of carbon anodes is also material in the production of aluminium. New technologies such as the development of inert anodes (non-consumable) will be needed to decarbonise this stage of the production process. Auto companies should be supporting R&D and scaling of technologies that manage process emissions.

Improving recovery and recycling of scrap eliminates much of the energy-intensive production of primary aluminum and is therefore an important consideration for autos in the decarbonization of aluminum supply chains. The IEA projects that the combined share of aluminum produced from recycled new and old scrap needs to reach nearly 40% (at least 70% of this from old scrap) by 2030 to meet net zero.¹⁶ As with steel, there is additional emphasis on the approach companies take with regards to circular economy and closed-loop processes for aluminum, as a truly closed-loop process should include both pre- and post-consumer scrap. As with steel, greater points will therefore be allocated to automakers that can demonstrate progress with pre-consumer and post-consumer scrap recycling.

The Mission Possible Partnership, the First Movers’ Coalition and the IEA have been used as benchmarks for the indicators on company targets and commitments regarding low carbon aluminum and use of recycled or secondary aluminium.¹⁷ With regards to the definition of “low-CO2” aluminum, PIRC has used the definition of the First Movers’ Coalition: < 3 tons CO2e/ton. This must be achieved without using offsets. Indicator details are provided in appendix 1.

As referenced in the indicator development section above, the scorecard recognises the importance of company participation in initiatives to collaborate with other buyers to incentivise investment in and production of fossil free aluminium at scale, as well as to provide assurances relating to environmental and human rights impact. The Aluminium Stewardship Initiative (ASI) is an industry-led certification scheme which assesses both human rights and environmental performance. The ASI certification process has been criticised by Human Rights Watch with regards to the robustness of the certification process.¹⁸ Notwithstanding the concerns raised, Human Rights Watch further outlines the potential benefits membership to ASI could have if standards are raised and encourages leading automakers to remain, or become, members and to use their influence to drive up these standards with the ASI. The efficacy of the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative is considered as part of the scorecard’s third-party certification schemes assessment.

7.3.4. Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Batteries

Battery production is a significant source of GHG emissions. The majority of emissions occur in extraction, smelting & refining, with cell manufacturing being a smaller proportion.¹⁹ Emissions reductions can occur in a variety of ways, including: the use of fossil-free battery minerals, the reduction of the percentage of high intensity minerals through changed battery technology, and the use of renewable energy in the cathode/anode and cell production.²⁰

For this iteration of the scorecard, we have focused on the three transition minerals highlighted in the EU Battery regulations: Nickel, Lithium and Cobalt.²¹

The extraction of battery minerals may also have significant environmental impacts, including loss of biodiversity, water pollution and tailings. As such, the indicators look to understand how suppliers are driving broader environmental change through direct engagement with extractives companies and multistakeholder certification initiatives e.g. IRMA.

A core issue that was identified was the lack of rigorous, verifiable and disaggregated information for individual battery minerals. However, given that the EU battery law requires that a batteries environmental footprint must be disclosed for the entire supply chain in order to be put on the EU market, it was felt that companies will need to start mapping this information to maintain access to this market.²²

7.3.5. Climate Policy Lobbying

An assessment carried out by InfluenceMap (IM), a think tank that analyses corporations’ and their industry groups’ influence on policy needed to address climate change, found that the automotive sector remains a major opponent of climate policy globally.²³ Given the importance a global 1.5 degree aligned policy framework has in facilitating the decarbonization of the automotive value chain, for instance incentivizing reduction and elimination of fossil fuels in industrial inputs via a carbon pricing mechanism, the integration of the IM assessment into the scorecard was considered important. Notwithstanding the extent to which an automotive company’s approach to lobbying impacts its overall climate strategy, the scoring is weighted to reflect this evaluation’s focus on the climate and environmental impact of the industry’s supply chain. Therefore, scores available under the other sections of the scorecard outlined above (supply chains (general), steel, aluminium and batteries) are weighted higher, with the IM scoring integrated using a multiplier. Company overall score for the Climate & Environment section of the scorecard received a positive or negative multiplier depending on the individual company IM score. In addition, IM scores parent companies – e.g. Hyundai rather than Kia. Companies which are part of the same parent company will be attributed the matching scores. It is also worth noting that IM does not currently score China-headquartered automotive companies, some of which are included in the scope of the scorecard. As a result, the IM multiplier for the four companies not currently covered (Chery, BYD, GAC & Mitsubishi) will not be applied.

Using InfluenceMap’s Performance Bands (A+ to F), which “is a full measure of a company’s climate policy engagement, accounting for both its own engagement and that of its industry associations”, the following multipliers have been applied to each company’s total score for this section:

A = 1.3
B = 1.2
C =1.1
N/D = 1 (Per above, companies that have not been analyzed and scored by InfluenceMap receive no change in their Climate & Environment score)
D = 0.9
E = 0.8
F = 0.7

8. Respect for Human Rights

8.1. Respect for Human Rights: Background

Under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, multinationals have a responsibility to seek ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their business operations, products, or services by a business relationship, even if they do not contribute to those impacts.

To meet this responsibility, the UN Guiding Principles specify that companies must have in place:

A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights.
A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights.
Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute.²⁴

The indicators have been developed to measure the extent to which companies are managing this responsibility.

8.2. Respect for Human Rights: Areas of Focus

In consultation with NGO partners, we identified three core, salient human rights risks in auto supply chains:

Responsible Sourcing of Transition Minerals
Indigenous Rights, with a focus on free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC)
Workers’ Rights

We note that many human rights norms also explicitly or implicitly include environmental rights. For example, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has been unequivocal that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights imposes obligations to protect, respect and fulfil the right to water, which includes the following essential elements:

Availability – The water supply for each person must be sufficient and continuous for personal and domestic uses.
Quality – The water required for each personal or domestic use must be safe (free from microorganisms, chemical substances and other hazards that endanger a person’s health) and of an acceptable color, odor and taste.
Accessibility – Water and water facilities and services have to be accessible to everyone without discrimination.²⁵

Similarly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognizes:

the right to freely dispose of natural resources
the particular rights of ‘ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities’ to not be denied ‘the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture’.²⁶

In addition, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (UNDRIP) includes “Indigenous access, conservation and economic development of water” and “right to conservation and protection of Indigenous lands and resources with state assistance”. This includes biodiversity and other impacts of environmental degradation and pollution.

The importance of guaranteeing the right to a clean and healthy environment was also recently affirmed by the UN General Assembly in its resolution 76/300, which recognizes “the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right” and affirms that “the promotion of the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment requires the full implementation of the multilateral environmental agreements under the principles of international environmental law.”²⁷

While the scorecard does not include environmental rights as standalone categories, these are implicitly included in the above categories, particularly the first two categories.

Finally, this scorecard has adopted a broad approach to “just transition”. Namely, it considers how “justice” is delivered to all potentially impacted communities (including displaced workers) in the transition to a fossil-free economy and society. The themes and indicators outlined below can contribute to a “just transition”, both individually and cumulatively, but should not be viewed as a comprehensive definition of how “justice” may be delivered in totality.²⁸

8.3. Themes: Background, Overview of Indicators and Scoring Methodology

The following is a high level discussion of decisions underpinning the indicators and scoring methodology for each focus area or theme. The indicators have been structured as follows:

Generic human rights indicators that apply across all three of the salient human rights issues
Specific indicators relevant to each of the salient human rights issues

A risk-based approach was taken in developing these indicators and assessing each company against the key focus areas. In other words, the indicators take into account where auto manufacturers had the greatest leverage in their supply chain to effect change and the areas in their supply chain potentially exposed to the highest risks.

The indicators have been grouped into four areas, reflecting the guidance provided by the UN Guiding Principles, specifically:

A Commitment to Respect Human Rights
Processes to Identify salient human rights issues
Processes for the prevention, mitigation and accounting of adverse human rights impacts
Processes for the remediation of adverse human rights impacts

For each area as described above, the scorecard looks at whether there is a policy or process in place, and secondly, whether the company provides quantitative and qualitative data to allow for an assessment of the efficacy of that policy or process. As noted above, it is also acknowledged that adverse human rights impacts may also include environmental impacts e.g. right to clean water.

8.3.1. Respect for Human Rights (General)

These are indicators that will provide a baseline for more specific scoring of transition minerals, Indigenous rights, and workers’ rights.

8.3.2. Responsible Sourcing of Transition Minerals

The transition to BEVs requires significant quantities of “transition minerals” like cobalt, nickel, lithium, copper, manganese, and zinc. Some of these minerals are sourced areas that are characterized by “armed conflict, widespread violence or other risks of harm to people”, otherwise known as conflict-affected or high risk areas (CAHRAs).²⁹ The US and European Union (EU) have broad in specific legislation regarding supply chain due diligence regarding the use of specific minerals originating from CAHRAs.

The OECD Guidelines for the Sustainable Sourcing of Minerals from Conflict and High-Risk Areas provide a “framework for detailed due diligence as a basis for responsible global supply chain management of tin, tantalum, tungsten, their ores and mineral derivatives, and gold”.³⁰ While the guidance focuses on minerals from CAHRAs, its approach to supply chain due diligence, and its identification of key choke points in the supply chain, is relevant to all minerals supply chain.

Significantly, the OECD Guidelines note that due diligence is “an ongoing, proactive and reactive process through which companies can ensure that they respect human rights and do not contribute to conflict”.³¹ The guidance includes specific recommendations for downstream companies (like auto manufacturers) for conducting this due diligence, recognising that they have the greatest leverage over the supply chain from Tier 1 to smelters/refiners, and that they may have to collaborate with other buyers to drive change in the supply chain. This includes the participation in industry-wide schemes to assess smelter/refiner compliance with the guidance, introducing supply chain transparency systems that “allows the identification of the smelters/refiners in the company’s mineral supply chain through which the following information on the supply chain of minerals from ‘red flag locations of mineral origin and transit’ should be obtained: the identification of all countries of origin, transport and transit for the minerals in the supply chains of each smelter/refiner”.³²

In order to drive change at the level of extraction, companies may choose to enter into binding agreements with mining companies. They may also join the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA). IRMA is the only third-party certification of industrial-scale mine sites for all mined materials that is governed equitably by the private sector, local communities, civil society, and workers.³³

Indicators in this section have been derived from the OECD Guidelines. Companies who only undertake due diligence on their CAHRA supply chains receive lower scores than companies that seek to conduct due diligence on all mineral supply chains.

An important consideration in the responsible sourcing of transition minerals is a responsible approach to managing waste from extractive activities. Tailings facilities are designed by extractive companies to store processed waste from mining activities. Mismanagement of these facilities has in recent years resulted in a number of catastrophic collapses, leading to significant loss of human life. In response to these disasters, the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) was created with the aim of promoting responsible tailings management. The GISTM has been strongly criticised in how it was developed³⁴ and as such the standard is not used as a framework for assessing performance in this scorecard. The Safety First Guidelines were established to address some of the apparent deficiencies of GISTM, and could legitimately be used as a basis for assessing industry performance.³⁵ However, the IRMA standard is also considered a robust mechanism in relation to tailings management. Given this, the question of how automakers are addressing issues relating to mining waste within their supply chain has been integrated into existing indicators relating to IRMA membership and engagement.

Finally, it is important to note that one way to reduce the human rights impacts of materials extraction is to reduce reliance on primary materials. This is addressed under the climate and environment indicators.

8.3.3. Respect for Indigenous Rights

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was used as the basis for indicator development. The primary focus of these indicators is on respecting indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, specifically through respect for their right to provide their free, prior and informed consent on projects and activities in auto-supply chains to be carried out on their lands and territories. These indicators recognise that for FPIC to occur it must reach and engage with the impacted Indigenous Peoples. It must also be understood as a continuous process (i.e. allow for consent to be withdrawn at any time, and that information must be continually provided to meet the baseline for “informed”).

Secondly, it recognises that while the primary FPIC risks are at extraction sites, they may also occur at other points in the supply chain where operations are adjacent to or on Indigenous lands. As such, auto manufacturers may need to collaborate with other buyers in order to signal the importance of FPIC to upstream suppliers. For example, the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) invites “purchasing companies” to express an interest in sourcing from IRMA assessed mines, even if they haven’t fully mapped their supply chains to the source of extraction.³⁶

8.3.4. Respect for Workers’ Rights

The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work identifies five fundamental principles and rights:

freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour;
the effective abolition of child labour;
the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and
a safe and healthy working environment.³⁷

Companies are scored on their commitment to these principles, and whether adherence to these principles is required of their suppliers.

In addition to these core rights, we have scored companies on whether they have a commitment to a living wage in their direct operations and supply chain. A living wage is the:

The remuneration received for a standard workweek by a worker in a particular place sufficient to afford a decent standard of living for the worker and her or his family. Elements of a decent standard of living include food, water, housing, education, health care, transportation, clothing, and other essential needs including provision for unexpected events.³⁸

A living wage may be greater than the legal minimum wage.

Beyond a commitment to and recognition of the relevant unions, companies should seek a positive relationship with the relevant trade union as a core part of their processes to prevent, mitigate and remedy workers’ rights abuses, up to, and including, forced labour.

Trade unions can provide greater legal protections and rights to workers who are seeking to raise issues with management. Often, vulnerable workers will only raise issues with independent organizations with which they have developed a relationship of trust (i.e. their union), and where that independent organization is able to act on the workers’ behalf. Vulnerable workers are less likely to use reporting mechanisms operated by an entity that has either the power to hire or fire them, or to cancel a contract under which they work.³⁹ While this scorecard is focused on a company’s supply chain not its direct operations, we have assessed whether the company actively works with IndustriALL and/or the trade union in their headquartered country to identify and manage workers’ rights risks in their supply chains.

8.3.5. Controversies and Red Flags; Progress and Green Flags

The methodology for this scorecard relies on an assessment of each company’s reporting on their human rights policies and practices. However, it’s crucial that any scorecard includes the possibility of flagging external complaints that have been made about the company over the reporting period.

In the initial review, we have elected to identify and flag controversies, but they won’t be included in the overall scoring of the company, as we do not have scope to investigate and verify allegations and the company and impacted stakeholder responses to these allegations.

Company controversies have been identified via a search of the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) company dashboards.⁴⁰ The dashboard collects media articles related to specific companies’ direct operations and supply chain, and presents them alongside engagement between BHRRC and the company. Note: the absence of allegations or controversies related to a company in the database doesn’t mean that there are no issues in their supply chain – simply that no adverse impacts have been made public to date.

Additionally we have included “green flags” against each company to highlight more recent developments that indicate progress towards a just, equitable, fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply chain, such as new commitments, disclosures, or implementation actions announced via press releases or public statements, but have not yet been included in formal company reporting (see section 4 above) published before the cutoff date. Similar to red flags, they won’t be included in the overall scoring of the company, as we do not have scope to investigate and verify announcements or responses to the announcements. Company announcements have been identified via review of company press/public statements and where relevant, corroborating statements from partners (e.g. a partnership with a supplier or multi-stakeholder body announcing similarly). Note: the absence of announcements or their inclusion under “green flags” does not mean that there is no progress by companies scored towards a just, equitable, fossil-free and environmentally responsible supply chain – simply that progress beyond formal company reporting has not been made public to date.

9. Company Selection

PIRC used a mixed methodology to select the companies in order to identify the players that had the most potential to drive change in the sector. The final selection includes a mix of “pure play” manufacturers, who are already producing 100% electric vehicles within their fleets, high volume EV manufacturers that are not “pure play”, as well as the largest auto manufacturers across all propulsion types. While many of the largest auto manufacturers are lagging on the transition from internal combustion engines to BEVs, their size means that they have the potential to drive significant supply chain action and investments in their transition to EVs.

PIRC used the EV Volumes YTD figures for 31 July 2023⁴¹ to identify the top 10 auto manufacturers in the following categories:

Largest auto manufacturers by total number of cars sold – Global
Largest auto manufacturers by total number of BEVs sold – China
Largest auto manufacturers by total number of BEVs sold – Europe
Largest auto manufacturers by total number of BEVs sold – US
Largest auto manufacturers by total number of BEVs sold – Canada
Largest auto manufacturers by total number of BEVs sold – Korea

Markets were included where BEVs had a market share above 5%, which has been identified by Bloomberg analysis as a market tipping point for EV adoption.⁴²

Note: the EV Volumes data groups companies together where there are significant joint venture partnerships or other formal partnerships between companies that impact on manufacturing. For example, they treat Nissan-Renault (and Mitsubishi) and Hyundai-Kia as single entities, while Geely Group and Volvo Car Group are treated as independent entities..

For the purposes of reviewing company documentation, these have all been treated as single entities, acknowledging that in some cases they may have some common supplier policies, have joined multi stakeholder initiatives together, may share some manufacturing plants, etc.

Using this mixed methodology above the 2023 company selection has resulted in the removal of Chery and Mitsubishi and the addition of Honda, and SAIC.

List of Companies:

BMW
BYD
Ford
GAC
Geely Auto
GM
Honda
Hyundai
Kia
Mercedes
Nissan
Renault
SAIC
Stellantis
Tesla
Toyota
Volkswagen
Volvo Car Group

Appendices

Appendix 1: Full list of indicators and score attributions (changes in italics)

Fossil-free and environmentally sustainable indicators

Fossil-free and Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chains | General

Indicator Category	Indicators	Score Attribution (Scores are cumulative unless otherwise specified)
Disclosure of emissions and water management	The company discloses total scope 3 GHG emissions due to purchased goods and services.	100%: The company discloses scope 3 GHG emissions due to purchased goods and services. 25%: The company includes scope 3 GHG emissions including purchased goods and services in overall disclosure, but does not disaggregate. Note: the company may achieve additional points under each of the supply chain areas below, if they provide disaggregated emissions against each supply chain.
	The company discloses “significant emissions” in its supply chain.	Based on GRI 3-5, significant emissions include: i. NOx ii. SOx iii. Persistent organic pollutants (POP) iv. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) v. Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) vi. Particulate matter (PM) vii. Other standard categories of air emissions identified in relevant regulations 100%: the company discloses significant emissions in their supply chain against all of the above categories. 50%: the company discloses significant emissions in their supply chain against some of the above catetories. Note: the company may achieve additional points under each of the supply chain areas below, if they provide disaggregated emissions against each supply chain.
	The company discloses water usage by key suppliers in its supply chain.	According to GRI 303, water usage includes: – water withdrawn – water consumed – water discharged Companies will need to define “key suppliers” and: 50%: provide data against some of the above indicators 100%: provide data against all of the above indicators
Target-setting and progress towards fossil free and environmentally sustainable supply chains	The company has set and disclosed a scope 3 SBT (must include reference to upstream/purchased goods & not only ‘Well to Wheel’)	100%: the company discloses a science-based scope three target that includes upstream/purchased goods, including 2050 and interim year target(s). 50%: the company discloses a lifecycle target that includes upstream/purchased goods, including 2050 and interim year target(s) and/or does not indicate if it has been verified as science-based. 25%: the company only discloses 2050 zero emissions target with no interim target and/or it does not specify upstream/purchased goods.
	The company commits to having suppliers provide science-based targets for GHG emissions.	The following scores are absolute not cumulative. 100%: the company requires all its tier 1 suppliers, and their suppliers to set science-based targets. They also require tier 2 suppliers to set science-based targets. 75%: the company requires all its tier 1 suppliers set science-based targets. 50%: the company commits to having at least 70% of its key suppliers by emissions setting science-based targets by 2023. 25%: company commits to having suppliers setting science-based emissions targets, but does not provide a target date or target date is after 2023. 0%: Company does not have a commitment.
	The company discloses the current percentage of suppliers providing science-based targets.	25%: they disclose the current percentage of tier 1 suppliers providing science-based targets. 25%: they disclose the current percentage of tier 2 suppliers providing science-based targets. 25%: additional points for over 50% of tier 1 suppliers providing science-based targets 25%: additional points for all tier 1 suppliers providing sciece-based targets.
	The company requires all significant suppliers to disclose their water management plan and water usage.	50%: the company requires tier 1 suppliers to have a water management plan in place 25%: the company requires tier 1 suppliers to set water reduction targets 25%: the company requires tier 1 suppliers to disclose their water usage. According to GRI 303, water usage includes: – water withdrawn – water consumed – water discharged
	The company has programs in place to monitor suppliers for compliance with GHG emissions targets and other environmental impacts.	25%: The company has a process that includes reducing GHGs and other environmental impacts, but lacks targets as a basis for compliance. or 50%: The company has a process that includes reducing GHGs and other environmental impacts, and includes targets as a basis for compliance. plus 25%: the company provides quantitative information of the number of suppliers audited and the tiers that are audited. 25%: the company provides qualitative case studies of how they have engaged suppliers on their targets.
Use of supply chain levers to achieve fossil free and environmentally sustainable supply chains	The company incentivises suppliers to reduce GHG and other significant air emissions.	50%: the company specifies that cost is not the only factor in choosing a preferred supplier. 25%: the company specifies that GHG targets are including in the tender and contracting process. 25%: the company specifies that “other significant air emissions” targets are included in the tender and contracting process. As companies are unlikely to publish their contract information, references may be found in sustainability reports, procurement policies, etc.
	The company incentivises suppliers to improve water management	100%: water management is explicitly taken into account in the tendering and contract process, and is a factor in choosing preferred suppliers.

Fossil Free and Environmentally Sustainable | Steel

50%: the company has disclosed purchasing commitments with members of ResponsibleSteel.

Indicator Category

Indicators

Score Attribution (Scores are cumulative unless otherwise specified)

Disclosure of scope 3 GHG emissions due to steel supply chains

The company discloses disaggregated GHG emissions for their steel supply chains.

100%: The company discloses scope 3 GHG emissions for purchased goods and services, disaggregated for their steel supply chains.

Target setting and progress towards fossil free and environmentally sustainable steel supply chains

The company has set targets for the use of fossil free and environmentally sustainable steel.

The scores below are not additive. They indicate specific thresholds for getting that percentage of points:

100%: the company has a commitment to source 100% fossil free steel by 2050 and 50% fossil free steel by 2030.

75%: The company has a commitment to source 100% Responsible Steel Level 4 certified steel by 2040 and 50% automotive steel that is ResponsibleSteel level 3 or 4 by 2030.

50%: The company is aligned with First Movers Coalition guidance of 10% “”low-CO2″” primary steel by 2030 AND/OR aligns with SteelZero Commitment to source 100% net zero steel by 2050, with an interim commitment of using 50% responsibly produced steel by 2030.

25%: the company has a commitment to net zero steel by 2050 and/or a 2030 emissions reduction target for steel that only specifies a percentage of overall emissions reductions.

The company publishes progress towards their target by disclosing the current percentage of fossil free steel in their in their annual production cycle.

50%: The company discloses the current percentage of “low-C02 steel”, namely steel that aligns with the IIGCC Steel Purchaser Framework (steel procured with emissions intensity at or below: a) SteelZero’s Low(er) Embodied Carbon Steel benchmark. b) IEA / FMC Near Zero Steel Production emission intensity threshold (equivalent to ResponsibleSteel Performance Level 4: Near Zero).

50%: the company discloses the current percentage of Responsible Steel certified steel in their supply chain. Note: depending on the level of certification, companies may score points under the first category.

The company has a target for the use of secondary/scrap steel by 2030.

100%: the company discloses a target for the use of recycled steel that is aligned with IEA Guidance for Heavy Industry has recycling, re‐use: scrap as share of input in steel production as 54% by 2030

50%: the company discloses a target for the use of recycled steel.

The company publishes progress towards their target by disclosing the current percentage of recycled steel used in its annual production cycle.

100%: the company discloses the percentage of recycled steel in their annual production cycle including volumes of both pre- and post-consumer steel.

75%: the company discloses the percentage of recycled steel in their annual production cycle.

50%: The company partially discloses the percentage of recycled steel for some elements with their annual production cycle.

Use of supply chain levers to achieve fossil free and environmentally sustainable steel supply chains

The company participates in multi-stakeholder procurement initiatives to collaborate with other buyers to incentivise investment in and production of fossil free steel at scale.

50%: the company is a member of SteelZero.

50%: the company is a member of the First Movers Coalition’s sector group on steel.

The company participates in multi-stakeholder standard / certification initiatives to drive investment in and production of socially and environmentally sustainable steel at scale.

50%: the company is a member of ResponsibleSteel.

50%: the company has disclosed purchasing commitments of ResponsibleSteel certified steel.

Company has entered into formal arrangements with suppliers to incentivise investment in and greater production of fossil free steel.

50%: the company states that it has entered into a contractual relationship with steel suppliers to invest in and scale production of low-CO2 steel.
25%: the company discloses timelines/targets for the development of and purchase of low-CO2 steel.
25%: Agreement/s align with the FMC and IEA definition of low-CO2 steel (0.4 tCO2e/t for primary steel with 0% scrap and 0.05 tCO2e/t for secondary steel with 100% scrap).

The company integrates improved recyclability of steel into automobile design and manufacture.

25%: the company discloses that it is implementing a closed-loop process for steel (no reference to post-consumer scrap).
OR
50%: the company provides detail on a closed-loop process it is implementing for steel (must include reference to post-consumer scrap).
PLUS
50%: the company provides detail of how it considers the recyclability of steel in automotive and/or component design.

Fossil Free and Environmentally Sustainable | Aluminum

Indicator Category	Indicators	Score Attribution (Scores are cumulative unless otherwise specified)
Disclosure of scope 3 GHG emissions due to aluminium	The company discloses disaggregated GHG emissions for their aluminium supply chains.	100%: The company discloses scope 3 GHG emissions for purchased goods and services, disaggregated for their aluminium supply chains.
Target setting and progress towards fossil free and environmentally sustainable aluminum supply chains	The company has set targets for the use of fossil free and environmentally sustainable aluminium	The scores below are not additive. They indicate specific thresholds for getting that percentage of points: 100%: The company has a commitment to source 100% fossil free Aluinium by 2050 and 50% fossil free Aluminium by 2030. 75%: Aligned with Mission Possible 1.5 scenario all primary aluminium being produced with low-carbon power by 2035. 50%: Aligned with First Movers Coalition guidance of 10% “”low-CO2″” primary aluminium by 2030. 25%: the company has a commitment to net zero aluminium by 2050 and/or a 2030 emissions reduction target for aluminium that only specifies a percentage of overall emissions reductions. Definition of low-CO2 taken from First Movers Coalition, specifically < 3 tons CO2e/ton.
	The company publishes progress towards their target by disclosing the current percentage of fossil free aluminium in their in their annual production cycle.	100%: The company discloses the current percentage of fossil free aluminum in their supply chain.
	The company has a target to increase use of secondary/scrap aluminium by 2030.	These scores are not cumulative, they are thresholds for achieving a particular score. 100%: the company discloses a target for use of secondary or scrap aluminium that is aligned with IEA Net Zero 42% secondary/scrap by 2030. 50%: the company discloses a target for use of secondary or scrap aluminium that is less than IEA Net Zero 42% secondary/scrap by 2030.
	The company publishes progress towards their target by disclosing the current percentage of recycled aluminium used in its annual production cycle.	100%: the company discloses the percentage of recycled aluminium in their annual production cycle including volumes of both pre- and post-consumer aluminium. 75%: the company discloses the percentage of recycled aluminium in their annual production cycle. 50%: the company partially discloses the percentage of recycled aluminium for some elements with their annual production cycle
Use of supply chain levers to achieve fossil free and environmentally sustainable aluminium supply chains	The company participates in multi-stakeholder procurement initiatives to collaborate with other buyers to incentivise investment in and production of fossil free aluminium at scale.	*100%:* the company is a member of First Movers Coalition.
	The company participates in multi-stakeholder standard / certification initiatives to drive investment in and production of socially and environmentally sustainable aluminium	50%: the company is a member of the Aluminium Stewardship Initiative. 50%: the company has disclosed purchasing commitments for ASI certified aluminium.
	The company has entered into formal arrangements to incentivise investment in and greater production of fossil free aluminium	50%: the company states that it has entered into a contractual relationship with aluminium suppliers to invest in and scale-up production of low-CO2 aluminium. 25%: the company discloses timelines/targets for the development of and purchase of low-CO2 aluminium. 25%: Agreements align with the FMC definition of low-CO2 aluminium (specifically < 3 tons CO2e/ton).
	The company integrates improved recyclability of aluminium into automobile design and manufacturing process.	25%: the company discloses that it is implementing a closed-loop process for aluminium (no reference to post-consumer scrap). OR 50%: the company provides detail on a closed-loop process it is implementing for aluminium (must include reference to post-consumer scrap). PLUS 50%: the company provides detail of how it considers the recyclability of aluminium in automotive and/or component design. Note: this could include the development of new alloys.

Fossil Free and Environmentally Sustainable | Batteries

Indicator Category	Indicators	Score Attribution (Scores are cumulative unless otherwise specified)
Disclosure of scope 3 GHG emissions due to battery supply chains	The company discloses disaggregated scope 3 emissions for their battery supply chains, including a total for the whole battery and disaggregated emissions for high intensity minerals, including Nickel and LIthium at a minimum.	50%: The company discloses scope 3 GHG emissions for purchased goods and services, disaggregated for their battery supply chains. 25%: the company disaggregates GHG emissions for cell production and battery minerals (as a total) 25%: the company provides disaggregated emissions data for high intensity minerals
Target setting and progress towards fossil free and environmentally sustainable battery supply chains	The company has set a target to produce fossil free and environmentally sustainable batteries.	The scores below are not additive. They indicate specific thresholds for getting that percentage of points: 100%: the company has a commitment to produce 100% fossil free batteries by 2050 and 50% fossil free batteries by 2030. 50%: Alignment with IEA Heavy Industry Guidance (27% emissions reduction by 2030 and 95% by 2050) 25%: Commitment below IEA Heavy Industry Guidance.
	The company has set a target to reduce reliance on energy intensive minerals in battery production.	25%: statement of intent to reduce high intensity minerals in battery production (which may include a commitment to producing smaller batteries). 25%: the company has set a disaggregated target for the reduction of primary sources of nickel in their supply chain. 25%: the company has set a disaggregated target for the reduction of primary sources of lithium in their supply chain. 25%: the company has set a disaggregated target for the reduction of primary sources of cobalt in their supply chain.
	The company has set collection and/or recovery targets for high intensity battery metals.	100%: the company has a medium term target of 95% recovery for cobalt & nickel with 70% lithium by 2030 (equal to that proposed by the EU) and a short term target of 90% recovery rate for cobalt & nickel and 35% lithium by 2025. 25%: the company has set collection and/or recovery targets for high intensity battery metals that are lower and/or not disaggregated.
Use of supply chain levers to achieve fossil free and environmentally sustainable battery supply chains	The company requires all battery manufacturers to use 100% renewable electricity	100%: the company discloses a requirement that all battery manufacturers are required to use 100% renewable electricity. 50%: the company discloses agreements/requirements for 100% renewable energy with some battery manufacturers 25%: the company discloses agreements/requirements for reduced emissions with some battery manufacturers or 50%: the company discloses a requirement that all battery manufacturers are required to be “carbon neutral”, “net zero” or similar but does not define how they are using the term.
	Company enters into formal agreements (inclusive of joint ventures and investments) with extractives and other value chain companies to reduce the environmental impact of lithium sourcing.	25%: the company has entered into contractual agreements for the purchase of low C02 lithium. These agreements will include purchasing commitments, and/or other forms of investment, including R&D. 25%: the company has entered into contractual agreements to reduce other enviromental impacts of lithium sourcing, by including environmental conditions in their contracts. 25%: the company discloses the specific areas or requirements that the environmental conditions included in contracts cover. This may include requirements regarding water usage, biodiversity, tailings management, etc. 25%: The company engages in multi-stakeholder initiative(s) to reduce impacts on sourcing (e.g. emissions, water, biodiversity etc.)
	Company enters into formal agreements (inclusive of joint ventures and investments) with extractives and other value chain companies to reduce the environmental impact of nickel sourcing.	25%: the company has entered into contractual agreements for the purchase of low C02 nickel. These agreements may include purchasing commitments, and/or other forms of investment, including R&D. 25%: the company has entered into contractual agreements to reduce other enviromental impacts of nickel sourcing, by including environmental conditions in their contracts. 25%: the company discloses the specific areas or requirements that the environmental conditions included in contracts cover. This may include requirements regarding water usage, biodiversity, tailings management, etc. 25%: the company engages in multi-stakeholder initiative(s) to reduce impacts on sourcing (e.g. emissions, water, biodiversity etc.)
	Company enters into formal agreements (inclusive of joint ventures and investments) with extractives and other value chain companies to reduce the environmental impact of cobalt sourcing.	25%: the company has entered into contractual agreements for the purchase of low C02 cobalt. These agreements will include purchasing commitments, and/or other forms of investment, including R&D. 25%: the company has entered into contractual agreements to reduce other enviromental impacts of cobalt sourcing, by including environmental conditions in their contracts. 25%: the company discloses the specific areas or requirements that the environmental conditions included in contracts cover. This may include requirements regarding water usage, biodiversity, tailings management, etc. 25%: The company engages in multi-stakeholder initiative(s) to reduce impacts on sourcing (e.g. emissions, water, biodiversity etc.)
	The company participates in multi-stakeholder initiatives to collaborate with other buyers to incentivise investment in and production of fossil free and environmentally sustainable batteries at scale.	100%: the company is a member of the Global Battery Alliance.
	The company invests in R&D to reduce the use of high emissions minerals (e.g. nickel, cobalt) in their batteries. R&D could be done in house or via formal partnerships with battery manufacturers.	50%: the company provides examples of R&D that they are conducting in-house or in partnership with battery manufacturers to develop new battery technologies that minimise the use of high intensity minerals (lithium, nickel, cobalt). 50%: the company provides examples of the systems and processes to scale R&D to production.
	The company invests in R&D to increase the recyclability of their batteries.	50%: the company provides examples of R&D that they are conducting in-house or in partnership with value chain partners to increase the recyclability of batteries (for example direct recycling). 50%: the company provides examples of the systems and processes to scale R&D to production.
	The company has established closed loop processes to increase the % of batteries being recycled at end of life.	25%: the company indicates that there is a process in place for recycling batteries. 25%: the company provides qualitative information about closed loop processes (including the establishment and operation of collection points) to increase the % of batteries being recycled. 25%: the company provides quantitative information about the % of batteries being recycled. 25%: the company provides quantitative information about estimated future collection targets.

Human rights and responsible sourcing indicators

Human Rights & Responsible Sourcing | General

Note: scores are cumulative unless otherwise specified.

Indicator Category	Indicators	Score Attribution (Scores are cumulative unless otherwise specified)
Commit	The company has a public commitment to human rights.	100%: the company has a standalone human rights policy or other commitment that it will respect the UN Declaration for Human Rights, the International Bill of Human Rights or commit to the UN Guiding Principles.
Commit	The company extends their human rights commitments to their Tier 1 suppliers and beyond.	50%: the company has a Supplier Code of Conduct (SCoC) that is easily accessible from their website. The SCoC explicitly references either the company’s human rights policy or states that suppliers are expected to respect and/or uphold human rights. 25%: the company “expects” or “encourages” their suppliers to apply these standards to their own suppliers OR 50%: the company “requires” or otherwise mandates their suppliers to apply the requirements of the SCoC to their own suppliers.
Identify	The company has a process in place to assess salient human rights risks in their supply chain.	25%: the company states that there is a process in place for identifying salient human rights risks. 25%: the company specifies the types of research that they do to identify issues and prioritise them (e.g. desktop review). 25%: the company specifies how often they repeat this risk assessment. 25%: the company specifies if and how they engaged with external HR experts. Note: this engagement must be specific to the company and it’s supply chains to be scored here. Simply participating in a multistakeholder initiative that includes HR experts is not sufficient, unless the company has articulated how it applies the information gained via these initiatives to their own supply chain. Finally, effective risk identification involves consultation with potentially impacted stakeholders. We have included additional indicators under each section below to reflect this.
	The company discloses the salient human rights risks in their supply chain and where they are located.	25%: the company names the generic, salient risks in their supply chain (e.g. conflict minerals, forced labour, water security, etc.). 50%: the company describes these risks and their relevance to the company. 100%: the company discloses where in their supply chain these occur (e.g. material type and tier).
	The company has a process for identifying high risk supplier categories in their supply chain.	50%: the company outlines the process for how they identify high risk supplier categories in Tier 1 in order to prioritise differential assurance actions. This may include taking into account the leverage that the automotive company has to affect change (e.g. their annual spend, whether they are a primary or majority buyer, etc.), the geography of suppliers, and the severity of the risks that have been identified. 25%: the company outlines how this process extends beyond tier 1. Note: this does not necessarily have to involve a process that extends to the point of extraction, as this is covered below in the transition minerals section. 25%: the company outlines the differential assurance actions it has put in place to manage those risks. Note: to score here, it must do more than indicate that there are differential assurance actions, it must specify what those are.
Prevent, Mitigate and Account	The company assesses the risk of adverse human rights impacts with suppliers prior to entering into any contracts.	25%: the company outlines the process to assess risks at individual suppliers. This may include supplier questionnaires, audits, etc. Note: it is not enough for companies to state that they assess suppliers prior to entering into any contracts, they must outline how this assessment occurs. Secondly, a requirement that suppliers sign a statement confirming their compliance is not sufficient risk assessment. Similarly, companies must outline how they verify information provided in supplier self-assessment questionnaires. 25%: they provide quantitative information of the number of suppliers assessed, and the tier that they belong to. 25%: they provide quantitative information on the number of suppliers where non-conformances were found. 25%: this process extends beyond tier 1 to tier 2 at a minimum.
	The company discloses how it monitors/audits suppliers for compliance with the supplier code of conduct during the contract period.	25%: the company indicate that there is a process in place (e.g. they have a statement stating that they conduct audits) 25%: the company provides details on the process (e.g. how they select suppliers to audit, how often these take place, etc). 25%: the company provides quantitative information of the number of suppliers audited and the tiers that are audited. Note: this could be as a percentage of suppliers audited or as a number. If the company provides a number of suppliers audited, they must also provide the total number of suppliers. 25%: the company provides quantitative information on non-conformances found Note: for due diligence to be effective, it must involve potentially impacted stakeholders and/or their representatives. This is scored under each of the sections listed below.
	The company reports on how it is prepared to respond if it finds non-conformances with the Supplier Code of Conduct in its supply chains.	This indicator relates to the contractual relationship between suppliers and the auto-manufacturer. It applies to all tiers to the point of extraction where there is a direct relationship between the auto manufacturer and the supplier. 33%: the company discloses that suppliers will be subject to corrective action plans if non-conformances are identified. 33%: the discloses specific actions it will take in response to adverse human rights impacts and/or other human rights related contractual breaches (for example, top-work notices, warning letters, supplementary training, policy revision and termination of the contract). 33%: the company provides numeric data to illustrate implementation. Note: this is distinct from providing remedy to impacted stakeholders.
	The company discloses how they verify the implementation of corrective actions.	100%: the company discloses the types of actions that it undertakes to verify whether correction actions have occured (e.g. audits). 25%: the company discloses a subset of the types of actions that it undertakes to verify whether correction actions have occured (e.g. audits). Note: successful remediation and grievance procedures involve impacted stakeholders and/or their representatives. Their involvement is scored under each section below.
Remedy	The company has put in place a formal mechanism whereby workers, suppliers, suppliers’ workers (in any tier) and other external stakeholders can raise grievances regarding adverse human rights impacts in their supply chain to an impartial entity.	10%: if the company only has an in-house mechanism 20%: the company has put in place an independent, formal mechanism to report a grievance to an impartial entity regarding human rights in the company’s supply chains. 20%: The mechanism is available to its workers, suppliers, suppliers’ workers (in any tier) and other external stakeholders (e.g. whistleblower hotline). 50%: the company communicates how the existence of the mechanism is communicated to its suppliers’ workers and other impacted stakeholders; The involvement of impacted stakeholders and their legitimate representatives (e.g. workers, indigenous communities, etc.) in the design, review, operation and ongoing improvement of grievance mechanisms is central to their efficacy. As such, additional indicators have been included under each focus area regarding the specific integration of feedback from different stakeholder groups.
	The company discloses data about the practical operation of their due diligence mechanism, such as the number of grievances filed, addressed, and resolved, or an evaluation of the effectiveness of the mechanism.	25%: The company provides quantitative information about the number of grievances raised. 25%: the company also provides information on the number of grievances addressed and resolved. 50%: The company disaggregates this information by the type of grievance raised, the severity and the outcomes.
	The company has put in place a remedy process.	50%: the company discloses the process for determining remedy. This should indicate in general terms: – 25%: how they investigate an issue that is raised and escalate the issue within the company – 25%: how they determine appropriate remedy 50%: the company provides information about how the process operates in practice, including quantitative information regarding the types of allegations raised (where no allegations have been raised, a statement to this end will suffice). This should be: – 25%: disaggregated by region and tier at a minimum – 25%: one or more qualitative case studies of the process in action (where there have been no investigations that year, case studies from previous years to illustrate the process will suffice), including outcomes from that process. note: the UNGPs specify that impacted stakeholders should be involved in the determination of remedy. As such, additional indicators have been included under each of the focus areas to provide a score regarding the company’s engagement with specific stakeholder groups.

Responsible Sourcing of Transition Minerals

Indicator Category	Indicators	Score Attribution (Scores are cumulative unless otherwise specified)
Commit	The company has a commitment to responsible metals and minerals sourcing.	The following scores are not cumulative, they are absolute: 100%: the company has a standalone responsible minerals sourcing policy or their human rights policy includes a section on the responsible sourcing of transition minerals and metals that applies to all salient minerals and metals. 75%: the company has a standalone responsible minerals sourcing policy or their human rights policy includes a section on the responsible sourcing of transition minerals and metals that goes beyond “conflict minerals” to include some other minerals or metals (e.g. includes cobalt). 50%: the company has a standalone responsible minerals sourcing policy or their human rights policy includes a commitment to the responsible sourcing of “conflict minerals” only.
Commit	The company requires its suppliers to undertake due diligence in accordance with the OECD Due Diligence for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High Risk Areas	25%: the SCoC states that companies will undertake due diligence in accordance with OECD Due Diligence for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from CAHRAs. 25%: the SCoC specifies that suppliers should apply the OECD due diligence guidelines to all salient metals and minerals in addition to CAHRAs. (note: companies that only specify cobalt to not achieve a score here, due to its inclusion in the Frank Dodd Act.) 25%: there is a requirement or expectation that suppliers have a due diligence process in place to identify raw materials sources, specifically, conducting due diligence on the SoRs in their supply chain (this may include the use of third party certification, etc) 25%: there is a contractual requirement or expectiation to disclose smelter/refiner information. Note: as it is unlikely that companies will publish their contracts, disclosures for the last three points may be found in the SCoC or the contractual minerals report.
Identify	The company has a process in place to assess transition minerals risks in their supply chain to the point of extraction.	25%: the company discloses that they have a process in place to map supply chains back to the point of extraction. 25%: the company provides detail on the processes that they have put in place to map their supply chains to the point of extraction 25%: the company discloses the portion of the supply chain that they have mapped to the point of extraction. Note: this could be by specifying which supply chains they have mapped, a percentage of total suppliers mapped, etc. 25%: the company discloses information from their mapping (e.g primary countries of origin etc) MODIFIER: In order to achieve full credit the mapping must cover at least the three focus minerals that are of significant industry and stakeholder focus given outsized volume and/or impacts: cobalt, nickel & lithium. Companies that map two of fewer minerals will receive half scores.
	The company discloses transition minerals risks in their supply chain and where they are located.	50%: the company discloses how CAHRA risks are present in their supply chains and the relative risks of countries of sourcing. 50%: the company discloses broader risks from transition minerals in their supply chain
	The company publishes a smelter or refiner (SoR) list and indicates which SoRs are conformant with the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI).	100%: the company publishes a full list of smelters/refiners in their supply chain and indicates which SoRs are conformant with a 3rd party standard. 50%: the company publishes a partial list of smelters/refiners in the supply chain and indicates which SoRs are conformant with a 3rd party standard. 25%: the company publishes a partial list of smelters/refiners but don’t indicate which SoRs are conformant with a 3rd party standard and/or provides quantitative information only.
Prevent, Mitigate and Account	The company discloses how it monitors/audits suppliers for compliance with the transition minerals due diligence requirements.	See general HR indicators
	The company formally engages SoRs to build their capacity to conduct due diligence of their own supply chains.	25%: the company specifies that it engages with SoRs to build their capacity to conduct due diligence. 25%: the company discloses that it participates in industry wide schemes that assess smelters/refiners compliance with OECD guidelines. 50%: the company provides detail on how it engages with SoRs to build their capacity Note: non-binding MOUs with upstream suppliers are not scored here. Company agreements are only counted if they are binding, and they explicitly include human rights provisions.
	The company formally engages extractives companies and includes human rights clauses in any contractual arrangements.	100%: the company discloses that it has entered into direct agreements with extractives companies for the sourcing of transition minerals and that these contracts include human rights clauses.
	The company is a member of IRMA and actively engages their suppliers with regards to IRMA mining audits.	25%: The company is a member of IRMA. 50%: The company actively engages their suppliers regarding suppliers’ certification by IRMA. 25%: the company discloses a commitment to source a percentage of metals from IRMA certified mines by a certain date. Note: we may consider other multistakeholder initiatives on an ad hoc basis, if the company can demonstrate active participation of impacted groups and other stakeholders in the initiative.
	The company reports on how it is prepared to respond if it finds non-conformances associated with its responsible minerals sourcing policy occurring in its operations or supply chains.	See general HR indicators
	The company discloses how they verify the implementation of corrective actions.	See general HR indicators
Remedy	The company has put in place a formal mechanism whereby grievances can be raised about SoR facilities.	50%: the company has put in place an independent, formal grievance mechanism that applies specifically to SoRs. This mechanism may be run in conjunction with other automanufacturers. Note: this is in addition to any generic whistleblower service that can be accessed by external stakeholders. 50%: the company discloses how they review and investigate grievances raised through this mechanism.

Indigenous Rights and Free Prior and Informed Consent

Indicator Category	Indicators	Score Attribution (Scores are cumulative unless otherwise specified)
Commit	The company explicitly commits to respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).	100%: the company has an explicit commitment to the UNDRIP in their human rights policy and/or in a standalone indigenous rights policy.
	The company has a public commitment to free, prior and informed consent.	100%: the company has an explicit commitment to FPIC in their human rights policy and/or in a standalone indigenous rights policy. Note: to score full points, the commitment must be unqualified. 25%: the company has an explicit commitment to FPIC in their human rights policy and/or in a standalone indigenous rights policy, but it is limited in its application.
	The company extends their indigenous commitments to their Tier 1 suppliers and beyond.	The SCoC or responsible sourcing policy explicitly references the UNDRIP (50%) and FPIC (50%). MODIFIER: Points will be halved if the policy is limited in its application.
	These commitments are translated into the Indigenous languages used by impacted communities.	50%: the company requires these commitments to be translated into the indigenous languages used by impacted communities 50%: the company requires that these translations are made public.
Identify	The company has a process in place to assess Indigenous rights risks in their supply chain to the point of extraction.	25%: the company discloses that their process for mapping their supply chains to the point of extraction (row 16) explicitly includes FPIC and other indigenous rights issues. 25%: the company provides case studies of this process in practice 25%: the company discloses where in the supply chain these risks occur. 25%: the company discloses how they use this mapping to identify high risk suppliers.
Prevent, Mitigate and Account	The company provides additional discussion regarding the practices by which a suppliers must obtain FPIC, and explicitly states that the process must reach and engage with impacted Indigenous Peoples.	100%: the company discloses a process. This process must explicitly specify that any FPIC process must reach and engage impacted Indigenous Peoples. 25%: the company states a process and/or expectation but it is limited in its application.
	The company is a member of a multi-stakeholder group (e.g. IRMA) that include the participation of Indigenous and frontline communities to promote and ensure the rights of communities at the point of extraction.	Refer to Responsible Sourcing of Transition Minerals indicators.
	The auto manufacturer has a formal process in place to engage critical upstream suppliers on FPIC (e.g. extractives companies)	This score relates to direct engagement by the auto manufacturer with extractives companies. It is in addition to their membership of IRMA, and recognises that IRMA does not excuse companies from doing their own supply chain due diligence. 25%: they formally engage significant suppliers regarding FPIC. They must specify that any FPIC process must reach and engage impacted Indigenous Peoples. 25%: they state that they formally review company documents (e.g. meeting minutes) to ensure that communities are consulted. 50%: the company engages directly with representatives of communities affected by mining operations to review that regular engagement and consultation take place and community needs are responded to.
	The company reports on how it is prepared to respond if it finds FPIC breaches in its supply chain.	The indicators in HR general provide a baseline for this. In addition: 100%: the company must specify that cutting off sourcing from a particular upstream supplier should only occur if this is sought by the affected indigenous community – it should not be solely determined by the auto manufacturer.
Remedy	The company has a process for investigating and remedying breaches of FPIC that includes a formal role for impacted Indigenous groups.	Grievances and remedy are part of FPIC considered as a process not a point in time. 50%: the company specifies that the process must reach and engage impacted Indigenous Peoples, not just that there is a process for complaints to be raised with remedy determined externally by the automanufacturer. 50%: the company provides case studies of FPIC-compliant remedy instances in their supply chain

Respect for Workers’ Rights

Indicator Category	Indicators	Score Attribution (Scores are cumulative unless otherwise specified)
Commit	The company has a commitment to workers’ rights	25%: The company’s human rights policy (or similar) includes a specific commitment to the five ILO principles 25%: The company explicitly identifies the five principles (companies who do not commit to all five ILO principles will not be scored): 1. freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; 2. the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; 3. the effective abolition of child labour; 4. the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and 5. a safe and healthy working environment. 25%: the company has a commitment to a living wage in their human rights policy or in other document 25%: they outline how they calculate a living wage.
Commit	The company extends their workers’ rights commitments to their Tier 1 suppliers and beyond.	25%: The Supplier Code of Conduct includes a specific commitment to the five ILO principles 25%: The Supplier Code of Conduct explicitly identifies the five principles (companies who do not commit to all five ILO principles will not be scored): 1. freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; 2. the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour; 3. the effective abolition of child labour; 4. the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and 5. a safe and healthy working environment. 25%: the Supplier Code of Conduct includes a commitment to a living wage 25%: the Supplier Code of Conduct prohibits the payment of recruitment fees
Identify	The company consults trade unions in their assessment of salient workers’ rights risks in their supply chain.	Generic supply chain indicators provide a baseline score for this. To get additional points here, companies must specify that they consult with labour unions and/or global union federations (GUFs).
Identify	The company discloses the salient workers rights risks in their supply chain and where they are located.	100%: the company’s saliency assessment explicitly identifies at least 1 workers’ rights issue and where it is located.
Prevent, Mitigate and Account	The company actively collaborates with workers’ and the representative organisation(s) of workers’ own choosing to promote workers’ rights and prevent abuses in the supply chain.	25%: the company has a collective agreement with the relevant trade union in the headquartered country. 25%: the company has a global framework agreement with IndustriALL for neutrality across all its operations. 25%: the company indicates that there are formal mechanisms to consult trade unions on workers’ rights principles. 25%: Industriall was actively involved in the formulation of their workers’ principles.
	The company reports on how it is prepared to respond if it finds non-conformances associated with its workers’ rights policy occurring in its operations or supply chains.	Refer to general HR indicators.
	The company works with the relevant trade union and/or worker representative organisation to verify the implementation of corrective actions pertaining to workers’ rights.	100%: the company specifies that it workers with the relevant trade union to verify implementation of correction actions.
Remedy	Workers and the representative organisations of workers’ own choosing are formally included in the remedy process.	100%: the company specifies that trade unions are formally engaged involved in any remedy process.

Appendix 2: Weighting methodology

Note: Automakers’ total scores across both categories were calculated as averages of the two percentages scored for each one.

Indicator category	% weighting	Normalized weighting
Fossil free and environmentally sustainable
Disclose	100%	1.0
Target setting & progress	150%	1.5
Supply chain levers	200%	2.0
Human rights and responsible sourcing
Commit	100%	1.0
Identify	150%	1.5
Prevent, Mitigate & Account	200%	2.0
Remedy	200%	2.0

Appendix 3: Assessment of Third Party Auditing and Accreditation Schemes

Objective

This assessment complements the Leaderboard by serving as a mechanism to assess the robustness of the different third-party audit/certification schemes, which are being used by companies to perform their human rights and environmental due diligence obligations within the automotive supply chain. The context of developing the assessment method was the recognition of the inherent limitations of such schemes and the unsuitability for schemes to be understood as a basis for legal compliance. The methodology sets out a number of core principles and minimum expectations relating to the extent to which an industry standard can be considered robust. These include an assessment of the governance of the standard, the veracity of the certification process where one exists, the role of impacted rights holders in the process as well as expectations relating to the content of the standard itself. Each scheme has then been assessed against these criteria and the results of this assessment have been used to develop a point modifier to the corresponding indicators that referenced these schemes, awarding more points to more robust schemes.

The results of the assessment can be found in sheet 8 of the Leaderboard spreadsheet. They are also included in a standalone briefing published by Lead the Charge.

Criteria

The following table outlines the criteria for making the assessment of the relevant initiatives:

Governance – multi-stakeholder governance and civil society co-creation

Full Credit – 2 points

Equal governance and involvement of rights-holders and civil society: Affected rights-holders, their representatives and, or civil society organizations are guaranteed 50% representation and decision-making power overall.
Affected rights-holders, their representatives and/or civil society organisations maintain equal decision-making power with industry regarding the implementation of the standard.
Evidence of structured stakeholder engagement in the development of the standard.

Partial Credit – 1 point

Multistakeholder governance where civil society / rights-holders representation is less than 50% overall.
Evidence of structured stakeholder engagement in the development of the standard.

Insufficient – 0 points

Participation by industry only without a formal process of stakeholder engagement.
A formal stakeholder engagement process does exist, but includes no mandatory or binding governance mechanism.

Independent Audits & Accreditation, with Rights-Holder Participation

Full Credit – 1 point

The scheme mandates third party audit of practices, including site-level verification.
The standard requires that the audit process includes participation of impacted rights-holders, ideally publishing advance notice of audits taking place.

Partial Credit – 0.5 points

The scheme mandates third party audit of practices, including site-level verification
Unclear if certification requires participation of affected rights-holders.

Insufficient – 0 points

The certification allows for self-assessment against the standard and / or third party assessment that does not include site-level verification

Transparency of audit findings

Full Credit – 1 point

The scheme requires the full results of audits, information on the audit processes and findings of noncompliance to be made readily available, at the very least to impacted rights-holders and other stakeholders (and publishes how engagement took place and details which stakeholder groups were engaged).

Partial Credit – 0.5 points

The scheme only requires partial disclosure or a summary of audit findings to be made public, indicating the company’s performance against key criteria but without further explanation.

Insufficient – 0 points

The scheme only publishes the overall result of the audit / accreditation process, without any explanation or clarity around which criteria was assessed and the company’s performance against the criteria.
The scheme has no requirements with regards to transparency of audit results.

Corrective Action Plans (CAP)

Full Credit – 1 point

The certification scheme standard for CAPs requires rights-holders to be involved in the development, implementation and monitoring of the plans
The standard requires the results of all CAPs to be disclosed publicly, along with a description of the non-conformances needing to be addressed within an associated time-frame.

Partial Credit – 0.5 points

The standard requires the results of all CAPs to be disclosed publicly, along with a description of the non-conformances needing to be addressed within an associated time-frame

Insufficient – 0 points

No public disclosure relating to CAPs necessary to achieve certification.
No assessment of whether CAPs have been implemented.

Grievance mechanism

Full Credit – 1 point

The grievance mechanism is independently facilitated
The scheme outlines how grievance mechanism is accessible (details measures taken to ensure it is known by stakeholders, appropriate translation and provision of assistance where necessary)
The scheme ensures aggrieved parties have access to information, advice and expertise
Disclosure is provided relating to grievances received as well as remedial action taken in response

Partial Credit – 0.5 points

The grievance mechanism is internally facilitated
The scheme provides disclosure relating to recent grievances and the remedial action taken in response.

Insufficient – 0 points

There is no functioning grievance mechanism

ISEAL Compliant

ISEAL’s Codes of Good Practice provide a globally recognised framework, defining practices for sustainability initiatives and their accreditation schemes. The ISEAL Standard-setting Code defines how a standard should be developed, structured and improved over time. The Code addresses multi-stakeholder consultation and decision-making, and ensures the standard contains clear requirements that can be measured and assessed. See here: https://www.isealalliance.org/defining-credible-practice/iseal-codes-good-practice

Full Credit – 1 point

Initiative is ISEAL code compliant

Partial Credit – 0.5 points

Initiative is an ISEAL community member

Insufficient – 0 points

Initiative is neither ISEAL code complaint or a community member

Credible standard criteria

The initiative and associated accreditation scheme, where relevant, are aligned with, as a minimum, the following:

Full Credit – 1 point

Adherence to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Adherence to the ILO Core Convention on the Five fundamental principles and rights at work
Adherence with UNDRIP and/or ILO 169 and FPIC assessed as part of the certification
Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degrees

Scoring and screening

The adequacy of the various schemes will be assessed using the above methodology. The table below outlines how the combined score translates to a points modifier being applied to the relevant indicators with the LtC scorecard. It is important to emphasise that the modifier is applied to individual indicators within the LtC scorecard, for which the scoring criteria is contingent on meeting the requirements of the certification schemes assessed as part of this exercise.

The Global Battery Alliance is included within the scope of this assessment. However, given the initiative’s primary accreditation scheme (Battery Passport) has not been finalised, we have not been able to undertake a meaningful assessment. Although analysis is included where relevant, the GBA will not have a modifier applied in the first instance. The scheme will be reviewed following finalization of the scheme.

Total points	Description	Point modifier in scorecard
8 points (full points)	Robust standard that meets minimum criteria for effective governance, auditing / accreditation and implementation of its criteria	Full points
7 points	Robust standard overall that meets nearly all of the minimum criteria for governance, auditing / accreditation and implementation of its criteria	0.8 modifier
5-6 points	Scheme meets most of the minimum criteria but has some significant flaws	0.6 modifier
3 – 4 points	Scheme fails to meet multiple criteria for effective governance, auditing and implementation of its criteria	0.4 modifier
Below 3 points	Highly defective scheme that fails to meet most of the minimum criteria for governance and auditing / accreditation	No scoring possible

Further Details Regarding Credible Standard Setting

Human rights

Initiatives and associated accreditation schemes commit to and recognise responsibility to respect human rights:

References to alignment with internationally recognised rights: International Bill of Human Rights and the principles concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour Organization’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

Standards for companies are based on UNGPs obligations to have:

A policy commitment to meet their responsibility to respect human rights.
A human rights due diligence process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights.
Processes to enable the remediation of any adverse human rights impacts they cause or to which they contribute.
To verify whether adverse human rights impacts are being addressed, business enterprises should track the effectiveness of their response.
To account for how they address their human rights impacts, business enterprises should be prepared to communicate this externally, particularly when concerns are raised by or on behalf of affected stakeholders.

Climate change

Standard is aligned to a credible 1.5 degree scenario
Covers scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions
Is not reliant on CCUS (e.g. IPCC SR15 pathway 1)
Outlines short (up to 3 years), medium (3-10 years) and long-term (11+ years) targets

Footnotes

1
https://www.germanwatch.org/sites/default/files/germanwatch_abstract_an_examination_of_industry_standards_in_the_raw_materials_sector_2022-09.pdf
2
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/companies/
3
The definition of “other significant air emissions” has been taken from the GRI 305: Emissions Standard.
4
For example: some auto manufactures will have their own battery cell manufacturing plants, while others won’t.
5
https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-ETC-Steel-demand-Report-Final.pdf
6
https://www.responsiblesteel.org/news/steelzero-driving-the-collective-change-for-net-zero-emissions/
7
https://www.theclimategroup.org/steelzero
8
https://www.iea.org/articles/driving-energy-efficiency-in-heavy-industries
9
SteelZero (2023), How demand signals work together to decarbonise the steel market: Overview of commonalities and distinctions between First Movers Coalition, SteelZero and the IDDI-Green Procurement Pledge
10
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_FMC_Sector_One_pagers_2023.pdf
11
https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/c4d96342-f626-4aea-8dac-df1d1e567135/AchievingNetZeroHeavyIndustrySectorsinG7Members.pdf
12
https://139838633.fs1.hubspotusercontent-eu1.net/hubfs/139838633/Past%20resource%20uploads/IIGCC-Steel-Purchaser-Framework-2023.pdf
13
https://www.energy-transitions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-ETC-Steel-demand-Report-Final.pdf
14
Emissions reductions relate only to a portion of the manufacturing process, with the final product being designated as lower emissions.
15
https://missionpossiblepartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Making-1.5-Aligned-Aluminium-possible.pdf
16
“New scrap refers to scrap created during product manufacturing, while old scrap refers to end-of-life scrap. […] Scrap-based production tends to cost less than primary production, so the key constraint is scrap availability. In 2019, collection rates for aluminium were over 95% for new scrap and just over 70% for old.” https://origin.iea.org/reports/aluminium
17
https://www.iea.org/reports/aluminium.
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_First_Movers_Coalition_Aluminium_Commitment_2022.pdf
https://missionpossiblepartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Making-1.5-Aligned-Aluminium-possible.pdf
18
https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/07/22/aluminum-car-industrys-blind-spot/why-car-companies-should-address-human-rights
19
Panasonic estimate, CAR MBS 2022 conference: 86% of emissions from minerals, 14% from manufacturing; Tesla estimate, Tesla 2021 Impact Report, p104: 77% of emissions from minerals, 23% from manufacturing
20
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02222-1
21
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a6b6c70b-c571-4841-8b27-d3ab3a0dfd1b
22
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20220228STO24218/new-eu-rules-for-more-sustainable-and-ethical-batteries
23
https://automotive.influencemap.org/
24
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf
25
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4538838d11.pdf
26
https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/social_justice/nt_report/ntreport08/pdf/chap6.pdf
27
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3983329?ln=en
28
Examples include but are not limited to: https://www.industriall-union.org/sites/default/files/uploads/images/FutureOfWork/JustTransition/guide_of_practice_en_web.pdf https://earthworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Just-Minerals-FINAL.pdf https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_emp/—emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_432859.pdf https://climatejusticealliance.org/just-transition/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act30/3544/2021/en/
29
https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-09/2._what_are_cahras.pdf
30
https://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/GuidanceEdition2.pdf
31
https://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/GuidanceEdition2.pdf, p. 8.
32
https://www.oecd.org/corporate/mne/GuidanceEdition2.pdf, p. 39
33
https://responsiblemining.net/
34
Credibility Crisis: Brumadinho and the Politics of Mining Industry Reform (2021)
35
Safety First: Guidelines for Responsible Mine Tailings Management (2022). https://miningwatch.ca/safety-first
36
https://responsiblemining.net/what-you-can-do/purchasing-companies/
37
https://www.ilo.org/declaration/lang–en/index.htm#:~:text=the%20elimination%20of%20all%20forms,safe%20and%20healthy%20working%20environment
38
https://globallivingwage.org/about/what-is-a-living-wage/
39
Ford and Nolan (2020). “Regulating Transparency on Human Rights and Modern Slavery in Corporate Supply Chains: The Discrepancy between Human Rights Due Diligence and the Social Audit” A ustralian Journal of Human Rights 26(1), pp. 27–45.
40
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/companies/
41
This date was chosen over other common cutoff dates, such as end of the calendar year, given the EV market is rapidly evolving and expanding and data even a few months past can vary greatly, and to better align with the August 1 2022 cutoff date for reviewing official company reporting.
42
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-09/us-electric-car-sales-reach-key-milestone?sref=gPAG2MJ8

Table of Contents

1. Overview

2. Scorecard Design and Structure

2.1. Exclusions and future developments

3. Indicator Development

3.1. Related scorecard initiatives

4. Updates and Amendments for the 2024 edition

4.1. Third-party certifications

5. Point deductions

6. Analysis of Company Reporting

7. Climate and Environment

7.1. Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chains: Background

7.2. Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chains: Areas of Focus

7.3. Themes: Background, Overview of Indicators and Scoring Methodology

7.3.1. Fossil-free and Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chains (General)

7.3.2. Fossil Free and Environmentally Sustainable Steel

7.3.3. Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Aluminum

7.3.4. Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Batteries

7.3.5. Climate Policy Lobbying

8. Respect for Human Rights

8.1. Respect for Human Rights: Background

8.2. Respect for Human Rights: Areas of Focus

8.3. Themes: Background, Overview of Indicators and Scoring Methodology

8.3.1. Respect for Human Rights (General)

8.3.2. Responsible Sourcing of Transition Minerals

8.3.3. Respect for Indigenous Rights

8.3.4. Respect for Workers’ Rights

8.3.5. Controversies and Red Flags; Progress and Green Flags

9. Company Selection

Appendices

Appendix 1: Full list of indicators and score attributions (changes in italics)

Fossil-free and environmentally sustainable indicators

Human rights and responsible sourcing indicators

Appendix 2: Weighting methodology

Appendix 3: Assessment of Third Party Auditing and Accreditation Schemes

Footnotes