2024LTC Report V11

The Race to
Cleaner
Automotive
Supply Chains
A comparative analysis of automaker
performance in building equitable, sustainable
and fossil-fuel free supply chains
2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
About this report 03

Executive summary 04
About Lead the Charge 10
What is the Lead the Charge Leaderboard? 11
Structure of the Leaderboard 12
Which companies are we looking at? 14
Leaderboard Findings 17
Lead the Charge Leaderboard 18
Overall scores and changes from 2023 20
Who leads where: Fossil-free and Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chains 23
Who leads where? Human Rights and Responsible Sourcing 35
Where is there room for improvement? 46
Differences between markets 54
Conclusion 55
Company Performance Summaries 56
Appendix 1: Table of indicators by indicator 74
category and theme
2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 2

This is the second annual Leaderboard on automotive
supply chains, published by Lead the Charge. The
Leaderboard evaluates 18 of the world’s leading
automakers on their efforts to eliminate emissions,
environmental harms, and human rights violations from
their supply chains. This report summarizes and analyzes
the key findings from the Leaderboard, highlighting
progress and gaps, calling out leaders and laggards,
and identifying challenges and opportunities for the year
ahead. The full dataset of the Leaderboard, together with
additional data on individual company performance, can
be found on the Lead the Charge website.
This report was written by Pensions & Investment Research Consultant (PIRC) for the Lead the Charge Network.
Designed by Studio Lake.
CHAPTER 001
Executive
Summary

This report is based on an analysis of the second
edition of the Lead the Charge Leaderboard, which
assessed 18 of the world’s leading automakers against
over 80 indicators that evaluate their efforts to eliminate
emissions, environmental harms, and human rights
violations from their supply chains. The Leaderboard
aims to establish a new expectation – and competitive
advantage – for what it means to produce a truly clean
car. Not just an electric vehicle (EV), but an EV with an
equitable, fossil-free and environmentally sustainable
supply chain.
The leaderboard covers two main aspects of compa- However, progress by the industry as a whole is lack-
ny policies and practices: those focused on building luster when compared to the scale of the challenge
fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply ahead. Average scores overall were just 19%, and
chains, and those focused on ensuring respect for no company scored over 50% against the total num-
human rights and responsible sourcing throughout ber of indicators. Moreover, one third of the automak-
their supply chains. Companies are given a percent- ers evaluated still haven’t taken concrete action on
age score enabling an assessment of both how steel and aluminum decarbonization, whilst average
close each automaker is to the scorecard’s expecta- scores aacross the indicators on responsible tran-
tions of what constitutes a clean car, as well as com- sition mineral sourcing, Indigenous Peoples’ rights
parisons between automakers. The Lead the Charge and workers’ rights have risen by just 2 percentage
Leaderboard is in its second year, meaning company points, with 11 out of the 18 automakers continuing
progress can also be tracked. to score 0% on Indigenous Peoples rights.
This year’s analysis shows that the industry is mak-

ing progress: all but one of the companies includ-
ed within the first Leaderboard evaluation saw
an improvement in their performance this year. In
particular, noteworthy progress has been made on
driving demand for fossil-free steel and undertaking
human rights due diligence.
U.S. automakers are making the fastest progress,

led by Tesla, which shot up in the rankings from #9
to #3 in just one year – the biggest increase across
all the automakers by a significant margin. Moreover,
individual companies are fully meeting the perfor-
mance criteria of most of the indicators, laying down
the challenge for the rest to catch up.

Main Findings
Ford has taken the top spot from Mercedes this year, with an overall score of
42%. Ford increased its 2023 score by 9 percentage points, resulting in a 2
percentage point lead over Mercedes (40%).
Tesla (35%) came third and was the biggest improver within the year,
increasing its score by 21 percentage points and moving from ninth to third
position. The pure-play EV manufacturer was the only company to make
improvements across all eight of the indicator categories.
GM also made noticeable progress (a 7% improvement overall) and has

moved mainly on the fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply chain
indicators, particularly with regard to setting targets and securing offtakes for
low-carbon steel and aluminum.
With notable improvements from US automakers coupled with inertia from some European automakers
(particularly VW, Renault and Volvo), this year saw US auto companies overtaking their European peers:
scoring 31% on average compared to 28% (European automakers scored an average of 26% last year, and
US automakers 21%). If relative improvements are replicated next year, other European automakers risk
being overtaken by peers like GM and Geely that are making faster progress.
There was solid progress on steel and, to a slightly lesser extent, aluminum decarbonization, especially
in the US (Tesla, Ford and GM). However, on these indicators, US automakers remain behind their
European peers, while East Asian automakers still lag further behind.
Toyota and Honda continue to be the climate laggards of the auto industry,
failing on both the EV transition, as well as on supply chain decarbonization.
However, Kia and Nissan were not much further ahead and have barely made
any progress over their 2023 performance. Moreover, all four automakers also
score low on human rights and responsible sourcing.
Advances in EU legislation appear to be having an impact on the due diligence practices of

automakers, with the average score in the General human rights subsection rising by 6%. Particularly
notable was the improved performance by Chinese automakers that want to expand exports to the
EU market: three Chinese automakers (Geely, BYD and GAC) all went from 0% on human rights and
responsible sourcing to scoring on several indicators in the general human rights due diligence and
transition minerals sections. Geely is by far the strongest performer - increasing its score to 16% in the
general human rights due diligence section.
Automakers are failing to take adequate action to ensure a just transition across their supply chains:
during 2023, over 70% of automakers made no progress on Indigenous Peoples’ rights and nearly half of
automakers made no progress on workers’ rights.

Overall no automaker has crossed the halfway mark towards building an equitable, sustainable and fossil-
free supply chain. However, meaningful improvements are attainable by automakers by matching the
best practice of their peers. Over half the indicators are fully met by at least one company. Adding up the
highest scores achieved by any company for each indicator results in a score of over 70%. Automakers can
therefore achieve radical improvements simply by matching the best practice of their peers across different
areas.
Fossil-free and Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chains
Companies scored, on average, just 16% on efforts to make their supply chains fossil-free and
environmentally sustainable (lower than the average across the scorecard). This represents a 5
percentage point increase over the industry-wide average score in the 2023 Leaderboard.
The top performers were Volvo and Mercedes, each scoring 36%: more than
double the industry wide average.
Volvo continues to be significantly ahead of other companies in its approach

to decarbonizing the steel and aluminum used in its vehicles. The Swedish
automaker scored 42% against these indicators, compared to an industry-
wide average of just 11%.
Although it maintained its top spot, Volvo made little progress overall.
Failure to make future improvements will leave Volvo’s lead vulnerable to the
continued progress of other automakers. For example, Volvo’s score difference
with Mercedes on these indicators is now less than 1%, with Tesla and Ford
also rapidly closing the gap with Volvo.
The three German automakers analyzed (BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen) achieved the highest scores
in the General environment section, outperforming across the baseline indicators.
Tesla is now leading the industry on scope 3 emissions disclosure, becoming

the first automaker to provide disaggregated scope 3 emissions for its
steel, aluminum and battery supply chains. Thanks to these improvements,
and others, Tesla has ascended to third place in the fossil-free and
environmentally sustainable section with a score of 31%.
2024 saw notable progress on steel and, to a slightly lesser extent, aluminum decarbonization - with
average scores rising by 5 and 4 percentage points respectively. In the 2023 edition of the Leaderboard,
the majority of automakers (61%) scored 0% on steel, while 78% scored less than 10%. In 2024, this
situation has been reversed: now, automakers scoring 0% and less than 10% on steel are in the minority
(33% and 39% of automakers respectively). This suggests that pressure from civil society, investors and
regulators over the past year has been successful in transforming auto steel decarbonization from a
marginal issue for the auto industry into a mainstream one.

Tesla and Mercedes are the industry leaders within the battery section, scoring 33% and 32% respectively.
Renault also improved notably within the battery indicators (up 13 percentage points), driven by a new
business unit developing closed loop battery recycling and a new purchasing agreement for low-carbon cobalt.
Human Rights And Responsible Sourcing
The average score within the human rights section was a mere 21%, rising by only 3 percentage points
compared to 2023. 2023.
Overall, Ford topped the automakers with 54%, followed by Mercedes with
44%, and Tesla with 39%. Ford and Mercedes retained their rankings from
2023, while Tesla displaced Stellantis (scoring 37%) for the third spot.
Scores within the baseline assessment of human rights due diligence (the
“General” subsection) were the highest of any sub-section across the whole
scorecard, with Stellantis performing strongest (76%).
Ford scored particularly well for its approach to responsible transition mineral sourcing, scoring 86%: the
highest score for a single subsection across the Leaderboard. Tesla, meanwhile, achieved a score increase
of 31% for this issue, the largest score improvement within a single subsection. However, such progress
was not widespread: average scores against these indicators rose by a meager 2 percentage points.
Automakers are largely ignoring risks to Indigenous Peoples in their supply chains and are failing to
take action to uphold their rights. For the second year in a row, company progress remained abysmal in
the Indigenous rights subsection: the average score was just 4%, an increase of 1 percentage point over
the year. This means that this subsection continues to receive the lowest average score of all, but also was
also the issue where automakers made the least progress: of those scored in both years, 13 of the 16
automakers saw no improvement at all. One bright spot was Tesla, which introduced a full requirement on
Free, Prior and Informed Consent in its responsible sourcing policy, and disclosed risks to Indigenous rights
specifically in its due diligence disclosure of salient human rights risk.
Companies are also mostly failing to take action on workers’ rights in their supply chains. Industry-
wide, automakers scored 19% on their efforts to ensure their suppliers respect workers’ rights. Ford and
Mercedes were the only automakers to score over 50% against these indicators. Overall, there have been
negligible net improvements: with an average score increase of 3 percentage points and nearly half of
automakers making no progress at all.
Only three automakers have made commitments to ensure workers are paid a living wage: Ford and
Mercedes have general commitments to a living wage and BMW has introduced it as a requirement in its
supplier code of conduct. However, no company defines what is meant by a “living wage.”

Scores from the 2024 Edition of the Lead the Charge Leaderboard
FOSSIL FREE AND HUMAN RIGHTS OVERALL
RANK AUTOMAKER ENVIRONMENTALLY AND RESPONSIBLE LEADERBOARD
SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAINS SOURCING SCORE
01 29% 54% 42%
02 36% 44% 40%
03 31% 39% 35%
04 36% 27% 32%
05 16% 37% 27%
06 25% 26% 26%
07 17% 31% 24%
08 19% 26% 22%
09 17% 21% 19%
10 12% 18% 15%
11 12% 15% 13%
12 15% 6% 10%
13 7% 9% 8%
14 4% 11% 8%
15 5% 9% 7%
16 1% 5% 4%
17 3% 1% 2%
18 2% 0% 1%

CHAPTER 002
About
Lead the Charge

What is Lead the Charge?
Lead the Charge is a diverse network of local, national,
and global civil society organizations calling on
automakers to radically transform their supply chains
so that they are free of fossil fuels, environmental harms
and human rights abuses.
Network members work across multiple geographies

and issues, with expertise in climate, environmental
justice, human rights, Indigenous rights, heavy industry,
ESG and more.
Our vision is an automotive industry where all vehicles

are made:
01 — Equitably
Respecting and advancing the rights of Indigenous Peoples,
workers, and local communities throughout the supply chain.
02 — Sustainably
Preserving and restoring environmental health and biodiversity
across supply chains, while reducing primary resource demand
through efficient resource use and increased recycled content.
03 — Fossil Free
100% electric and made with a fossil fuel-free supply chain.

What is the Lead the Charge Leaderboard?
The Lead the Charge Leaderboard, published annual- Within each of these there are four subsections, rep-
ly and now in its second edition, evaluates the prog- resenting different supply chain issue areas, which
ress of 18 of the world’s leading automakers towards are outlined in the box below.
this vision of building equitable, sustainable and
fossil-free supply chains. As vehicle production shifts LEADERBOARD SECTIONS
to electric vehicles (EVs) to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, the Lead the Charge Leaderboard aims Fossil-free and Environmentally Sustainable supply
to establish a new expectation for what is meant by chains (climate and environment):
“clean car”. This means not just zero tailpipe emis- ■ Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable
Supply Chains (General)
sions, but EVs with a just, equitable, fossil-free and
■ Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable Steel
environmentally sustainable supply chain. ■ Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable
Aluminum
A clean car is thus defined as having:
■ Fossil-Free and Environmentally Sustainable
■ a fossil-free supply chain that also has the low- Batteries
■ Climate Lobbying (applied as a multiplier
est possible negative impact on human health,
to total scores in this section)
biodiversity, resource depletion, and ecosystem
Human Rights & Responsible Sourcing:
resilience; and
■ Respect for Human Rights (General)
■ a supply chain throughout which the rights of ■ Responsible Sourcing of Transition Minerals
Indigenous Peoples, workers, and local commu- ■ Respect for Indigenous Rights and Free Prior and
Informed Consent
nities are respected.
■ Respect for Workers’ Rights
This definition, and the Leaderboard itself, was de-
veloped following a review of existing benchmarking
The General indicators within both themes provide
initiatives, reporting standards, best practice supply
a baseline score, assessing automakers’ general ef-
chain initiatives and legislative requirements in the
forts to address human rights, emissions, and other
two of the largest EV markets (EU and United States).
environmental impacts across their supply chains.
The indicators were aligned to international norms
The other subsections provide a more focused anal-
and widely recognized standards, such as the UN
ysis of their efforts to address specific issues in their
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,
supply chains.
the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclo-
sures, Global Reporting Initiative, the International
Energy Agency, and EU Taxonomy. Following their Each of the subsections within the two themes of
the Leaderboard follow the same indicator structure.
drafting, stakeholders were consulted on the pro-
Within the fossil-free and environmentally sustain-
posed indicators which were subsequently refined.
able supply chain section, the indicators of each
See the methodology document for a more detailed
subsection are shaped around a SBTi report on
explanation of the Leaderboard development.
supply chains which, although focused on emissions,
Structure of the Leaderboard provides a relevant framework for wider environmen-
tal impacts.1 Within the human rights and responsi-
The Leaderboard is designed to give companies a
ble sourcing section, the indicator design is shaped
score out of 100%. This enables an analysis of rela-
around UN Guiding Principles.2
tive performance between automakers and of how
close or far companies are to meeting the expecta-
In order to reward automakers’ progress towards the
tions within the scorecard.
delivery of clean vehicles, the scoring is intentionally
The Leaderboard is divided into two main sections: weighted towards implementation indicators. These
fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply framings and weightings are set out on the following
chains, and human rights and responsible sourcing. page.

adopted to ensure the analysis was based on official
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT company policy and reporting that had received
board level sign-off, as well as to encourage greater
INDICATOR CATEGORIES % WEIGHTING transparency in the industry.
Disclose 100%
A more detailed description of the methodology
Target setting & progress 150% including changes that have been made this year can
Supply chain levers
be found in Automaker Supply Chain Leaderboard -
200%
Methodology document. The appendix to the report
also outlines the scorecard’s individual indicators.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBLE SOURCING
INDICATOR CATEGORIES % WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY UPDATES FOR THE SECOND

EDITION OF THE LEADERBOARD
Commit 100%
Best practices for clean and equitable battery electric
Identify 150%
vehicle (BEV) supply chains are constantly developing.
Prevent, Mitigate and Account 200% As such, a number of minor adjustments to the
assessment framework were incorporated into the 2024
Remedy 200% edition of the Leaderboard. Some of the more material
changes are described below:
Within the Leaderboard, some indicators award

Fossil-free and Environmentally
points for participation in third party accreditation or Sustainable Supply Chains
certification schemes, commonly used by automak-
■ Definitions of “low-carbon” steel and aluminum
ers as part of their environmental and human rights have been equalized to align with the First
due diligence. Given the range of such schemes,3 Movers Coalition (FMC)5 and, in the case of steel,
a point modifier was developed (see box on page the IEA.
40) to account for the disparity with regards to their ■ Precision added with regards to the
robustness and effectiveness, with points being differentiation between pre- and post-consumer
modified progressively downwards for schemes that scrap for the steel and aluminum recycling
fail to meet multiple criteria for effective governance indicators. Achieving full points is contingent
on the inclusion of post-consumer scrap within
and auditing. This analysis of third party schemes
closed-loop processes.
has also been published as a standalone briefing.
■ Disaggregated indicators that include scoring
criteria related to industry certification schemes,
Within the fossil-free and environmentally sustain-
in order to allow for the application of the
able supply chains section, climate policy lobbying aforementioned point modifier.
is also considered as an additional factor, reflecting
■ Indicators on battery recycling expanded to
the important role automakers can play advocating account for different methods of recycling
for, rather than against, government efforts to raise batteries.
standards and create a race to the top. As such, ■ Explicit reference made to smaller batteries as a
the Leaderboard includes a weighting that modifies way to score points within the indicator related to
automakers’ overall scores in this section according reducing demand for minerals.
to their ratings in InfluenceMap’s evaluations of auto-
makers’ climate lobbying policies and practices.4 Human rights
■ Multi-stakeholder initiatives other than IRMA no

The indicators and score weightings provide the longer meet the threshold required to score under
framework for assessing the automakers. Company the mining supplier audit indicator. Research
policies and activities were then analyzed, which highlighted that currently only the IRMA audit
was limited to reviewing official company disclosures standard can be considered robust enough to
as opposed to press releases, media or third-party qualify.
reports. This focus on company disclosures was

Which companies are we looking at?
The companies assessed within the Leaderboard policies and reporting (the alliance also includes
were selected because they are the largest produc- Mitsubishi, which was not included in this year’s
ers of BEVs within specific regions, or are the largest scorecard as it constituted a slim share of the alli-
global automakers. As such, the Leaderboard is ance’s total EV sales). For the same reason Hyundai
focused on companies that are, or could be, leading and Kia were evaluated separately in the scorecard
the transition to electric vehicles and who can there- despite having combined sales data.
fore play a pivotal role in creating a race to the top
on EV supply chain practices. All automakers were contacted before publication to
provide the results and the opportunity for discus-
The companies selected are listed below. R-N-M Alli- sion, questions, clarifications, and feedback. All
ance sales data includes both Renault and Nissan, feedback received was reviewed, and where perti-
which were evaluated individually in the scorecard nent, incorporated into the final Leaderboard scores
owing to them having largely separate operations, and this resulting report.
Automakers included within the analysis:
OEM BEV Sales Total Vehicle BEV % Headquartered

Sales Country
BMW Group 165,303 1,286,153 13% Germany
BYD 711,556 1,474,077 48% China
Ford 43,570 1,763,257 2% United States
GAC 265,391 439,253 60% China
Geely Auto Group 172,105 690,161 25% China
GM 311,070 2,597,538 12% United States
Honda Motor 9,334 1,777,932 1% Japan
Hyundai Motor (inc. Hyundai and Kia) 191,560 2,584,073 7% South Korea
Mercedes-Benz Group 138,207 1,264,493 11% Germany
R-N-M Alliance (inc. Renault and Nissan) 152,517 2,302,027 7% France/Japan
SAIC 60,351 180,917 33% China
Stellantis 151,236 2,416,540 6% Netherlands
Tesla Inc. 945,119 945,119 100% United States
Toyota Motor Corp. 46,821 4,111,313 1% Japan
VW Group 370,513 4,145,279 9% Germany
Volvo Car Group 88,156 378,671 23% Sweden

Source: EV-Volumes OEM Share tracker. All figures are YTD up to and including July 2023. Data covers passenger vehicles only and covers
Europe, China, South Korea, Japan, and USA and Canada.

CASE STUDY
The importance of equitable, sustainable and fossil-free

automotive supply chains: a case study on nickel mining
and processing in Indonesia
Written by Mighty Earth, Earthworks, Climate Rights International, Rainforest Foundation Norway
Indonesia produces 48.8% of the world’s nickel, a industrial operations and does not connect to the
quantity expected to grow further as demand for country’s electricity grid. As more nickel smelting
electric vehicles increases. With rising demand, facilities are built, more captive coal plants are
companies are turning to lower-grade laterite nickel being built in Indonesia. Continued use of captive
which must be processed into higher-quality, battery coal plants in nickel mining will lead to Indonesia’s
grade nickel, a process which can produce as much ranking as one of the world’s biggest emitters. Coal
as twice the carbon emissions of the industry consumption in Indonesia increased 33% from 2021
average. While electric vehicles are a necessary to 2022, contributing to a 20.3% increase in the
piece of solving the climate crisis, the nickel industry country’s greenhouse gas emissions in just one year.
must improve extractive and processing practices to The Indonesia Morowali Industrial Park alone has as
protect the people and biodiversity of Indonesia. much coal power capacity as Pakistan or Mexico.
Environmental groups are advocating for the early
Links to Deforestation and Biodiversity Destruction retirement of coal-fired power plants in Indonesia,
In an analysis of 329 nickel mining concessions, including captive coal plants, in order to mitigate
Mighty Earth found associated operations have climate impacts.
driven up to 378,970 acres of deforestation in
Indonesia since 2000. Of the top nickel deforesters, Toxic Waste and Harms to Communities
many are clearing land in High Carbon Stock forest The Indonesian nickel industry is increasingly
and Key Biodiversity Areas, and over 1.2 million turning to High Pressure Acid Leaching (HPAL), a
acres of forest are at risk inside nickel concessions toxic process that leaves behind a massive amount
in Indonesia. Sulawesi, a biodiversity hotspot, of waste. In some cases, this waste is dumped
contains 3.7 million acres of forested, mineral-
directly into rivers, lakes, and oceans, through a
rich land and 36% of these acres are occupied by
process known as submarine tailings disposal.
nickel concessions. As mines operate in ecologically
Toxic runoff from mining and smelting operations
valuable rainforest and easily disrupted island
contaminates drinking water for communities who
ecosystems, nickel mining poses significant
rely on nearby aquifers and rivers. In Sulawesi,
biodiversity risks to Indonesia, which would impact
water pollution from the Indonesia Morowali
its forests’ ability to act as a carbon sink.
Industrial Park reduces available fish, impacting
the community’s livelihoods. On Halmahera Island,
Increased Emissions & Captive Coal drinking water for local communities is threatened
Mining and refining yields high emissions due by excessive pollution from companies like PT Weda
to fossil fuel use and land use change. Because Bay Nickel. While Indonesian environmental laws
Indonesian laterite nickel ore is low-quality, should protect against pollution of this sort, Climate
processing it into battery grade nickel is carbon Rights International highlights that the laws lack
intensive, with roughly two to five times more sufficient enforcement while the national government
emissions than processing sulfide nickel ore mined prioritizes industrial development over environmental
in temperate countries, like Canada and Russia. protection. The Indonesian government is currently
barring nickel companies from dumping waste into
Nickel industrial parks are largely dependent on the sea, but their on-land storage alternative may
captive coal, meaning coal is burned solely to feed not be safer.

Tailings facilities are used to house leftover waste Guidelines and standards, such as the Initiative
from the mining process. If tailings are not stored for Responsible Mining Assurance, exist to
properly, facility failures can be catastrophic, exem- help mines adopt best practices. Transport &
plified by a 2019 mine tailings dam collapse in Brazil Environment recommends dedicated biodiversity
which killed 272 people. At these facilities, pollution conservation practices, in addition to dry stacking
and dust increase health risks, such as tuberculosis as a form of tailings management. Earthworks’
and respiratory infections, in nearby communities. “Safety First: Guidelines for Responsible Mine
In 2022, coal-fired power plants in Indonesia were Tailings Management” include recommendations
responsible for 10,500 deaths and $7.4 billion USD that ban dangerous tailings facilities, bolster safety
in health costs. regulations and adopt comprehensive evacuation
and emergency plans.
Ongoing Violations of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
Nickel mining and refining in Indonesia poses Climate Rights International’s “Nickel Unearthed”
significant threats to the rights of Indigenous Peo- report documents human rights and environmental
ples, including the right to provide Free, Prior, and abuses related to nickel mining and smelting in
Informed Consent (FPIC). For example, the Honga- North Maluku, and provides recommendations,
na Manyawa, an uncontacted tribe, is threatened focused on protecting the environment, climate, and
by nickel mining as their customary territory was human rights, to mining and smelting companies, the
non-consensually granted by the Indonesian govern-
Indonesian government, EV companies, and foreign
ment to mining companies who are encroaching on
governments.
their land. The traditional livelihood of the Hongana
Manyawa tribe is dependent on the forest, and any
contact from outsiders threatens their health and The Indonesian government and companies sourcing
safety due to the risk of violence and a lack of com- Indonesian nickel must ensure that people, forests,
mon immunity from disease. biodiversity, and the climate are not devastated by
harmful mining and processing practices.
Future of Nickel Mining in Indonesia
The Indonesian nickel mining industry threatens land
and people via economic incentives that drive de-
forestation, systemic corruption, and legal amnesty
for problematic mining practices in protected forest
areas. Moreover, the Indonesian nickel industry cur-
rently operates without traceability and transparency;
there is no production data or traceability for individ-
ual mines or standards for producer disclosure.
Environmental groups and US government officials

are pushing for strong social, environmental and
labor protections in the Indonesian nickel mining
industry. In October 2023, a bipartisan letter from
U.S. Senators warned against a potential critical
minerals agreement (CMA) with Indonesia, citing
concerns over labor and community protections,
biodiversity impacts, and CO2 emissions. Indone-
sian civil society groups and US NGOs also released
letters expressing concerns about a CMA, pushing
for binding environmental and social safeguards in
any agreement to expand access to nickel or other
critical minerals.
A nickel mine on Indonesia’s Kabaena Island by Ian Morse

CHAPTER 003
Leaderboard
Findings

The Lead the Charge Leaderboard assesses the
world’s leading EV makers on their efforts to eliminate
emissions, environmental harms, and human rights
violations from their supply chains. Disclosures from
the 18 automakers selected were analyzed and
assessed against the scorecard’s criteria outlined in
the accompanying methodology. The results from
this assessment are presented below and can also
be found on the Lead the Charge website.
Overall scores and changes from 2023

This year saw some real advances. Apart from
Volkswagen, all companies included within the
first Leaderboard evaluation saw an improvement
in their score this year. This meant that, for those
scored in both years, automakers saw their average
score improve by a quarter of what they achieved
previously, rising from 16% to 20%.
However, this pace of change will need to be signifi-

cantly accelerated if the auto industry is to suc-
cessfully rise to the challenge ahead. No company
achieved a total score over 50%, and the average
score across all automakers was just 19%. Compa-
nies’ average score was slightly higher for human
rights and responsible sourcing (21%) than for fossil
free and environmentally sustainable supply chains
(16%).
Better performance is possible. The 2024 Leader-

board saw a change in the top performing automak-
er: Ford, with a score of 42%, displaced Mercedes
(with 40%) from the top spot. Ford continues to
be the industry leader of the human rights section
and also increased its ranking on the climate and
environmental indicators from fifth to fourth place.
Mercedes, meanwhile, continues to perform well
across the two sections - finishing second in both.

Lead the Charge Leaderboard
FOSSIL FREE AND HUMAN RIGHTS OVERALL
RANK AUTOMAKER ENVIRONMENTALLY AND RESPONSIBLE LEADERBOARD
SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAINS SOURCING SCORE
01 29% 54% 42%
02 36% 44% 40%
03 31% 39% 35%
04 36% 27% 32%
05 16% 37% 27%
06 25% 26% 26%
07 17% 31% 24%
08 19% 26% 22%
09 17% 21% 19%
10 12% 18% 15%
11 12% 15% 13%
12 15% 6% 10%
13 7% 9% 8%
14 4% 11% 8%
15 5% 9% 7%
16 1% 5% 4%
17 3% 1% 2%
18 2% 0% 1%

Tesla was the big improver of the year. The EV manu- Ford (up 9 percentage points overall) was the second
facturer increased its Leaderboard performance by biggest improver of the year, followed closely by GM
21 percentage points, moving Tesla’s ranking from (up 7 percentage points). Both automakers achieved
ninth last year into the top three this year. Tesla’s im- notable improvements in each of the fossil-free and
provements demonstrate what other automakers can environmentally sustainable supply chains subsec-
achieve with more dedicated effort. Tesla improved tions. Particularly prominent was the progress they
across all eight subsections of the Leaderboard — made against the steel and aluminum indicators:
the only automaker to do so — with changes most both automakers are now members of the First
noticeable in the fossil free and environmentally Movers Coalition’s groups on steel and aluminum,
sustainable supply chains section (up 20 percentage and have accordingly made commitments to use
points and boosted a further 20% due to Tesla’s a proportion of low-carbon steel and aluminum by
positive climate lobbying record). 2030. Both companies also backed these stated
commitments by signing offtake agreements for
A significant factor in this was Tesla going from the
low-carbon steel, while also making improvements
minority of automakers not disclosing its scope 3
with regards to steel and aluminum recycling. Togeth-
supply chain emissions at all last year to becoming
er with Tesla, these US automakers improved their
the only company to disclose disaggregated supply
performance on steel and aluminum considerably:
chain emissions by steel, aluminum and battery pro-
achieving an average score increase of 19 percent-
duction this year. The company also made important
age points against these indicators, compared to an
improvements within the responsible transition min-
average increase of just 1 percentage point that was
eral sourcing subsection (up 29 percentage points).
attained by the remaining fifteen automakers against
In addition, Tesla has a revised requirement on
the same indicators.
Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free, Prior and Informed
Consent (FPIC) in its responsible sourcing policy, and These improvements resulted in Ford claiming the
now discloses specific, albeit insufficient, informa- top spot from Mercedes, with Tesla displacing Volvo
tion on the risks to Indigenous Peoples’ rights that it for third place. Mercedes and Volvo did enhance
has identified through its broader human rights due their overall performance, increasing their scores by
diligence assessment of human rights risks in its 3 and 2 percentage points respectively, but it was
supply chain. not enough to retain their 2023 positions.

Following Volvo in the rankings are three additional across any of the four subsections of the fossil-free
European automakers: Stellantis, Volkswagen and and environmentally sustainable supply chains
BMW. These companies all achieved scores around section of the Leaderboard. Toyota’s lack of progress
one quarter to one third of the total points available. within the year saw its ranking drop from 12 to 15.
Stellantis and BMW improved their performance over
last year, but Volkswagen did not, resulting in the The Leaderboard includes Chinese manufacturers
German automaker falling from fourth to sixth place that are making significant progress on the transi-
in the rankings. tion to electric vehicles but provide relatively little
disclosure on the management of environmental
Although not a top performer nor seeing a big shift
and social issues and risks in their supply chains.
in its overall score, it is noteworthy that Renault did
These companies have scope to rapidly improve their
see its score within the battery subsection rise by
disclosures, policies and practices to close the gap
13 percentage points, since it established a new
with their competitors, especially as they seek to en-
circular economy business unit developing closed
ter and expand their presence in other markets. For
loop battery recycling and signed a new purchasing
example, BYD is one of the automakers leading the
agreement for low-carbon cobalt.
transition to EVs but performs poorly when it comes
Japanese and South Korean companies trailed their to clean and equitable supply chains.
US and European peers, with overall scores aver-
aging around the 10% mark. Honda and Toyota are Indeed, Geely showed this year that considerable
not only the worst performers of the Leaderboard improvements can be achieved. The automaker,
when it comes to the transition to EVs (see table in already leading the East Asian automakers in the
the “Which companies are we looking at?” section fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply
above), but are also poor performers when it comes chains section, achieved the largest score increase
to decarbonizing their supply chains and ensuring in the headline human rights subsection (16 percent-
respect for human rights. In fact, Toyota was the age points) and was the second strongest improver
only company that did not achieve a score increase across all the human rights indicators (after Tesla).
Figure 1 — Scores and ranks in 2023 and 2024

Performance by individual automakers varies within Within the fossil free and environmentally sustainable
and between each section. For example, Ford ranked supply chains section, there were steady and consis-
in fourth place in the fossil free and environmentally tent improvements of around 4-6 percentage points
sustainable supply chains section but was first for across the steel, aluminum, battery and general indi-
human rights and responsible sourcing, performing cators. Across these sections major advances were
particularly well on its approach to transition made by the biggest improving automakers – ranging
minerals, for which it scored 86%. Conversely, Volvo between 15 to 30 percentage points.
was ahead of all other automakers in its approach In addition to the aforementioned progress made
to fossil free and environmentally sustainable on steel and aluminum decarbonization, closed-loop
supply chains but did less well, ranking sixth, for its battery recycling was another area of improvement
approach to human rights and responsible sourcing. this year. BMW, Geely, GM, Mercedes, Renault, Tesla
These differences are explored in more detail in the and Volkswagen all made progress in developing
following section of this report. or establishing closed loop recycling processes for
battery minerals. Meanwhile, Chinese automakers
Such statistics indicate that there is significant scope BYD and GAC saw progress in bringing to market new
for improvement by companies. Indeed, over half of lithium-ion battery technologies that do not use cobalt
the indicators saw at least one automaker score full or nickel.
points. In addition, if an automaker met the best-
Automakers also made notable progress in the
in-class standards (i.e. the highest score attained
“General” human rights subsection, which provides
across all automakers) against each of the indicators
a baseline assessment of automakers’ efforts to
they would achieve an overall score of over 70%.
address human rights risks and impacts within their
This demonstrates that automakers can achieve supply chains. The average score of this subsection
radical improvements simply by matching the best rose by 6 percentage points, driven in part by im-
practice of their peers across different areas. Such provements made by Tesla, Geely, Stellantis, BMW
opportunities are the focus of the “Where is there and BYD - all of which increased their scores between
room for improvement?” section of the report. 9 and 18 percentage points.
Figure 2 — Percentage point change by section

However, there was noticeably less progress within sive changes that are required after child labor was
the human rights section on responsible transition documented throughout Hyundai’s supply chain in
mineral sourcing, Indigenous Peoples’ rights and Alabama. Indeed, Hyundai was criticized by labor
workers’ rights. The average scores against these in- groups in Georgia and Alabama in 2023 for multiple
dicators rose by 2, 1 and 3 percentage points respec- allegations regarding workers’ rights abuses in its
tively. Particularly concerning is the lack of progress supply chain in the US, and called on the company
on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, already the subsection to implement third party monitoring of its suppliers
with the lowest average score. Thirteen companies and sign a community benefits agreement with local
demonstrated no improvement at all on this issue, communities. To date, these demands have gone
resulting in an average score across all automakers unanswered.
of just 4%. This is clearly an issue that must be priori- A similar picture emerges on transition minerals
tized by the auto industry moving forward. and Indigenous rights. For example, despite Ford’s
Finally, even when companies have made progress industry leading approach to the responsible
on their human rights due diligence policies and sourcing of transition minerals and the significant
practices, important gaps remain with regards to improvements that Tesla made in this area during
their effective implementation. For example, Tesla 2023, both companies (together with Volkswagen)
achieved additional points this year in the workers’ were identified by Climate Rights International (CRI)
rights subsection for updating its human rights policy as downstream buyers of the nickel processed in
with explicit commitments to the Five ILO Principles the IWIP facility in Indonesia, which CRI linked to a
(previously freedom of association and the elimina- series of human rights and environmental abuses.
tion of discrimination were omitted). But in 2023, GM, meanwhile, is one of the few companies with
Tesla was criticized for not respecting workers’ an explicit requirement for its suppliers to respect
rights to collective bargaining in Sweden. Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free, Prior and Informed
Consent. However, the automaker has come under
Similarly, Hyundai scored additional points in this criticism for not taking action on this requirement
section for including some workers’ rights issues in when allegations were made against Lithium
its saliency assessment of human rights risks. How- Americas’ Thacker Pass mine for failing to respect
ever, these actions fall far short of the comprehen- FPIC (see box on page 50).

Who leads where? Fossil-free and Environmentally
Sustainable Supply Chains
With a total score of 36%, Volvo was the top perform-
er in the fossil-free and environmentally sustainable
section, outperforming its overall leaderboard posi-
tion of fourth place. Volvo was very closely followed
by Mercedes. The assessment shows that Mercedes
would have attained the top spot had it received a
better rating on climate lobbying from InfluenceMap.
Ford finished in fourth in the fossil-free and environ-

mentally sustainable section, though the score dif-
ference compared to being top-ranked in the human
rights section was marked: 29% compared to 53%,
respectively. Stellantis also had a wide divide with a
21 percentage point gap between the two sections,
performing much better on human rights and respon-
sible sourcing than fossil-free and environmentally
sustainable. Overall, most companies’ scores were
lower for the fossil-free and environmentally sustain-
able section.
Figure 3 — Differences in fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply chain scores
30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
lvo
sla
en
rd
GM
lt
is
ai
an
ta
IC
el
de
nd
Ki
au
GA
BY
nt
nd
BM
SA
yo
Fo
ag
ss
Ge
Vo
Te
ce
la
Ho
n
To
u
Ni
sw
Re
el
Hy
er
St
lk
M
Vo
Difference in fossil-free and environmentally Difference in climate and environment score

sustainable score versus sector average versus company’s human rights score

Tesla was the biggest improver within the section, the aluminum section. Ford was another strong
with notable improvements in its approach on its improver, due in large part due to its work on steel
steel, aluminum and battery supply chains, which decarbonization.
resulted in a 24 percentage point improvement
overall and a ranking of third place. GM’s score Other companies saw much slower progress, with the
jumped by 13 percentage points because of European automakers Volkswagen, Volvo and BMW,
improvements in its efforts on steel and aluminum together with the Chinese automaker GAC, making
decarbonization, whilst Mercedes saw a modest very modest improvements, and Toyota made no
increase due to strong improvements within progress at all.
Figure 4 — Percentage point improvements in the fossil-free and environmentally

sustainable supply chain sections

CASE STUDY
France’s eco-bonus shows how we can promote cleaner

EVs, and why automakers should act now on their supply
Written by Transport & Environment
In September 2023, France announced new green In fact, imported electric vehicles manufactured with
eligibility rules for awarding electric vehicle subsidies a highly carbon-intensive energy mix will not qualify
- a first in environmental policymaking. Starting in for the financial incentive and will lose some of their
2024, the government incentive of €5,000 - €7,000 competitive edge.
will only be awarded to electric cars with a production
carbon footprint below 14.75 tonnes of CO2.
The French initiative is a promising tool to address
and reduce the high carbon footprint of the automo-
The French green bonus aims to reduce the tive industry and could be replicated by other Euro-
environmental impact of cars, incentivis-
pean countries. Italy has already expressed interest
ing clean materials and energy for vehicle
in the approach. But for this incentive scheme to
production, while also supporting domestic
be replicated in a truly effective way across Europe,
industry.
broader harmonization and alignment is essential.

General indicators
The general fossil-free and environmentally sustain- setting with a goal to reduce upstream emissions by
able indicators provide an overall baseline score for 40% per BEV by 2030 and to be net zero across the
the section. It seeks to capture a company’s general whole value chain by 2038 (however, the company
approach to reducing supply chain carbon emissions provides no indication these targets have been
and environmental harms, providing the foundations verified as science-based). Ford improved its score
for automakers to take more targeted action on their by 21 percentage points by making progress on
steel, aluminum and battery supply chains. incentivizing and monitoring efforts by suppliers
to reduce their GHG emissions, including by
European automakers lead the charge in this
requiring all suppliers to submit science-based GHG
section. Mercedes, Volkswagen and BMW scored
reduction targets by the end of 2022. Tesla’s score,
similarly and were all close to gaining half of the
meanwhile, rose by 13 percentage points, in part
points available. Mercedes performed consistently
due to improved disclosure of scope 3 emissions for
well across the indicator categories and remained a
purchased goods and services.
leader in its approach to monitoring supplier compli-
ance with GHG targets: requiring that all suppliers GM also improved steadily, including with regard
set emissions reduction targets and disclosing the to improved processes for monitoring suppliers for
number of suppliers audited against these targets. compliance with GHG emissions reductions targets,
with the company outlining the questionnaire
Meanwhile, Volkswagen and BMW were the only
and audit process it employs to this end. Within
automakers to score full points for setting and
the general section, this indicator on monitoring
disclosing upstream scope 3 science-based targets.
suppliers saw the largest number of companies
For example, in addition to Volkswagen 2050 carbon
making strides with BMW, Ford, Geely, and Tesla also
neutrality goal it has a target to reduce emissions in
improving practices alongside GM.
the production phase of its vehicles by 50% by 2030.
Volkswagen was also the only company to score Within this section, Volkswagen and BMW ranked
full marks for incentivizing suppliers to reduce GHG much better than they did in the overall scorecard.
emissions, with the company stating that suppliers Conversely, despite its improvements within the
will not be awarded new contracts if they fail to meet year, Tesla finished 12th out of 18 on the general
Volkswagen’s expectations regarding environmental indicators – 9 places below its overall position. The
performance. company needs to make considerable improvements
in its approach to setting targets and using supply
Top five companies for general indicators
chain levers to reduce emissions and other
GENERAL OVERALL GENERAL environmental harms within its supply chain if it
RANK RANK (CLIMATE AND
ENVIRONMENT) wants to catch up with industry peers like Mercedes
SCORE
and BMW.
1 Mercedes 2 47%
Automakers on the whole performed reasonably
2 Volkswagen 6 46% well when it came to overall strategies to quantify,
manage and reduce overall GHG emissions in their
3 BMW 7 46% supply chain: 14 of the 18 companies analyzed
4 Ford 1 44% disclose their scope 3 GHG emissions for purchased
goods and services specifically. Only SAIC, BYD and
5 Stellantis 5 40% GAC did not provide any information on their scope
3 emissions. Honda scored half points for disclosing
The general fossil-free and environmentally overall scope 3 emissions but failing to adequately
sustainable section saw big improvements by some disaggregate this data.
companies. Stellantis jumped 25 percentage points,
partly through improvements to scope 3 target

Fossil free and environmentally Mercedes was another strong performer on steel
sustainable steel decarbonization, scoring particularly well in the
The Leaderboard provides more detailed analysis of supply chain levers section. In this section, Mercedes
environmental performance on key supply chains. scored points for also being a member of Responsib-
The first of these is steel which, together with iron, leSteel, for disclosing information on the closed loop
forms on average around 16% of an EV’s supply process it has implemented for steel at its Sindelfin-
chain emissions footprint and around 30% for gen plant, and for signing offtake agreements with
internal combustion engines vehicles.As such, the H2 Green Steel, Salzgitter and SSAB to purchase
leaderboard awards points to companies for dis- green steel (the largest number of advance purchase
closing the emissions from their steel supply chains, agreements for green steel signed by a single auto-
setting targets and reporting on progress to reduce maker).
these emissions, and using their leverage as major After Volvo and Mercedes, a significant reordering of
buyers of steel to accelerate the decarbonization of the top five scoring automakers for this section has
this industry, which is responsible for approximately occurred between 2023 and 2024. Geely, Hyundai
7-9% of the world’s GHG emissions. Automakers are and Volkswagen all lost their spot in the top five, and
also awarded points for their efforts to recover and were replaced by Tesla, Ford, and GM.
recycle steel.
Top five companies for fossil free and
Overall, the 2024 edition of the Leaderboard shows environmentally sustainable steel indicators
notable momentum behind automaker efforts to
decarbonize the steel used in their vehicles. STEEL RANK OVERALL STEEL
RANK SCORE
1 Volvo 4 47%
In 2023, over half of automakers scored 0%
on steel and over three quarters scored less 2 Mercedes 2 24%
than 10%. But in 2024, this dropped to one
third and just over one third, respectively. 3 Tesla 3 22%
4 Ford 1 17%
This suggests that pressure from civil society, in-
vestors and regulators over the past year has been 5 GM 8 17%
successful in transforming steel decarbonization
from a marginal issue for the auto industry into a Tesla’s ascent from joint last place last year to the
mainstream one. third spot in 2024 was due entirely to the progress
that the company has made regarding its scope 3
Volvo continues to be the clear industry leader on
emissions disclosures. In an industry first, Tesla is
steel: receiving a score of 47%, nearly double that of
now the only company to disclose disaggregated
the second highest scorer, Mercedes. Volvo’s strong
GHG emissions specifically for its steel supply
performance is down to the company setting targets
chain. The company discloses that steel emissions
to increase the amount of fossil free and recycled
constitute 8% of its Scope 3 emissions for categories
steel in its vehicles; disclosing information on their
1 (purchased goods and services) and 4 (upstream
closed-loop recycling processes for steel, as well
logistics).
as the percentage of recycled steel currently used
in its vehicles; and signing an advanced purchase GM and Ford also achieved significant score
agreement with SSAB for fossil-free steel, which will increases on steel, jumping from 0% to 17%. GM and
be supplied to the automaker at a commercial scale Ford’s improvements came on the back of better
by 2026. Additionally, it is the only automaker to be target setting for fossil-free steel: both companies
a member of both SteelZero and ResponsibleSteel - are now members of the First Movers Coalition’s
two key multi-stakeholder initiatives working to drive sector group on steel and have accordingly set
steel decarbonization and responsible steelmaking. targets to ensure that at least 10% of all their steel

purchased per year will be near-zero emissions company has set a target for its tier 1 core suppliers
by 2030. The automakers also scored points for to use 20% recycled steel by 2025, provides
entering into formal agreements with suppliers information on its closed loop recycling processes
to incentivize investment in fossil-free steel: Ford for steel and discloses the percentage of recycled
discloses that it has entered into memorandums steel parts within the Zeekr 001 model, which uses
of understanding with strategic suppliers for low- 15% renewable steel sheet materials. Meanwhile,
carbon steel, while GM has recently established an Stellantis, which ranked fifth overall, did particularly
agreement with U.S. Steel for low-carbon steel. poorly regarding steel, scoring no points at all.
Volkswagen and Nissan also improved their scores Stellantis was joined by Honda, Toyota, GAC, BYD,
on this indicator, with Volkswagen having signed and SAIC in meeting none of the scorecard’s criteria
agreements with H2 Green Steel and Salzgitter on steel decarbonization.
AG, and Nissan signing an agreement with Kobe
With companies scoring an average of just 11% on
Steel. However, it should be noted that the latter
the steel indicators, there are several notable areas
agreement is for reduced-emissions steel that will
for improvement. Only Volvo and Geely scored points
still be produced in coal-fired blast furnaces, and so
for setting targets to increase the amount of recycled
lacks the ambition of the green steel procurement
steel used in their vehicles. Additionally, very few
agreements signed by other automakers.
automakers collaborate with key multi-stakeholder
Despite losing its place in the top five ranking, Geely initiatives (SteelZero, First Movers Coalition, and
still ranks better in the steel section than it does ResponsibleSteel) to drive greater production of
elsewhere in the scorecard, coming in sixth place fossil-free and environmentally responsible steel;
with a score of 16%. The company’s score is due GM, Ford, Volvo, and Mercedes were the only
to its efforts on recovering and recycling steel: the automakers to have joined these initiatives.

CASE STUDY
Car manufacturers are gearing up in the

race for clean steel
Written by Climate Group
The global market for green steel, or steel that is Steel producers are listening to their customers.
processed without relying on burning coal or energy Up to 32 green steel projects have been launched
derived from fossil fuels, is showing real promise with already. But this needs to be more than doubled by
technological innovation slashing emissions from 2030. Meanwhile, agreements between steel buyers
production and a growing number of major compa- and producers, such as Volvo Cars and SSAB show-
nies demanding low-emission steel. However, in or- case how demand can drive action.
der to accelerate the decarbonization of the industry,
Policy is catching up as well. The EU implemented its
increased investment and stronger net zero commit-
Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) that
ments from steelmakers are required this year. will slap higher costs on imported steel with higher
Shifting to clean steel will require steel users to emissions than domestic steel. This is expected to
demand it. Since the automotive industry accounts cover cars and other steel-containing products in fu-
for 12% of global steel demand, automakers will ture. Negotiations around the Global Arrangement on
play a crucial role in speeding up the shift to clean Sustainable Steel and Aluminum (GASSA) between
the EU and the US could see barriers to prevent high-
steel. SteelZero, an initiative led by Climate Group, is
er emission steel being imported into the US. Mean-
working with demand side companies to set industry
while, China has introduced incentives to increase
ambition, showcase leadership and shape best prac-
the electrification of domestic steel production and
tice. In the automotive sector, Volvo Cars, Polestar
improve scrap use.
and SKF have made SteelZero commitments to use
50% low-emission steel by 2030 and 100% net zero With demand for clean steel growing at pace and fa-
steel by 2050, alongside over 40 other global com- vorable global policy facilitating a shift in the market,
panies including Maersk, Iberdrola, Mace, Lendlease automakers need to get on board now or risk falling
and CIMC TCREA. behind.

Fossil free and environmentally Top five companies for fossil free and
sustainable aluminum environmentally sustainable aluminum indicators
Aluminum is another major contributor to emissions STEEL RANK OVERALL ALUMINUM
within the automotive supply chain, accounting for RANK SCORE
an estimated 27% of the supply chain emissions of 1 Volvo 4 37%
BEVs. Aluminum is used for a wide variety of vehicle
components, particularly in electric vehicles as auto- 2 Tesla 3 30%
makers compensate for heavier batteries with lighter
chassis and panels. 3 Mercedes 2 28%
4 Ford 1 27%
Shifting to clean energy sources and using
new technologies to eliminate direct CO2
5 GM 8 20%
emissions from the refining and smelting
processes are key to decarbonizing alumi-
num production.
The biggest improver within the year was Tesla,
achieving a score increase of 30 percentage points.
Maximizing secondary aluminum production is also This was in part for disclosing its disaggregated
critical to reducing emissions. The IEA projects that
aluminum emissions, which constitute 18% of its
the combined share of aluminum produced from re-
upstream Scope 3 emissions. It was also due to
cycled new and old scrap needs to reach nearly 40%
the company outlining its in-house aluminum alloy
(at least 70% of this from old scrap) by 2030 to meet
development, “which allows for recycled inputs to
net zero. In addition to evaluating automakers efforts
be utilized in high-performance applications.” These
to decarbonize primary aluminum production, the
improvements saw Tesla jump from joint last place
Leaderboard therefore also assesses their approach-
into second place.
es to building closed loop processes for aluminum
through recycling and recovery, which should include Mercedes was another strong performer, improving
both pre- and post-consumer scrap. its score from 10% to 28%. Mercedes’ performance
especially stood out in relation to the supply chain
As with steel, Volvo continues to top the Leaderboard
levers indicators, in part due to signing a letter of
on aluminum, albeit with a lower score (37%). Volvo
intent with a supplier to “develop and introduce, by
has set 2025 targets for both primary aluminum
decarbonization (to reach 4kg CO2 per kilogram on 2030, aluminum for automotive applications that
ingot level aluminum) and on recycled aluminum (to is practically CO2 -free.” This improvement, along-
use 40% recycled aluminum by 2025, which is slight- side improved upstream target setting, meant the
ly below the 42% specified by IEA Net Zero pathway, German automaker saw its ranking on aluminum
but 5 years earlier). Volvo also scored points for be- advance from sixth to third place.
ing a member of the First Movers Coalition’s sector The East Asian automakers on the whole performed
group on aluminum, and for disclosing information poorly on aluminum, with BYD, SAIC, GAC, Toyota,
on its closed loop processes for aluminum, including
Honda and Kia all scoring 0%. Geely and Nissan
the current percentage of recycled aluminum used in
were notable outliers: scoring 13% and 11% re-
its production cycle (10%).
spectively. As with steel, Geely’s score is down to its
Volvo was the only company to retain its position in work on aluminum recovery and recycling, providing
the top five ranking automakers on aluminum this detail on its closed-loop processes for aluminum and
year. Volkswagen, Nissan and Geely all lost their setting a target for its “tier 1 core suppliers” to use
spots in the top five, being replaced by Tesla, Mer- “30% recycled aluminum by 2025.” Nissan, mean-
cedes and GM. Ford, meanwhile, continues to score while, scored additional points for its collaboration
amongst the top five, but has dropped from second with Kobe Steel Ltd. to procure aluminum produced
to fourth place. exclusively with solar energy.

The Leaderboard signals specific areas for wide- to recover batteries from sold products, which have
spread improvement by companies. As with steel, led to year-over-year increase in absolute volume
only Tesla currently discloses its scope 3 emissions of materials available for recovery. Tesla also had a
for its aluminum supply chain. A key multi-stakehold- higher baseline score from the 2023 edition of the
er initiative for driving aluminum decarbonization is Leaderboard for this section, thanks to its efforts
the First Movers Coalition; however, only Ford and on battery recycling and on directly sourcing battery
GM are members of its aluminum sector group. Addi- minerals with contracts that include environmental
tionally, just two companies, Mercedes and Nissan, requirements, allowing the company to ascend to
have disclosed advance purchase agreements with first place.
aluminum suppliers to facilitate greater investment
and production of low-CO2 aluminum, which is sig- Mercedes followed closely behind Tesla on batteries,
nificantly lower than the number of automakers that scoring 32%. Mercedes achieved score increases in
have done so for steel (7 in total). this section primarily for its work on battery recycling:
the company is building a battery recycling facility in
Fossil free and environmentally Kuppenheim, where they aim to achieve an overall
sustainable batteries recovery rate of 96%, which they plan to further
Battery technology is at the heart of decarbonizing increase by 2025.
the automotive industry. Yet, battery supply chains
Stellantis ranked third for sustainable battery indi-
are a significant source of supply chain GHG
cators with a score of 29%. This position contrasts
emissions for electric vehicles. Like steel and markedly with its performance on steel (0%) and
aluminum supply chains, their production creates aluminum (4%). The company’s leading position was
additional environmental impacts on water, air also due to its investments in battery recycling and in
pollution and biodiversity. cobalt-free battery chemistries. The automaker has
Supply chain GHG emissions are largely from the entered into contractual agreements with suppliers
extraction, smelting and refining processes, with cell for zero carbon lithium and low carbon nickel.
manufacturing constituting a smaller, but not insig- Top five companies for fossil free and environmen-
nificant, share. Reducing the emissions footprint of tally sustainable batteries indicators
batteries can occur in a variety of ways, including
by reducing the use of emissions intensive miner- STEEL RANK OVERALL BATTER
RANK SCORE
als, increasing the amount of recycled content and
using renewable energy for mineral refining and cell 1 Tesla 3 33%
manufacturing. The scorecard reflects these prior-
2 Mercedes 2 32%
ities, while focusing on three key battery minerals:
nickel, lithium and cobalt. In addition to emissions, it 3 Stellantis 5 29%
also captures wider environmental impacts, including
biodiversity loss, water pollution and mining tailings 4 Renault 9 28%
waste.
5 Volkswagen 6 26%
Tesla continued leading the industry with an overall
(though still low) score of 33% and achieved the high- After Tesla, Renault achieved the second largest
est score increase of 15 percentage points across score increase of 13 percentage points - placing the
battery supply chain indicators. As with steel and French automaker in fourth place, considerably bet-
aluminum, Tesla was the only automaker credited for ter than its ninth position overall. Renault improved
disclosing disaggregated scope 3 emissions data for in three main areas: target setting, mineral sourcing
its battery supply chain - which constituted 27% of its and battery recycling. The company has set a target
supply chain emissions in 2022. Alongside increased to reach 80% recycled material for cobalt, lithium
emission disclosure, Tesla improved its score by dis- and nickel in new batteries by 2030 - making Renault
closing the development of scalable battery recycling the only company to receive full points for this indica-
technologies, as well as of a reverse logistics system tor on setting targets to reduce demand for primary

battery minerals. With regards to mineral sourcing, More positively, 13 of the 18 companies assessed
Renault signed a new agreement with Managem for have established some form of closed loop process
less carbon-intensive cobalt sulfate, which it adds to for battery recycling. Encouragingly, two automakers -
existing agreements it had previously signed for the Mercedes and Volkswagen - disclosed investments in
supply of low-carbon nickel sulphite and zero-carbon new battery recycling technologies using hydrometal-
lithium. Finally, it also established a company, The lurgy processes that do not require energy intensive
Future is Neutral, which aims to become a leader in combustion processes.
short-loop battery recycling.
InfluenceMap weighting
The battery section of the Leaderboard also saw Public policy plays an important role in the transi-
improvements by Chinese automakers, principally in tion to truly clean cars. To ensure that a company
the area of investments in new battery chemistries is supporting climate-positive regulation and policy,
that reduce reliance on minerals including nickel, the scorecard includes a weighting for a company’s
lithium and cobalt. Both BYD and GAC brought to approach to policy advocacy. This weighting is based
market new generations of lithium iron phosphate on the work that InfluenceMap undertakes to assess
batteries with higher energy densities and free from corporations’ and industry groups’ influence on policy
nickel and cobalt. BYD also plans to bring to market needed to address climate change. Companies can
a sodium-ion battery, which uses relatively abundant receive a positive or negative score depending on
sodium in place of more scarce minerals. Geely whether they are positively advocating for climate
also made improvements with regards to battery change policies or judged to be doing the reverse.
recycling, providing qualitative information about a
Across the companies included within the scorecard,
network of collection points for used batteries.
Tesla has the most positive record on climate
However, progress was not widespread. There were lobbying, rated a ‘B,’ followed by Volvo with a B-.
worryingly few advances from Ford, BMW, GM, Geely, Alongside Tesla and Volvo, the companies gaining
Kia, Toyota, Nissan and Volvo within the year. Hon- positive weightings were: Mercedes, Volkswagen,
da was the only company not to receive any points Ford, GM, BYD and Nissan, which all received a C
for the indicators related to sustainable batteries. score from InfluenceMap. There were a number of
Several indicators were also only met by a very small automakers that had a downwards adjusted score as
number of automakers. Only Volkswagen and BMW a result of their approach to lobbying, these included:
disclosed a requirement for their suppliers to use Honda, Toyota, Kia, Hyundai, Renault, Stellantis, and
renewable energy to produce battery cells. With BMW.
regards to target-setting, Stellantis, Renault and
Mercedes were the sole automakers to set emissions
reductions targets for batteries, with Renault being
the only automaker to have set a 2030 target for
battery manufacturing specifically.

CASE STUDY
EV battery recycling: burning batteries is

not the way to go
Written by GAIA
Addressing the climate crisis requires batteries to and electrolyte (LiPF6). All too often, such facilities
store energy for stationary storage and mobility, but are sited in environmental justice communities,
more must be done to responsibly manage batteries exposing frontline communities and workers to toxic
throughout their lifecycle. GAIA has strong concerns emissions. Risks of PFAS release were for example
about the current practices of battery lifecycle a key factor in a grassroots victory in defeating a
management. The unchecked production of toxic proposal for a low-temperature pyrometallurgy facility
batteries with premature obsolescence, current in Endicott, New York.
end-of-life processing techniques (or “recycling”),
Additional concerns include low rates of material
and risks of waste colonialism are key environmental
recovery and significant greenhouse gas emissions:
justice challenges to be addressed in the transition
for every tonne of battery processed, approximately
to BEVs.
an astonishing four tonnes of carbon dioxide
Little is known about the fates of batteries retired will be emitted during the smelting process. The
from EVs, beyond a few references about less than pyrometallurgical process can also generate
5% of them being recycled. Today, the most common carbon tetrafluoride, a particular compound that
industry “recycling” proposal – whether industry is estimated to be 6630 times more potent than
labels it as pyrometallurgy or hydrometallurgy – is a carbon dioxide.
combination of thermal treatment, followed by acid-
leaching (hydrometallurgy). The thermal treatment
can either be pyrometallurgy smelting which is done
at a temperature ranging from 1400C to 1700C, or
lower-temperature incineration or pyrolysis which is
done at a temperature around or below 600C. Both
types of thermal treatment must be followed by
hydrometallurgy as a second step in order to recover
cobalt, copper, and nickel from the alloy or slag.
In case of pyrometallurgy smelting, lithium is not
recovered as it’s lost during the smelting process and
too costly to separate from slag.
The reliance on thermal processing of batteries

raises serious concerns about toxicity and carbon
intensity. Treating batteries with high-heat thermal
processing results in toxic emissions, ash and
other byproducts, in particular carcinogenic
emissions generated from burning nickel and
cobalt compounds and other toxic gasses such as
benzene (C6H6), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and
formaldehyde (CH2O), acid gas species hydrogen
fluoride (HF), and hydrogen bromide (HBr) released
at ambient temperature and upon heating. Burning
fluorinated polymers in batteries can also generate
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also
known as ‘forever chemicals,’ with fluorine coming
from decomposition of the electrode binder (PVDF)

Who leads where? Human Rights and
Responsible Sourcing
For decades, auto supply chains have been riddled 53% of the total points available in this section, illus-
with human rights and environmental abuses as a trating just how far the industry has to go. Mercedes
result of weak supply chain accountability policies came in second place with a score of 44%, followed
and harmful company practices. The transformation by Tesla, Stellantis and BMW.
of auto supply chains for the transition to EVs
presents an opportunity to put an end to these Scores in this section are brought down by a signif-
abuses, but without proactive intervention from icant drop in performance for the transition miner-
automakers, we risk replicating these abuses in EV als, Indigenous Peoples’ rights and workers’ rights
supply chains too. subsections. Whilst automakers scored an average
of 37% for their work on overall human rights due dil-
This section of the Leaderboard examines the igence (evaluated in the “General” subsection), the
policies, systems, and practices of automakers to average scores for the other three subsections fell to
address human rights risks and impacts in their 24%, 4% and 19% respectively.
supply chains. The indicators in this section are Overall, Ford scored 30 percentage points higher
structured around the UN Guiding Principles on than it scored within the fossil free and environmen-
Business and Human Rights to evaluate automakers
tally sustainable supply chains section. This pattern
human rights commitments; and their efforts to
is repeated for both Stellantis and BMW, which
identify, prevent, mitigate, account for, and remedy
scored 21 and 14 percentage points higher in the
human rights abuses in their supply chains.
human rights and responsible sourcing section. Mer-
Ford continues to lead the industry in the 2024 cedes and Tesla, however, achieved similar scores
edition of the Leaderboard, with a total score that across both sections - underlining the potential for
was 32 percentage points higher than the average automakers to make strong progress across both
industry score. However, the automaker only scored areas of the Leaderboard.
Figure 5 — Differences in human rights & responsible sourcing scores

Tesla topped the table for biggest improvers on Despite these notable improvements by individual
human rights within the year, increasing its overall companies, the industry-wide rate of progress on
score by 18 percentage points. It was the only com- upholding human rights and ensuring responsible
pany to make improvements in all four of the human sourcing is lagging in comparison to the efforts on
rights and responsible sourcing subsections, making supply chain decarbonization. The average score
significant strides in particular on the indicators relat- for this section rose by just 3 percentage points,
ed to transition minerals. compared to a 5 percentage point increase in the
average score for the fossil free and environmentally
Two Chinese companies (Geely and BYD) were also
in the top five biggest improvers. Geely, the best per- sustainable supply chain section. Moreover, in sub-
forming Chinese company within the Leaderboard, sections where performance was already weak im-
achieved the second largest score increase (16 provements were almost non-existent. In the case of
percentage points) for the General subsection. The Mercedes and Volkswagen, scores actually declined
specific changes implemented by the biggest improv- due to backsliding on transparency with regards to
ers are explored below. the smelters and refiners in their supply chains.
Figure 6 — Percentage point improvements in the human

rights and responsible sourcing section

General human rights indicators The company outlines their auditing process and
The General human rights section of the how they select suppliers to audit, providing quan-
Leaderboard provides a baseline assessment of how titative information about the number and type of
non-conformances found, as well as the percentage
effectively automakers are addressing human rights
of suppliers audited, both to date (32%) and this year
risks and impacts across their supply chains.
(0.60%).
On average, scores were higher for the general
Mercedes was the third-best performer, scoring 70%,
human rights indicators compared with the indicators
and was the only automaker to score full marks for
in the other human rights and responsible sourcing
the ‘Identify’ indicators. The company provides exten-
subsections. Automakers can, and should, build on
sive detail on their risk saliency assessment process,
this progress through targeted action to improve
specifying that this includes desktop reviews and in-
transition minerals sourcing and ensure the rights
terviews with external stakeholders, including NGOs
of Indigenous Peoples and workers are respected in and human rights experts. Mercedes also details
their supply chains. how and where salient human rights risks are pres-
Stellantis was the highest ranked automaker for this ent in its supply chain and describes the process for
subsection, scoring 76% - one of the highest scores identifying high risk suppliers, including the different
of the Leaderboard. The automaker performed factors considered.
particularly well across ‘Prevent, Mitigate and Within the general section other examples of notable
Account’ indicators, for which it scored 96%. This progress made by automakers include:
was due to the company’s strong procedures for
assessing human rights risks with suppliers before ■ Tesla improved its score by 18 percentage
entering into contracts, auditing suppliers during the points, with improvements on assessing salient
contract period and ensuring that corrective action human rights risks, supply chain mapping of
plans are implemented when nonconformances are its mineral sources to identify high-risk sup-
found. Stellantis also provides quantitative data on pliers and categories, and establishing a new
grievance mechanism, delivered through the
the operation of these procedures in practice, stating
third-party managed Integrity Line.
that 2,793 suppliers underwent CSR audits, 105
external social and environmental on-site audits ■ BMW made a number of improvements in its
were conducted and 468 suppliers were subject to assessment and auditing of human rights risks.
corrective action plans in 2022. It also provided further information with regards
to how it responds to non-conformances with
Ford came in second place in this subsection, trailing its supplier code of conduct and discloses the
Stellantis by four points. This was in part due to “proportion of supplier locations with identified
improvements relating to its grievance mechanism sustainability deficits and corrective measures
and to auditing suppliers during the contract period. agreed upon,” with this figure being 67% for
2022.
Top five companies for general human
rights indicators ■ Stellantis now provides significant quantita-
tive information on the numbers of grievances
GENERAL HUMAN OVERALL GENERAL HUMAN
RIGHTS RANK RANK RIGHTS SCORE received through its grievance mechanism, their
type and the outcomes, including convictions.
1 Stellantis 5 76%
■ Kia made improvements within the year, which
included providing an explanation of how the
2 Ford 1 72%
company assesses human rights risks with indi-
vidual suppliers (including Tier 2 suppliers) and
3 Mercedes 2 70%
disclosing quantitative data about the number of
suppliers that have undergone such an assess-
4 BMW 7 59%
ment. The company also has a grievance mecha-
nism to allow employees and stakeholders to
5 Volvo 4 53%
report human rights issues.

CASE STUDY
Advances in EU Regulations and implications

for automakers
Written by Transport & Environment
EU Battery regulation EU Critical Raw Materials Act

In August 2023 the landmark European Battery The European Critical Raw Materials act was agreed
Regulation went into force, setting product and end at the end of 2023, and represents Europe’s best
of life obligations for batteries placed on the EU effort to sustainably secure the minerals for its
market. green transition. The law includes key benchmarks,
including:
The law is a turning point in fostering responsible
sourcing practices, clean manufacturing via carbon ■ 10% of the transition minerals Europe will need
footprint obligations and recycling and recycled by 2030 to come from local extraction activities;
content obligations for batteries, among other
■ 40% of the transition minerals processed in
measures.
Europe, and
On responsible sourcing, companies placing ■ 25% of the volumes of transition minerals in
batteries on the market will have to identify, prevent, waste to be recycled.
mitigate and address environmental and social
impacts in the supply chains of lithium, cobalt, nickel
and natural graphite via due diligence obligations. One of the most tangible new provisions is the
Automakers are already doing preparatory work creation of ‘Strategic Projects’ across mining,
related to these obligations, which will become refining, processing and recycling of critical minerals.
enforceable mid-2025, as seen also in the The first set of projects will be selected in 2024 and
scorecard. will benefit from faster permitting on the condition
that high environmental and social standards
In relation to carbon footprint, companies placing are met, and a proper engagement plan with
batteries on the market will have to first calculate communities is in place.
and report the carbon footprint of each battery
model per manufacturing plant. As a next step the Projects in third countries can also apply to become
EU will grade batteries according to different carbon a ‘Strategic Project’, if they obtain or commit to
performance classifications, after which a mandatory obtain sustainability credentials via a third-party
carbon threshold will prevent the dirtiest batteries certification scheme.
from being placed on the EU market at all.
Finally, to encourage closed loop recycling systems,

the law sets out material recovery targets for lithium,
cobalt, nickel and copper which go up to 80% by
2031 for lithium and up to 95% for the rest. Further,
the law sets out minimum recycled content targets
for key raw materials which will start only in 2031.

The 2024 edition of the Leaderboard also reveals With new due diligence requirements for companies
progress made by the Chinese automakers on operating in the EU now entering into force, these
human rights due diligence. Geely was the stron- improvements could be an indication that compa-
gest performer, going from zero to a score of 16% nies are already taking steps to ensure compliance
within the span of the year. The company has made with these incoming regulations. Nonetheless, prog-
commitments to human rights and now has an ress was not universal: GAC only improved its score
easily accessible Supplier Code of Conduct which by 2 percentage points, while SAIC scored 0%.
explicitly states that suppliers are expected to meet
Responsible sourcing of
human rights standards and apply these standards
transition minerals
to their own suppliers. The company also outlines a
EV battery manufacturing relies on significant quan-
process using Drive Sustainability’s Sustainability
tities of minerals, including cobalt, nickel, lithium,
Assessment Questionnaire to assess risks at indi-
copper, manganese and zinc. Many of these miner-
vidual suppliers.
als are associated with human rights risks because
BYD also made some improvements. The company of where and how they are sourced, including in
now discloses some aspects of its social assurance conflict-affected and high-risk areas (CAHRAs).
process before contracting with suppliers, even Given this, transition mineral sourcing is a salient
though it still does not set out exactly how this risk in automakers’ EV battery supply chains. The
assessment occurs. The company states that it Leaderboard therefore assesses transition mineral
“regularly investigates” supplier CSR performance, sourcing as a distinct category of automakers’ ap-
including through on-site inspections, and outlines proaches to human rights due diligence and respon-
how suppliers are selected for annual review. Final- sible sourcing.
ly, the company provides some detail regarding its
response if non-conformances are identified, but
discloses no numeric data to illustrate the imple-
mentation of such measures.

CASE STUDY
From Brazil to Papua New Guinea, Mine Waste Creates

Serious Problems
By Earthworks and Cultural Survival
Mining generates enormous amounts of waste. For Communities have raised concerns about mining
example, producing one metric ton of lithium from activity encroaching closer to homes and population
hard rock generates, on average, 1,634 metric tons centers. The lack of planning and local community
of waste. Often, this waste is stored at the mine participation has caused costs to skyrocket and
site in perpetuity. severely hampered the flow of goods, water, and
transportation in the region, rendering those
Tailings, the waste created after the ore is communities unable to cope with the challenges in
processed, are usually stored behind earthen dams. the short term. Sigma Lithium claims they are not
Tailings dams are some of the largest engineered building tailings dams and instead storing tailings in
structures on the planet. Research shows that a drier form, but the 2022 failure of a similar facility
tailings dams are failing with increasing frequency in the very same region of Brazil shows that this
and severity. A 2019 tailings dam failure in Brazil method is not without risk.
killed 272 people, destroyed buildings, and
contaminated the local water sources. Slow and In Papua New Guinea, the Ramu nickel and cobalt
chronic contamination from tailings can further mine and processing plant provides another
damage the surrounding water systems, air and example of the disastrous impacts of irresponsible
soil. tailings practices. The plant, which processes
nickel for EV battery chemicals, dumps millions of
tons of waste into the ocean each year, decimating
With an estimated 20 to 30 thousand tailings coastal ecosystems and damaging the health
facilities globally, many communities face risks and and livelihoods of thousands of local residents.
harms caused by poor tailings disposal. This can be In August 2019, tailings from the Ramu facility
clearly seen in the Jequitinhonha Valley of Brazil. overflowed, turning waters of the Basamuk Bay
The area, named by politicians and corporations red, providing a small glimpse of scope of the toxic
as “Lithium Valley,” is also the ancestral land of sludge being pumped into the ocean day in and day
dozens of Indigenous and traditional communities out.
who have a deep connection to the land and
have traditionally relied on its resources for Communities around the world are calling for safer
their livelihoods. Sigma Lithium operates one tailings practices and an end to dumping mine
of the lithium mines in the region, estimated waste into oceans and rivers. They demand the right
to produce enough lithium for 600,000 electric to say no to tailings facilities and Free, Prior and
vehicles in its first year with promises to increase Informed Consent from Indigenous Peoples. Mining
yearly production threefold. The company even companies and regulators must take significant
brought the state’s governor to the New York Stock steps to improve tailings safety and purchasers of
Exchange to ring the opening bell and promote the metals and minerals should fully understand the
idea of the “Lithium Valley.” risks posed by tailings in their supply chains.
This projected lithium boom has communities

concerned about the potential impacts of mining
and tailings, on their traditional way of life. They
claim that their water streams, essential for their
crops, are disappearing and the main rivers are
contaminated. They raise significant concerns over
the potential for community displacement and the
lack of adequate consultation and respect for their
right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent.

This subsection of the Leaderboard assesses companies for nickel (>45%), cobalt (>55%) and
automakers performance in addressing risks lithium hydroxide (>95%), noting that all contracts
related to transition mineral sourcing, using the include binding environmental and human rights
same indicator structure outlined above: commit; requirements.
identify; prevent, mitigate and account; and remedy.
Mercedes, coming in third place, scored 42%, similar
However, this subsection also aligns performance
to its overall score of 40%. Mercedes discloses
expectations with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance
their process to map their mineral supply chains
for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from
to the point of extraction. The mapping results for
Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas.7
six raw materials are disclosed in the company’s
Ford continues to be the clear industry leader on Raw Material Report. However, Mercedes - together
transition minerals. Ford gained the highest score with Volkswagen - received less points for this
(86%) of any company in any of the Leaderboard subsection than they did in the 2023 Leaderboard,
subsections, and also scored full marks on the as both companies now provide less information with
remedy indicators in this subsection. Ford has a regards to their mineral supply chains: Mercedes no
standalone responsible minerals sourcing policy, longer discloses a full list of the smelters or refiners
which goes beyond conflict minerals to cover cobalt, (SoRs) in its supply chain and Volkswagen no longer
mica, lithium and nickel, and at Ford’s request, other discloses the countries of origin for each of its
materials. The company also discloses extensive priority minerals.
information about the work that it has been doing
Tesla’s performance demonstrates that significant
to map its battery supply chains to the point of
improvements can be made over one year.
extraction, stating that nineteen supplier audits have
However, such progress was not replicated by other
been conducted to date “along two select battery
automakers. Half of the automakers evaluated in
supply chains at all tiers through to the mine site.”
2023 and 2024 did not improve their scores at all (or
Additionally, Ford provides a detailed analysis of their
worse, received less points than in 2023), and three
mineral supply chains and associated risks.
quarters achieved score increases of 2 percentage
Top five companies for responsible sourcing points or less. The exception to this trend is Geely,
of transition minerals whose score increased by 5 percentage points due to
TRANSITION OVERALL TRANSITION
its supplier code of conduct now requiring suppliers
MINERALS RANK RANK MINERALS to undertake due diligence in their supply chains with
SCORE
respect to conflict minerals.
1 Ford 2 86%
Nonetheless, there were notable improvements
against some indicators. The number of automakers
2 Tesla 3 64%
that scored points against the indicator on
engagement with the Initiative for Responsible
3 Mercedes 1 42%
Mining Assurance (IRMA) rose from 22% in 2023
to 39% in 2024. Tesla, Volkswagen and Volvo
4 Stellantis 5 38%
all increased their scores against this indicator
for stating that they now request their mining
5 Volkswagen 6 34%
suppliers undergo IRMA audits. This momentum is
encouraging because IRMA achieved the highest
Tesla was second in the ranking with a score of 64%.
rating in the additional assessment of third-party
The company improved its transition mineral score
assurance and accreditation schemes that was
by 31 percentage points, the biggest score increase
carried out for the 2024 edition of the Leaderboard.
by any company in any subsection. The company
states that it has now mapped its cobalt, lithium and
nickel to the point of extraction and discloses the
percentages it has sourced directly from extractive

Assessment of third-party assurance and accreditation schemes
The responsibility for automotive companies to under- ers in the process, as well as expectations relating to
take human right due diligence is set out in the UN the content of the standard itself. The results of this
Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, assessment were then used to develop a point mod-
and broadly understood as a process for identifying, ifier for the respective indicators on these schemes
preventing, mitigating, and remedying human rights within the Leaderboard, with points being moderated
impacts. Pressure for auto companies to demonstrate progressively downwards for any initiative that is not
how these responsibilities are being fulfilled has coin- considered to meet these minimum expectations.
cided with significant growth of voluntary assurance
In total, eight accreditation schemes were assessed:
and certification initiatives, which are often indus-
Responsible Steel; The Initiative for Responsible
try-led and governed. These schemes are, in turn,
Mining Assurance (IRMA); Aluminium Stewardship
increasingly harnessed by automakers as a means
Initiative (ASI); Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI);
of delivering on human rights and environmental due
Copper Mark; Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM);
diligence obligations.
International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM); and
However, concerns have been raised over the efficacy Global Steel Climate Council (GSCC). Together, these
of some schemes, many of which rely on flawed social initiatives, and their associated auditing and assur-
audit processes. Concerns have also been raised ance processes, cover a large swath of the supply
over the lack of affected rights-holders’ involvement chain and are used by a range of automakers. The
in both the design and implementation of the accred- Global Battery Alliance (GBA) was also included in the
itation process. Ultimately, the use of such schemes assessment, although this initiative did not receive
cannot be understood as a basis for legal compliance a final score as its assurance scheme, the Global
and, in isolation, not appropriate substitutes for due Battery Passport, has not yet been finalized.
diligence responsibilities as set out in the UNGPs.
The assessment revealed considerable divergences
Nonetheless, that is not to say that such initiatives with regards to the credibility and effectiveness of
(and their respective assurance and accreditation these schemes, broadly aligning with the results of
processes) are unable to contribute to human rights similar studies undertaken by Germanwatch and
and environmental due diligence. Indeed, some initia- Mercedes-Benz.
tives are underpinned by robust processes and can
At 88%, IRMA was the strongest performer by a
drive meaningful improvements in company practice.
considerable margin, with Responsible Steel com-
In the 2023 edition of the Leaderboard, several indi- ing in second place with a score of 63% against
cators awarded points to automakers for their partici- the minimum criteria. Notably, IRMA was the only
pation in and use of such initiatives, which provided a scheme to achieve full points against the criterion on
useful framework through which to measure company multi-stakeholder governance. ResponsibleSteel was
performance. Nevertheless, given significant diver- the second strongest performer against this criterion:
gences in the quality of such schemes,8 for the 2024 guaranteeing equal decision-making power for civil
edition, an additional layer of analysis was undertak- society in its membership body but not for its board of
en in order to assess the robustness of the different directors.
schemes referenced in the Leaderboard, as well as
RMI, ASI, TSM and CopperMark all received scores
notable alternatives. This assessment was also pub-
ranging from 38% to 59%. These schemes have made
lished by Lead the Charge as a standalone briefing.
progress against some of the assessment criteria, but
The assessment evaluated each scheme against a demonstrated significant flaws by failing to meet mul-
series of minimum expectations relating to the extent tiple criteria related to multi-stakeholder governance,
to which a third party certification scheme can be transparency of audit results and corrective action
considered credible and robust. These include an plans. At the bottom of the assessment sits GSCC,
assessment of the governance of the standard, the scoring just 3%. The ICMM’s Performance Expecta-
veracity and transparency of the auditing and / or actions Validation process also received an extremely
creditation process, the role of impacted rights hold- low score, meeting only 16% of the minimum criteria.

Overall companies scored an average of 24% for updated requirement on FPIC, with the EV manufac-
their approach to transition mineral sourcing. While turer’s human rights policy stating that: “For all raw
better than other subsections of the Leaderboard, it material extraction and processing used in Tesla’s
highlights that the auto industry still has a long way products, we expect our suppliers to engage with
to go if it is to ensure that the minerals needed for legitimate representatives of indigenous communi-
the transition to EVs are sourced responsibly. ties and respect their right to grant or withhold free,
prior, and informed consent for their operations.” The
Overall companies scored an average of 24% for automaker also provides case studies on its assess-
their approach to transition mineral sourcing. While ment of Indigenous rights involving mines in Chile
better than other subsections of the Leaderboard, it and Argentina for lithium and Canada and Indonesia
highlights that the auto industry still has a long way for nickel.
to go if it is to ensure that the minerals needed for
the transition to EVs are sourced responsibly. Mercedes came in second place with a score of 15%.
Mercedes was recognized for stating that suppliers
Indigenous Peoples’ rights and Free, must comply with FPIC, although its Responsible
Prior and Informed Consent Sourcing Standards do not reference the United
More than half of the resources needed to power the Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
energy transition are located on or near Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The company’s Raw Material
Peoples’ lands. But far too often, projects linked Report also identifies impacts to “community and
to auto supply chains, and extraction projects indigenous rights” as a supply chain risk, but it does
specifically, are conducted on Indigenous Peoples’ not reference FPIC specifically. Furthermore, because
territories without their consent, sometimes even references to community and Indigenous rights are
displacing them from their ancestral lands. Extractive grouped together, it is not clear which risk applies to
projects also pollute their resources, which affects the different supply chains and countries analyzed
these communities’ right to food, water, livelihoods, by Mercedes - with the exception of lithium, where
and culture. As the transition to electric vehicles the automaker provides a description of Indigenous
accelerates, it is critical that activities across the rights risks specifically.
auto supply chain respect Indigenous Peoples’ right Top five companies for Indigenous rights and free,
to self-determination and to Free, Prior and Informed prior and Informed consent
Consent (FPIC).
INDIGENOUS OVERALL INDIGENOUS
The Leaderboard evaluates automakers’ efforts RIGHTS RANK RANK RIGHTS SCORE
to conduct due diligence specifically in relation to 1 Tesla 3 26%
risks to Indigenous Peoples’ rights, with a focus on
their right to provide or withhold their Free, Prior and 2 Mercedes 1 15%
Informed Consent on projects and activities to be
3 GM 8 11%
carried out on their lands and territories.
There was little to celebrate with regards to the 4 BMW 7 8%

scores in this subsection, which continue to be unac- 5 Ford 2 7%
ceptably low across the board. As noted previously,
companies scored on average just 4% and there There is widespread room for improvement across
was a meager increase of 1 percentage point in the all the indicator categories on Indigenous Peoples’
average score over the year. Only three companies rights. Within the Commit indicators, the Leader-
(Tesla, Volvo and Volkswagen) increased their scores board found that only BMW, Mercedes and GM have
and 61% of automakers continue to score 0% on this made explicit commitments to respect the UNDRIP.
issue. Of these companies, only General Motors has made
The only area of potential optimism was Tesla’s this commitment in both its overall human rights
improved score, which rose from 5% to 26%, enabling policy and its Supplier Code of Conduct. These three
the company to take the top spot for this subsection companies, together with Tesla, are also the only
from Mercedes. The company has introduced an automakers to have made explicit commitments with

regards to respecting FPIC. However, none disclose upheld, and advanced, across the whole supply chain
that these commitments are translated into the In- as the automotive industry transforms itself for the
digenous languages of relevance to the sites located transition to electric vehicles.
along their supply chains.
Respect for workers’ rights across auto supply chains
No automakers met the Leaderboard’s requirements is therefore the final subsection of the human right
for identifying Indigenous rights risks. These indi- and responsible sourcing theme of the Leaderboard,
cators require automakers to provide evidence of a representing another fundamental component of a
process to screen for Indigenous rights risks in their just transition to EVs. To assess company perfor-
supply chains to the point of extraction. Only Mer- mance on this issue, these indicators of the Leader-
cedes and Tesla were awarded partial points for their board were shaped around the International Labour
aforementioned disclosures. Organisation’s Declaration on Fundamental Princi-
ples and Rights at Work.
Companies performed marginally better against the
prevent, mitigate, and account indicators of the Indig-
enous rights subsection. The primary FPIC risks are FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AT WORK
typically at mineral extraction and processing sites,
but may also occur further downstream in supply The ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and
chains where operations are on or adjacent to Indig- Rights at Work identifies five fundamental principles
enous lands. It is therefore encouraging that several and rights:
automakers are now participating in multistakeholder
1. freedom of association and the effective
initiatives that include Indigenous Peoples to pro-
recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
mote and ensure respect for their rights at mineral
2. the elimination of all forms of forced or
extraction sites. As detailed in the previous section,
compulsory labour;
several automakers disclosed that they are members
of IRMA and / or request that their mining suppliers 3. the effective abolition of child labour;
undergo IRMA audits. IRMA is the only third-party 4. the elimination of discrimination in respect of
assurance scheme of industrial-scale mine sites that employment and occupation; and
is governed equitably by the private sector, affected 5. a safe and healthy working environment.
communities (including Indigenous Peoples), civil
society, and workers. Volvo and Volkswagen’s score
increases in this section were due to this indicator.
Ford and Mercedes topped the Leaderboard on
Finally, no company scored any points against the
workers’ rights, both receiving half the total possible
remedy indicator, which requires companies to
points in this section. The companies were the only
demonstrate they have a process for investigating
automakers to receive full credit for their efforts to
and remedying breaches of FPIC in their supply chain,
identify workers’ rights risks in their supply chains,
which includes a formal role for impacted Indigenous
as both companies include the participation of trade
groups.
unions in their human rights due diligence processes
Repect for workers’ rights and disclose specific workers’ rights issues in their
A recent study of the U.S. automotive manufacturing supply chains and where they are located. Mercedes
landscape found that the manufacturing of BEVs was also recognized for having a collective bargain-
requires more labor hours, and therefore has more ing agreement with a union in their headquartered
potential for job creation, than the manufacturing of country, and a global framework agreement with
internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. However, IndustriAll. In addition, the company consulted with
these estimates only hold true if they include battery IndustriAll and its works council to develop its human
cell production, the most labor-intensive part of EV rights principles.
manufacturing. The findings of this study reinforce
the imperative of ensuring that workers’ rights are

Top five companies for respect for workers’ rights However, improvements were rare within the workers’
rights section. Indeed, overall, the average score im-
WORKERS’ RIGHTS OVERALL WORKERS’
RANK RANK RIGHTS SCORE proved by just 3 percentage points. Nearly half (44%)
of the automakers evaluated in 2023 and 2024
1 Ford 2 51% made no improvement at all. This is a disappointing
finding from the analysis, not least because of the
2 Mercedes 1 50% wide range of areas that could be improved.
Nonetheless, one area of marginal improvement was

3 Stellantis 5 33%
related to living wage commitments. In the 2023
edition of the Leaderboard, none of the automakers
4 Hyundai 10 28%
assessed had made any kind of commitment to a
living wage. In this year’s Leaderboard, Ford and
5 BMW 7 27%
Volvo are credited for adding explicit commitments to
a living wage in their human rights policies, although
neither company disclosed a specific method for cal-
Hyundai and Renault outperformed their overall rank-
culating a living wage. In addition to Ford and Volvo,
ing, while Tesla ranked lower (10th) than it did for its
BMW also became the only automaker to include a
overall score (3rd). Hyundai’s improved performance
specific requirement in its Supplier Code of Conduct
can be attributed to the South Korean automaker
for suppliers to pay employees Living Wage.
now disclosing workers’ rights risks by location, in-
cluding collective bargaining concerns in China.

CASE STUDY
UAW and Sparkz chart the way forward for battery

workers
By UAW Region 6
The story of the green transition will be told largely battery and EV companies will empower workers
through the successes or failures of the automotive to improve their working conditions throughout the
and battery industries. The automotive industry entire sector.
employs millions of Americans and the fast-grow-
By forming a union and building a worker-centered
ing battery industry will soon employ hundreds of
training program, Sparkz workers will be on the fore-
thousands. Whether these industries create quality
front of the green transition. They will also be follow-
jobs or if they participate in the race-to-the-bottom
ing the lead of unionized UAW workers at Ultium Cells
being driven by low road employers will determine to
in Ohio, which is currently the only unionized battery
a large degree how much the public supports policies
factory in the United States. As battery workers
to accelerate the green transition.
across the country seek union representation, the
In theory, creating quality jobs in these industries story of the Sparkz workers will be powerful. Workers
should be simple. Automotive and battery assembly can build on this example and ensure that sustain-
are highly mechanized and automated industries, able new technologies create sustainable communi-
in which labor costs represent a small fraction of ties nationwide.
the overall costs when compared to materials and
equipment. Companies can therefore raise wages
and staffing levels without impacting prices too sig-
nificantly.
But the electric vehicle and battery industries are

currently dominated by low-road employers like
Panasonic and Tesla. These companies maintain
notoriously dangerous working conditions and their
low wages and poor benefits drive down standards
throughout the entire sector. Their factories are also
some of the largest polluters in the green economy.
Low road employers like this exacerbate a well-doc-
umented workforce shortage in emerging, green
industries that require a highly-skilled workforce.
The United Auto Workers (UAW) union is leading the

charge to correct these problems via its partnership
with Sparkz, Inc., a next-generation battery maker
opening a facility in Rancho Cordova, California. UAW
and Sparkz have reached a card check neutrality
agreement, meaning that Sparkz has committed to
letting its future workforce form a union via the card
check process instead of an onerous National Labor
Relations Board election. The organizations will also
partner to create the nation’s first battery appren-
ticeship program as part of a workforce development
program. Building a high-road alternative to existing

Where is there room for improvement?
There are two main ways for automakers to improve On the other hand, 30% of the indicators are not
their performance. Automakers can make significant currently being met by any automaker. Closing this
gains simply by matching the best practice of their gap will require bold leadership from automakers
higher performing peers across different issue areas. that are willing to innovate and raise the bar for their
Over half of the indicators in the Leaderboard have competitors. This edition of the Leaderboard shows
been fully met by at least one company, while adding that such progress is possible. For example, in the
up the highest scores achieved by any company for 2023 edition not a single automaker had disclosed
each indicator results in a score of over 70%. disaggregated scope 3 emissions for their steel,
aluminum and battery supply chains. Additionally,
This means that automakers can take inspiration no automaker had made an explicit commitment
from what industry leaders are doing across different to a living wage. In the 2024 edition, Tesla was
issues to dramatically improve their performance. credited for becoming the first automaker to disclose
This is an especially important strategy for low- disaggregated scope 3 emissions for these supply
performing companies, but also a viable one for chains, whilst Ford, BMW and Volvo became the first
industry leaders. Ford, for example, was this year’s automakers to make explicit commitments to a living
top ranking automaker but only achieved an overall wage.
score of 42%. Ford could therefore improve its score
by over 28 percentage points by matching the best This section looks at such opportunities for progress
practices of its competitors that outperformed Ford across the different sections of the Leaderboard.
across different indicators.

Fossil-free and Environmentally Sustainable the best-in-class scores against these indicators
Supply Chains performance were lower than they were for the Aluminum and, to
Overall, companies scored higher against the a lesser extent, Steel subsections. The aluminum
General subsection (24%) than elsewhere. category had the highest best-in-class score of 79%,
This suggests that better practice achieved meaning that only 21% of these indicators have still
by automakers on addressing climate and not been fully achieved by at least one automaker.
environmental issues overall could be replicated in In contrast, this score was 67% for the General
more specific supply chain areas. indicators and 64% for the Battery indicators. This
shows that, while automakers on average will be
While General scores are on average higher, starting from a higher baseline when it comes to
improved scores are possible across the board. their performance against the General and Batteries
The chart below shows that the best-in-class score indicators, strengthening industry-wide performance
– summing the highest scores for each individual in these areas will require more leadership from
indicator by any company – is consistently around automakers to meet the performance expectations
the 70% mark. This demonstrates that automakers that are currently not being met by any of their peers.
can greatly enhance their performance by matching
the best practice of their best-performing peers In the General category, for example, the majority
across the different indicators. Further, the gaps of automakers have made progress on scope
between the average and the best-in-class scores, 3 emissions disclosure. However, companies
especially prominent for steel and aluminum, performed considerably less well when it came
highlight the patchy nature of the auto industry’s to disclosing information on other environmental
approach to managing climate and environmental impacts (air pollution and water) in their supply
risks in their supply chain, which the industry as a chain. No companies disclosed other significant
whole should be seeking to improve and make much supply chain emissions (GRI 3-5) and only Honda
more consistent. provided any data on water usage by key suppliers.
Similarly, half of the automakers evaluated disclosed
The below chart also shows some marginal, but that emissions reductions are taken into account
noteworthy, differences when it comes to best-in- as part of their tender and contracting process, but
class performance across the different indicator no automakers stated that water management is a
subsections. Although the average scores were factor in choosing preferred suppliers in their tender
higher for the General and Batteries subsections, process.
Figure 7 — Average and best in class scores for the fossil-free and
environmentally sustainable supply chains section

When it comes to company performance on steel As mentioned above, Tesla currently leads the industry
and aluminum, the gap between the industry leader, when it comes to mapping and disclosing the emis-
Volvo, and the rest of their peers is notably larger. sions from their steel, aluminum and battery supply
Volvo achieved the highest score for the target-setting chains, while Volvo is the industry leader when it
indicators - having set targets related to the decarbon- comes to target-setting for steel and aluminum. How-
ization of its primary steel and aluminum, as well as ever, it is Renault that leads on setting targets for its
to increase its use of secondary steel and aluminum. battery supply chain, having set targets to both reduce
Volvo also scored highest on the supply chain lever the emissions from battery manufacturing by 35% by
indicators for steel, thanks to the advance purchase 2030 and to reach 80% recycled cobalt, lithium and
agreement it has signed for fossil-free steel and for nickel in new batteries by 2030.
being the only automaker to be a member of both
The industry leaders on the supply chain levers indi-
SteelZero and Responsible Steel. Given the wide gap
cators, whose average scores are still relatively low,
between Volvo’s scores and the industry averages,
are more diverse. While Volvo leads the supply chain
other automakers would do well to draw inspiration
levers indicators on steel, it is Mercedes who leads
from Volvo’s performance in these areas.
these indicators for aluminum, being one of only two
Another theme that cuts across the steel, aluminum automakers (together with Nissan) to have signed ad-
and batteries subsections (illustrated in the chart vance purchase agreements for low-carbon aluminum.
below) is that automakers scored higher on the supply When it comes to the supply chain levers indicators
chain lever indicators than they did for the indicators on batteries, three automakers attain the top score of
on setting targets and demonstrating progress to- 52%: Tesla, Volkswagen and Mercedes.
wards those targets, whose scores were in turn higher
Finally, there are some indicators across each of
than those for the disclosure indicators. This suggests
these subsections that have not been attained by any
that, in contrast to the General indicators where this
automakers. For example, multiple automakers have
pattern was reversed, automakers seem to be imple-
signed offtake agreements for the provision of low-car-
menting a more ad-hoc approach to decarbonizing
bon steel and aluminum, but none of the companies
their steel, aluminum and battery supply chains: tak-
currently disclose the percentage of low-carbon steel
ing individual actions without linking them to a wider
and aluminum that is used in their production cycles.
strategy linked to robust targets and a comprehensive
On batteries, no company has set a disaggregated
mapping of the emissions in these supply chains.
target to increase the recovery rates for the lithium,
Automakers can take inspiration from the industry cobalt and nickel used in their batteries.
leaders in these areas to improve their performance.
Figure 8 — Average scores for each indicator category across theacross the four human rights
and responsible sourcing subsections

Human Rights and Responsible still have to close important gaps in order to fully meet
Sourcing performance the Leaderboard’s performance expectations on these
The average score against the General human issues.
rights indicators (37%) was the highest across all
the indicator subsections of the Leaderboard. This On the other hand, strengthening perfor-
subsection also saw the largest score increase (6 mance on the rights of Indigenous Peoples
percentage points) over the average score in 2023. and workers will require further leadership
from automakers who are willing to be the
The best-in-class score - summing the highest indi-
first amongst their peers to meet specific
cator scores by any company - was also very high for performance expectations on these critically
General human rights indicators (88%), but was even important issues for auto supply chains.
higher for the indicators on the responsible sourcing of
transition minerals (95%).
With regards to the former strategy, Ford stands out as
Company performance across these two issue areas
the clear leader on the responsible sourcing of
is dramatically different to their performance on
transition minerals, scoring 62 percentage points
Indigenous Peoples’ rights and workers’ rights, which
higher than the industry average and 22 percentage
together represent the lowest best in class scores
points higher than Tesla, coming in second place. The
across all the subsections of the Leaderboard (32%
company met all expectations within 9 of the 13
and 54% respectively). Moreover, the average score on
indicators, and achieved the highest score on the
Indigenous Peoples’ rights (just 4%) was the lowest of
identify and remedy indicators.
all the subsections.
There is a greater diversity of leadership within the
The average and best-in-class scores for human rights
General human rights due diligence indicators, with a
and responsible sourcing show that different strate-
7 percentage point gap between the top three scoring
gies are needed to strengthen company performance
automakers (Stellantis, Mercedes and Ford). Stellantis
across the four issue areas of this section. In order
achieved the highest scores on the prevent, mitigate
to improve performance on overall human rights due
and account indicators, as well as the indicators on
diligence and the responsible sourcing of transition
access to remedy. But multiple automakers scored
minerals, automakers can achieve very high scores by
full points on the commit indicators (BMW, Ford, GM,
emulating the practices of their best performing peers
Mercedes and Volvo) and Mercedes was the only auto-
across the different indicators. This applies not only
maker to score full points on the identify indicators.
to low-performers but also to industry leaders, which
Figure 9 — Average and best in class scores for the human rights
and responsible sourcing section

Figure 10 — Average scores for each indicator category across the four fossil-free and
environmentally sustainable supply chains subsections
There are clear priorities for improving industry per- them to join RMI’s Responsible Minerals Assurance
formance on both overall human rights due diligence Process program, and that it actively participates in
and the responsible sourcing of transition minerals. the Smelter Engagement Teams of the Automotive
The lowest scores in both sections were for access to Industry Action Group and RMI to prioritize and
remedy, as illustrated in the chart below. In the Gen- conduct outreach and visits to SoRs.
eral subsection, Stellantis and Volkswagen achieved
Average scores were low across all of the indicator
the highest scores for their work on establishing
categories on respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights.
a human rights grievance mechanism. However,
However, they were slightly higher for the commit
neither automaker scored full points against these
indicators (8%) than they were for the identify (4%),
indicators due to not explaining how their grievance
prevent, mitigate and account (7%) and remedy
mechanisms are communicated to supply chain
(0%) indicators. Across these three latter indicator
stakeholders. GM achieved the highest score for the
categories, all automakers scored 0% on the
indicator on access to remedy for outlining a clear
indicators requiring that they have a formal process
process for determining and providing remedy. But
in place to engage critical upstream suppliers on
again, the company did not achieve full points as it
FPIC; disclose how they are prepared to respond
does not provide any quantitative or qualitative data
if they identify violations of FPIC in their supply
to illustrate how this process operates in practice.
chains; and have put in place a process to remedy
Ford and Tesla were the only automakers to score violations of FPIC in their supply chains. In fact,
points on the remedy indicator in the transition only one automaker fully met the scoring criteria of
minerals section, due to their use of RMI’s Mineral one indicator across all three of these categories,
Grievance Platform for grievances to be raised about which was Tesla for providing additional explanation
smelters and refiners in their supply chains. Ford was regarding the practices by which its suppliers must
the sole automaker to receive full points against this obtain FPIC.
indicator, as the company additionally discloses how
These shortcomings indicate that even the minority
they review and investigate grievances raised through
of automakers that have made explicit commitments
this mechanism.
to Indigenous Peoples’ rights are not putting in place
Similarly, only Ford and GM received full points adequate processes to screen for and mitigate Indig-
against the indicator in this subsection on directly enous rights risks in their supply chains, or establish-
engaging smelters and refiners to build their due ing mechanisms to remedy violations when they do
diligence capacities. GM, for example, states that it occur.
conducted outreach to 46 eligible SoRs to encourage

CASE STUDY
The Thacker Pass Mining Project: Free, Prior and Informed

Consent and Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
By The SIRGE Coalition
General Motors announced in January 2023 that it including mining. Lithium Americas is able to propose
will invest $650 million in Lithium Americas Corp. a mine at Thacker Pass today because of this
and will help the company develop its Thacker Pass historical context of violence and dispossession of
lithium mining project, with the aim of ensuring a Indigenous lands.
supply of lithium for its electric vehicles. However, the
Thacker Pass project is proposed on Peehee Mu’huh, Despite GM’s Human Rights Policy, which includes a
a sacred site on Paiute, Shoshone and Bannock commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of
lands in Northern Nevada. This landscape holds Indigenous Peoples and to Free, Prior, and Informed
significant spiritual value to Paiute, Shoshone and Consent (FPIC), it has not paused its investment to
Bannock peoples, in part, because this is the site of assess its Indigenous Rights risk, nor has it required
two massacres resulting in many ancestors’ bodies Lithium Americas to assure that it has obtained
being buried in the land. The Reno Sparks Indian consent in line with FPIC standards. This comes
Colony, Berns Paiute Tribe, Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, after the People of Red Mountain and Securing
and People of Red Mountain do not consent to the Indigenous Rights in the Green Economy (SIRGE)
project and have filed lawsuits in opposition to the sent an open letter addressed to GM, calling for it to
Thacker Pass mining site. require Lithium Americas, and its other suppliers, to
implement FPIC policies in accordance with UNDRIP,
Peehee Mu’huh, which translates to “rotten moon”, is
and to rescind its investment where its suppliers fail
the site of two massacres which gave the sacred site
to do so.
its name. During the second massacre in September
1865, the U.S. government attempted to exterminate
People of Red Mountain, a group of traditional
the region’s Indigenous Peoples, including children,
Paiute, Shoshone and Bannock peoples with
by attacking a camp at the base of the pass. This
ancestral ties to the area and allies have asked GM
attack was part of the broader pattern of federal
to meet and the company has not done so, nor even
policy to open up western lands for Euro-American
responded to the multiple requests.
settlers and to promote the growth of industries,

With regards to workers’ rights, Ford (51%) and Mer- engaged to verify the implementation of corrective
cedes (50%) were the clear leaders – ahead of the actions pertaining to workers’ rights violations, or in
next best by 17 percentage points. Both companies, any remedy processes involving workers’ rights.
for example, provide good examples of how to iden-
Other performance expectations were met only by
tify (through trade union consultation) and disclose
a very small number of automakers. Across all 18
salient workers’ rights risks in their supply chains.
companies only Ford, Mercedes and BMW have
They are also very close to the best-in-class score
made commitments to a living wage, and even then,
for workers’ rights (54%), underlining their lead over
do not score full marks because they do not state
others. Nonetheless, the fact that these companies
how it is calculated. This issue should be a priority if
barely met just over half of the performance expec-
the industry is to ensure a just transition for workers
tations of these indicators illustrates that even the
in EV supply chains.
industry leaders on workers’ rights have a long way to
go before they can claim to be adequately addressing
this issue across their supply chains.
Furthermore, the low best-in-class score for this

subsection shows that nearly half of the performance
expectations contained in the workers’ rights indica-
tors have not yet been met by any automaker. As with
Indigenous rights, some indicators had scores of 0%
across all automakers. For example, no companies
disclosed any evidence that trade unions are formally

Differences between markets
Overall, European and US companies9 perform very then be used to drive further improvements in other
similarly, with average scores of 28% and 31% re- areas. For example, Geely’s improved score within
spectively. The scores among East Asian automakers the general human rights section was supported by
are lower, with an average score of 8%. Scores in the new requirements for its supplier to respect human
fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply rights that are outlined in its supplier code of con-
chains section were similar between European and duct; a positive step which BYD, SAIC and GAC could
US automakers, while US automakers achieved, look to replicate. East Asian automakers could also
on average, higher scores on the human rights and look to those automakers ranking in the middle of
responsible sourcing indicators. the leaderboard for achievable short-term changes.
This could mean making further improvements within
European automakers notably scored higher in the the General sections where mid-table performers are
general indicators of the fossil-free and environmen- noticeably stronger than those towards the bottom.
tally sustainable section. However, US automakers’
stronger performance in the human rights section For US automakers, improvements were most notice-
was especially noticeable for their approaches to able in the fossil-free and environmentally sustain-
transition minerals. US companies’ better perfor- able section (up 14 percentage points compared
mance on responsible transition minerals may with 5 percentage points in the human rights sec-
partially be linked to mandatory conflict mineral tion), particularly in the steel and aluminum sub-
reporting under the Dodd-Frank Act, which may have sections. Within the human rights and responsible
resulted in US automakers having stronger supply sourcing section, these automakers made improve-
chain tracing expertise that can be applied to other ments in the transition minerals section.
mineral supply chains (though this does not guaran-
There were diverging performances within, as well
tee a good score, considering the spread between US
as between, markets. In the US, despite significant
companies’ scores on transition minerals).
strides this year, GM trailed Ford by 20%. In Europe,
For those companies analyzed in both years, the Renault was 21% below Mercedes. In Japan and
results show that US companies have seen a rapid Korea, Toyota, Honda, and Kia scored around half
increase in their scores, which have jumped by 10 the points of Hyundai (15%). Meanwhile, Geely (10%)
percentage points. European automakers’ progress outperformed other Chinese automakers by 6-9%
was much more circumspect, with a 2 percentage overall, and 12-13% on fossil-free and environmen-
point increase. This resulted in US automakers over- tally sustainable indicators. This divergence of scores
taking several European peers: Tesla bumped Volvo within geographies demonstrates that there is ample
for third place and the top spot switched hands from room for improvement within specific markets.
Mercedes to Ford.
With an average score increase of 2 percentage

points, East Asian automakers’ progress was similar
to that of their European counterparts. However,
as they started from a lower base, this meant last
year’s scores improved by 33%. Their progress was
strongest in the “General” subsections for both the
fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply
chains section, and the human rights and responsi-
ble sourcing section.
For the lowest scorers, the first steps look to be

high-level commitments and requirements on sus-
tainable and responsible supply chains, which can

CONCLUSION
Lead the Charge’s annual Leaderboard is a benchmark

of an automaker’s competitive edge to build an equitable,
sustainable and fossil-free supply chain. The Leaderboard
is a tool that can be used by automakers, investors,
policymakers and consumers to identify who is leading,
who is lagging, and how and where to drive positive
change in automotive supply chains.
The 2024 edition of the Leaderboard demonstrates
that important progress has been made across sev- As the rapidly accelerating transition to
eral areas. In some cases, these improvements have electric vehicles addresses the dirty tailpipe
been significant, demonstrating that rapid progress emissions of the auto industry, it is essential
can be achieved in a relatively short period and that that automakers also look towards their sup-
automakers can be pressured to step up their perfor- ply chains with the aim of manufacturing EVs
mance or risk losing their competitive edge. that are truly clean across their lifecycle.
However, despite these positive changes, the auto
industry still has a long way to go. No company This aplies not only to reducing supply chain emis-
scored more than half of the points available. Some sions, but also to addressing other harmful envi-
automakers perform poorly across the board, while ronmental and human rights impacts, from mining
the performance of others is frequently patchy. There through to manufacturing and reuse and recycling.
are also areas where improvement was extremely Achieving this is not only a moral imperative but a
limited. This is most worrying with regards to the just growing expectation of regulators, investors, and con-
transition indicators, particularly Indigenous Peoples’ sumers that all vehicles are made equitably, sustain-
rights where company policy and action was already ably and fossil-fuel free.
weakest.

CHAPTER 004
Company
Performance
Summaries
Source of BEV Sales Data: EV-Volumes OEM Share tracker
All figures are cumulative annual values up to and including July 2023. The data covers passenger vehicles only and includes
Europe, China, Korea, Japan, the United States and Canada.

Ranking Comparison
7 #6 in 2023
Bev Sales # 165,303
Bev Sales % 13%
Total Score 24%
Climate Score 17%
Human Rights Score 31%
SUMMARY
BMW almost doubled its EV output last year, but has made little progress
since the 2023 Leaderboard on building a more equitable and sustainable
supply chain. Its low fossil-free and environmentally sustainable score
continues to be held back by inaction on steel and aluminum, as well as its
unacceptable track record on climate lobbying - for which InfluenceMap
gives it the second lowest score of the auto industry.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Discloses and has set a science-based target to reduce its overall Scope 3 GHG emissions for purchased
goods but does not disaggregate these by supply chain.
■ Has a lack of dedicated targets and strategies to decarbonize the steel, aluminum and batteries used in
its vehicles.
■ Outperforms most peers in having contractual requirements for its battery cell suppliers to use green
electricity, and has also made progress in establishing closed loop systems for batteries by working with a
battery recycler in China.
■ Has some high-level human rights due diligence policies in place, with mechanisms to identify, mitigate,
and remedy abuses in its supply chain.
■ These policies and mechanisms need to be strengthened for responsible mineral sourcing, workers’
rights, and especially, to ensure the respect of Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free, Prior and Informed Con-
sent.
■ Made a significant improvement on workers’ rights in 2023 by becoming the first automaker to introduce
a requirement in its supplier code of conduct to pay a living wage.

2024 Ranking Comparison
16 #17 in 2023
BEV Sales # 711,556
BEV Sales % 48%
Total Score 4%
Climate & Environment 2%
Human Rights 5%
SUMMARY
BYD continues to be one of the leaders of the EV transition: it now

exclusively produces battery EVs and hybrids, having terminated the
production of internal combustion vehicles in 2022. It is also an industry
leader when it comes to innovations in battery technologies to reduce the
use of emissions intensive minerals such as nickel, cobalt and lithium.
However, while some basic new disclosures improve BYD’s score

compared to last year, an overall lack of transparency about its supply
chain leaves it near the bottom of the Lead the Charge Leaderboard.
As the second largest producer of EVs in the world, BYD could leverage
its vertically integrated supply chain to emerge as an equitable and
sustainable supply chain leader.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Is one of only 3 companies that fails to disclose their supply chain emissions or decarbonization targets.
■ Discloses almost no efforts to reduce the climate and environmental impacts of its steel, aluminum, and
batteries.
■ Has now delivered a lithium-ion battery which is cobalt and nickel free, and states that it will soon bring
vehicles using sodium-ion batteries to market.
■ Has taken some basic first steps in disclosing how it monitors its suppliers’ performance on social issues,
but still has not disclosed any clear requirements or processes to ensure that human rights are respected
across its supply chain.

1 #2 in 2023
BEV Sales # 43,570
BEV Sales % 2%
Total Score 42%
Human Rights 54%
SUMMARY
Already the strongest performer on human rights, Ford made progress

across both environmental and human rights indicators this year - allowing
the company to race past former top scorer, Mercedes, and claim the top
spot of the Leaderboard.
Nonetheless, there are clear areas for improvement. Ford still falls behind
competitors when it comes to eliminating fossil fuels and environmental
harms from its steel, aluminum, and battery supply chains. Ford’s human
rights score continues to be dragged down by its unacceptably low score
on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, which was also one of the areas where no
improvement was made over its 2023 score.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Has an industry-leading responsible minerals policy and due diligence processes, with extensive battery
supply chain mapping and a dedicated grievance mechanism.
■ Achieved the highest score on workers’ rights and, encouragingly, has now made a living wage commit-
ment in its human rights policy. However, still has significant areas to improve such as establishing proce-
dures for working with unions on corrective actions and remedy.
■ Failed to make progress on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, with no score improvement over its unacceptably
low 2023 score of 7%.
■ Made improvements on overall supply chain decarbonization by requiring all suppliers to set Sci-
ence-Based Targets and action plans.
■ Made progress on fossil-free steel and aluminum by joining the First Movers Coalition and accordingly
setting targets for green steel and aluminum usage. Also signed new agreements with strategic steel
suppliers for low-carbon steel.
■ Announced new battery R&D investments,including a new battery research center testing novel battery
materials, but lacks targets for battery decarbonization and mineral recovery.

17 #16 in 2023
BEV Sales # 265,391
BEV Sales % 60%
Total Score 2%
Human Rights 1%
SUMMARY
GAC’s rapidly increasing EV production is impressive, but a lack of

disclosure, commitments and actions to build a clean and responsible
supply chain leave it near the bottom of the Leaderboard. GAC has made
some progress on batteries by bringing a new LFP battery to the market,
reducing reliance on energy intensive minerals, and has disclosed some
minimal actions on due diligence of suppliers for the first time. However,
this has not been matched by other actions to eliminate fossil fuels,
environmental harms and human rights abuses from its supply chain.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Is one of the leaders on the EV transition, with BEVs now accounting for 60% of its total sales.
■ Has a 2050 net zero target covering the supply chain, but no interim target, and has disclosed extremely
little information on the supply chain actions it is taking to achieve this target.
■ Has brought to market new nickel- and cobalt-free LFP batteries.
■ Now provides limited evidence that suppliers are audited for social risks, but provides little detail on the
content and coverage of these assessments, and scores 0% on almost all other indicators related to sup-
ply chain due diligence.

12 #13 in 2023
BEV Sales # 172,105
BEV Sales % 25%
Total Score 10%
Human Rights 6%
SUMMARY
Geely further consolidated its position as the top performing East Asian
automaker on fossil-free and environmentally sustainable this year, whilst
also achieving the second largest score increase on human rights over the
year. Whilst Geely still has a long way to go to become an industry leader
on clean and equitable supply chains, the strong progress it has made to
date provide solid foundations for the automaker to take more targeted
action on specific supply chains like steel and aluminum, as well as on
salient human rights issues like responsible sourcing of transition minerals
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Highest scoring East Asian automaker on fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply chains, due
to its work on scope 3 emissions, as well as its disclosure and targets on recycled steel and aluminum.
Made additional progress in 2023 by applying a sustainability assessment to a significant majority of its
tier 1 suppliers and developing closed-loop processes for steel and batteries.
■ Falls behind industry peers when it comes to taking action on fossil-free steel and aluminum.
■ Achieved the second largest score increase (16 percentage points) in the “General” human rights cate-
gory of the Leaderboard, due to new supplier requirements on human rights and improved due diligence
processes to audit suppliers for compliance with its code of conduct. This initial progress on supply chain
due diligence should be strengthened with improved processes to identify and remedy salient human
rights risks and impacts in its supply chain.
■ A lack of commitments and action on responsible transition mineral sourcing, Indigenous rights and work-
ers’ rights bring down Geely’s human rights score.

8 #8 in 2023
BEV Sales # 311,070
BEV Sales % 12%
Total Score 23%
Human Rights 26%
SUMMARY
GM was one of the strongest improvers on the fossil-free and

environmentally sustainable indicators this year, achieving a score
increase of 14 percentage points - largely due to improved disclosure
of its upstream scope 3 emissions and to setting new targets on fossil-
free steel and aluminum procurement through the First Movers Coalition.
However, a lack of progress in tandem on human rights, where GM’s
score is less than half of Ford’s, means that GM’s overall ranking remains
unchanged this year.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Disclosed its supply chain Scope 3 emissions this year, finally catching up with many of its competitors.
■ Joined First Movers Coalition last year and accordingly commits to sourcing a portion of its steel and alu-
minum from near-zero emissions sources by 2030. Also signed a new agreement with U.S. Steel, who will
provide the company with low-emission steel starting this year.
■ Fossil-free and environmentally sustainable score brought down by inaction on the impacts of its battery
supply chain, for which it scored just 8%.
■ Achieved a score increase of a mere 1 percentage point on human rights, despite scoring just 25% on this
area in 2023. Still has ample room for improvement with regards to human rights due diligence, in partic-
ular by introducing measures to prevent, account for and remedy human rights abuses in its supply chain.
■ Is one of the few automakers with an explicit commitment to Indigenous Peoples’ right to Free, Prior and
Informed Consent. However, disappointingly, is not taking action to ensure this commitment is realized
with its investment in Lithium Americas and the Thacker Pass project.
■ Could improve weaker performance on workers’ rights through committing to a living wage and working
with unions to prevent, mitigate and remedy workers’ rights abuses in its supply chain.

14 N/A
BEV Sales # 9,334
BEV Sales % 1%
Total Score 14
Human Rights 4%
SUMMARY
Honda, a major laggard in the transition to electric vehicles, is a new

entrant to the Leaderboard this year, which finds that the automaker
is also one of the worst performers of the industry when it comes
to eliminating emissions and environmental harms from its supply
chain, scoring just 4% in this area. Honda fares little better on human
rights, having made some commitments but lacking adequate
substance when it comes to policies and processes to ensure these
commitments are fulfilled.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Is one of the few automakers that fails to adequately disclose the scope 3 emissions from its supply chain
and to set a science-based target to reduce its supply chain emissions.
■ Has not disclosed any action taken to decarbonize its steel, aluminum, and battery supply chains, receiv-
ing a 0% score in all three categories.
■ Poor track record on climate lobbying further pulls down its fossil-free and environmentally sustainable
score.
■ Has made top-level commitments to human rights, responsible transition minerals and workers’ rights.
But fails to disclose adequate due diligence processes to identify, prevent, mitigate and remedy human
rights risks and abuses in its supply chain

10 #11 in 2023
BEV Sales # 191,560*
BEV Sales % 7%*
Total Score 15%
Human Rights 18%
SUMMARY
Hyundai has grown its EV production this year (although EVs still only
account for a trivial portion of its overall vehicle sales) and has also made
modest improvements on its supply chain, causing the automaker to
increase its Leaderboard ranking by one place and become the highest-
scoring East Asian automaker overall.
Nonetheless, Hyundai trails many of its industry peers when it comes to

clean and equitable supply chains. In particular, it has made almost no
progress on reducing the emissions and other environmental impacts
from its steel, aluminum, and battery supply chains, and has also failed to
improve its performance on the responsible sourcing of transition minerals
and Indigenous rights.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Discloses its scope 3 supply chain emissions and has set a target to achieve carbon neutrality across its
entire value chain by 2045, but no longer discloses clear interim targets for its supply chain.
■ Discloses no action to decarbonize the primary steel and aluminum used in its vehicles, although it has
taken some initial steps on secondary steel and aluminum.
■ Continues to be one of the worst scorers on auto industry climate lobbying from InfluenceMap; only Toyo-
ta scores lower.
■ Has made some concrete human rights commitments and now discloses its human rights risk by region,
including some workers’ rights risks.
■ Worryingly, Hyundai does not provide any evidence that it has meaningfully strengthened the human
rights due diligence processes for its supply chain, despite investigations published last year that found
widespread use of child labour by its suppliers in Alabama.
*Sales figures are for Hyundai Motor OEM which includes both Hyundai and Kia.

13 #14 in 2023
BEV Sales % 7*
Total Score 13 (14)
Human Rights 7%
SUMMARY
Kia was one of the lowest performing automakers in the first edition of
the Leaderboard and achieved a meager score increase of 2 percentage
points in 2023, meaning that Kia remains near the bottom of the ranking in
the 2024 edition of the Leaderboard. Kia continues to have weak scores
across the board, receiving a 0% score in two categories (fossil free and
environmentally responsible aluminum, and Indigenous Peoples’ rights)
and achieving scores of less than 10% across the indicators on steel,
batteries and responsible sourcing of transition minerals.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Has a 2045 carbon neutrality declaration and interim targets, with preparations to join the Science-based
Targets Initiative.
■ Now discloses scope 3 emissions for purchased goods and services.
■ Has a battery closed loop system for extracting raw materials.
■ Includes little detail on its steel, aluminum and battery decarbonization efforts - scoring less than 10%
across all these categories.
■ Has made commitments to human rights, workers’ rights, and responsible sourcing of transition minerals,
but provides few details on the measures taken to realize these commitments. However, does provide
more detail this year on its system for evaluating human rights risks at individual suppliers.
■ Overall human rights score brought down by very poor performance on transition minerals and Indigenous
*Sales figures are for Hyundai Motor OEM which includes both Hyundai and Kia.

2 #1 in 2023
BEV Sales # 138,207
BEV Sales % 11%
Total Score 41%
Human Rights 45%
SUMMARY
Mercedes lost its number one position in the second edition of the
Leaderboard to Ford. However, the automaker continues with a strong
performance across both the fossil-free and environmentally sustainable
and human rights and responsible sourcing sections. Mercedes made
some notable improvements during 2023, in particular on fossil free
and environmentally responsible aluminum - for which it received an 18
percentage point score increase.
Mercedes has room to move forward and reclaim its number one title
through disclosing disaggregated supply chain emissions like fellow
industry leader Tesla did this year, as well as prioritizing their commitment
to the rights of Indigenous Peoples.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Discloses supply chain emissions and has set a target to be net zero by 2040 across all stages of its val-
ue chain, with a new interim target to cut value chain emissions by 50% by the end of this decade.
■ Has set clear requirements for suppliers on setting emissions targets and disclosing water usage.
■ Top three scorer across the fossil free and environmentally responsible steel, aluminum and batteries
categories. Made especially strong progress on aluminum decarbonization this year by setting new targets
and signing a letter of intent with an aluminum producer to develop and use “practically CO2-free” auto-
motive aluminum.
■ Also strengthened performance on recycling and reuse this year by disclosing progress on a new closed-
loop process for steel production scrap at its Sindelfingen plant and a new battery recycling factory in
Kuppenheim this year, which will use efficient hydrometallurgical processing.
■ Decent scores in the human rights section across the General, Transition Minerals and Workers’ Rights
categories. Also achieves the highest score on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, but with this score at just 17%,
it still has significant room for improvement.

10 #11 in 2023
BEV Sales % 7%*
Total Score 13%
Human Rights 15%
SUMMARY
Scoring just 13% overall, Nissan made limited progress this year and
performs poorly across both the Fossil-free and Environmentally
Sustainable and human rights indicators. Nissan has set some targets
and commitments on emissions and human rights in its supply chain, but
demonstrates little in the way of concrete actions it is taking to realize
these commitments.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Discloses scope 3 emissions for purchased goods and has set a 2050 target to achieve carbon neutrality
across the lifecycle of its products, but has not set an interim scope 3 target.
■ Signed new agreements to procure lower CO2 steel and aluminum from Kobe Steel. However, it should be
noted that, in the case of steel, this will still be from coal-fired blast furnaces, and so lacks the ambition of
the green steel procurement agreements signed by other automakers.
■ Continues to score just 4% for its efforts to address the climate and environmental impacts of its battery
supply chain.
■ Commitments on human rights, workers’ rights and responsible transition mineral sourcing, but not on in-
digenous rights. Discloses few concrete measures to realize these commitments, particularly with regards
to transition minerals and workers’ rights.
■ Announced that a supply chain human rights grievance system is planned but not yet implemented.
*Sales figures are for the R-N-M Alliance OEM which includes Renault, Nissan and Mitsubishi.

9 #7 in 2023
BEV Sales % 7%*
Total Score 19%
Human Rights 21%
SUMMARY
Renault performed poorly across both the environmental and human

rights indicators. It is the weakest performer of the European automakers
and failed to improve in most indicator categories this year. A notable
exception is for fossil free and environmentally sustainable batteries,
where it was one of the biggest improvers, largely due to its efforts around
closed-loop processes for battery recycling.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Has a 2030 GHG reduction target for its supply chain and states that it will focus on steel, aluminum and
batteries.
■ Strong progress on batteries during 2023, due to setting targets for increasing the share of recycled
battery minerals, establishing a new company to focus on closed-loop battery recycling and signing a
purchasing agreement for low-carbon cobalt.
■ However, demonstrates little progress on its GHG emission reduction targets for steel and aluminum: it
has not disclosed any purchasing agreements for low-carbon steel or aluminum, and does not participate
in any multi-stakeholder initiatives focused on driving demand for clean steel and aluminum.
■ Made no progress on any of the human rights categories during 2023.
■ Overall human rights score is brought down in particular by inadequate actions on responsible transition
mineral sourcing and a 0% score on Indigenous Peoples’ rights.
*Sales figures are for the R-N-M Alliance OEM which includes Renault, Nissan and Mitsubishi.

18 N/A
BEV Sales # 60,351
BEV Sales % 33%
Total Score 1%
Human Rights 0%
SUMMARY
A new entrant to the scorecard this year due to its burgeoning EV

sales, SAIC has increased its BEV production to about a third of total
production. Unfortunately, it is the lowest-scoring automaker in this year’s
Leaderboard, due to its poor disclosure and lack of public commitments
on building a clean and equitable supply chain.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ One of only 3 automakers that fails to disclose its scope 3 emissions or an emissions reduction target
covering the supply chain.
■ Has made minor progress on batteries: co-establishing a new company called Energiex to enhance the
recycling and re-utilisation of batteries, and collaborating with a startup on R&D into solid-state batteries,
which hold potential to reduce the climate and environmental impacts of batteries.
■ Lacks commitments on human rights and does not disclose any meaningful due diligence processes for
its supply chain.

5 #5 in 2023
BEV Sales # 151,236
BEV Sales % 6%
Total Score 27%
Human Rights 37%
SUMMARY
Stellantis underperforms on fossil free and environmentally sustainable

supply chains, with almost no action to decarbonize the steel and
aluminum used in its vehicles, and a poor rating from InfluenceMap on
climate lobbying, which further brings down its overall score.
It performs much better on human rights - especially in the “General”

section looking at overall supply chain due diligence policies and
measures, for which Stellantis received the highest score out of the 18
automakers evaluated.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Discloses Scope 3 emissions for its supply chain and has now set targets to reduce its supply chain emis-
sions by 40% per BEV by 2030 and to be net zero across the whole value chain by 2038.
■ Scores the lowest out of the European and U.S. automakers on fossil free and environmentally sustain-
able steel and aluminum, and demonstrated no progress on these supply chains during 2023.
■ Scores higher for batteries due to recycling processes, investments in battery chemistries to reduce the
use of high-emissions minerals and for entering into contractual agreements with lithium and nickel sup-
pliers to reduce the carbon footprint of mining these minerals.
■ Strongest automaker in the General human rights section, with a score of 76%, due to robust measures
for preventing, mitigating, and holding suppliers accountable for potential human rights violations.
■ However, they are behind several of their peers on workers’ rights and responsible transition mineral
sourcing.
■ Continues to score 0% on efforts to ensure respect for Indigenous Peoples’ rights in its supply chain.

3 #9 in 2023
BEV Sales # 945,119
BEV Sales % 100%
Total Score 35%
Human Rights 39%
SUMMARY
Tesla was the biggest mover of the Leaderboard this year, improving across all indicator
categories to achieve an overall score increase of 21 percentage points and a significant
boost up the rankings from 9th to 3rd position. Nonetheless, there is ample room for
improvement. On fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply chains, Tesla can
build on the progress that it has made in 2023 on measuring its supply chain emissions to
take targeted action on decarbonizing its steel, aluminum, and battery supply chains. On
human rights and responsible sourcing, Tesla should prioritize strengthening policies and
processes to ensure the rights of Indigenous Peoples and workers are respected across its
supply chain. These areas provide Tesla with the opportunity to continue strengthening its
performance at the same rate as it has done this year and become the industry leader on
equitable, sustainable, and fossil-free supply chains.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ In 2023, became the first automaker to disclose disaggregated scope 3 emissions for its steel, aluminum, and
battery supply chains. However, has not set any emission reduction targets for these supply chains.
■ Performs well on fossil-free and environmentally responsible batteries, due to progress on closed loop process-
es for battery recycling, investments in battery chemistries like LFP batteries that can reduce demand of high
intensity minerals, and sourcing significant percentages of its cobalt, nickel and lithium directly from mining
suppliers with contracts that include environmental requirements.
■ Performs poorly on steel and aluminum - providing no evidence of actions taken to decarbonize these supply
chains, with the exception of some progress on aluminum recycling.
■ Significant improvements in its human rights due diligence and responsible transition mineral sourcing pro-
cesses, with a new third-party grievance mechanism and more comprehensive supply chain mapping, human
rights priority areas and engagement actions for each of the key transition minerals. Also now encourages its
suppliers to undergo IRMA audits, with four mining suppliers agreeing to do so.
■ Improved score on Indigenous Peoples’ rights with a full commitment to Free, Prior and Informed Consent for
all raw material extraction and processing in its supply chain. However, with a score of just 14% for this catego-
ry, there is still much more to be done.
■ Human rights policy and supplier code of conduct now includes a commitment to respect all five of the ILO
Principles, including the right to collective bargaining, but has made no progress beyond this on workers’ rights.
This is especially concerning given the criticisms of Tesla in 2023 for not respecting collective bargaining rights
of workers in Sweden.

15 #12 in 2023
BEV Sales # 46,821
BEV Sales % 1%
Total Score 7%
Human Rights 9%
SUMMARY
The second edition of the Leaderboard further entrenches Toyota’s

reputation as the biggest climate laggard of the automotive industry. Not
only do BEV sales continue to constitute just 1% of Toyota’s total vehicle
sales, the automaker has not improved its climate lobbying performance -
rated the worst of the auto industry by InfluenceMap - or its fossil-free and
environmentally sustainable score in the Leaderboard of just 5%. Toyota
needs to change track fast or risk sliding into irrelevance as the rest of the
industry races towards a cleaner future.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Discloses scope 3 supply chain emissions and has set a 2050 target to eliminate all life-cycle emissions.
■ Scores zero points on all steel and aluminum indicators, and just 4% on the battery supply chain indica-
tors, exhibiting an all-around failure to reduce emissions and other environmental impacts from these
supply chains.
■ Has a basic commitment to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and asks suppliers
to apply human rights requirements to their own suppliers. But still fails to provide tangible evidence of
concrete measures to realize this commitment.
■ Scores less than 10% on the indicators on responsible transition mineral sourcing, Indigenous Peoples’
rights, and workers’ rights - lacking even basic commitments on these issues.

6 #4 in 2023
BEV Sales # 370,513
BEV Sales % 9%
Total Score 26%
Human Rights 26%
SUMMARY
Despite being a relatively strong performer in the inaugural Leaderboard,

Volkswagen was the only automaker not to improve its overall score in
the second edition. Whilst it did make some progress with regards to
battery recycling and advance purchase agreements for low-carbon steel,
this was offset by backsliding with regards to the level of transparency
provided on its mineral supply chains. This lack of progress has led to
Volkswagen’s drop from 4th to 6th place in the Leaderboard.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Discloses 2030 and 2050 targets to reduce scope 3 supply chain emissions.
■ Inadequate progress on steel and aluminum decarbonization due to a lack of material-specific targets
and participation in key multi-stakeholder initiatives.
■ Discloses a new agreement with Salzgitter AG to produce low-carbon steel from the end of 2025 and a
new joint venture with battery recycler Umicore to recover minerals.
■ Has developed solid, but insufficient, processes for human rights due diligence and responsible mineral
sourcing.
■ No longer discloses the countries of origin or country-specific risks for its mineral supply chains.
■ Makes no commitment to Indigenous Peoples’ rights and inadequate policies to ensure workers’ rights
are respected throughout its supply chain.

4 #3 in 2023
BEV Sales # 88,156
BEV Sales % 23%
Total Score 32%
Human Rights 27%
SUMMARY
Volvo has rapidly grown its EV production in recent years and continues
to be the industry leader on fossil-free steel and aluminum. However,
compared to other automakers, Volvo has made relatively little progress
overall this year - resulting in the automaker slipping out of the top three.
Volvo’s top score on fossil-free and environmentally sustainable has now
been matched by Mercedes, while its marginal progress on human rights
and responsible sourcing leaves Volvo lagging behind several competitors.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
■ Continues to be the highest scorer on fossil-free and environmentally sustainable supply chains, but the
gap between the second highest scorer, Mercedes, has been reduced to less than 1%.
■ Continues to be the industry leader on fossil-free steel and aluminum due to its closed loop processes,
recycling targets, advance purchase agreements and participation in the multi-stakeholder initiatives
SteelZero and First Movers Coalition.
■ Has a decent human rights performance, but is brought down by its 0% score on Indigenous rights.

CHAPTER 005
Appendix 1:
Table of indicators by
Leaderboard sections

Fossil-free and Environmentally Sustainable supply chains
(climate and environment):
THEME INDICATOR CATEGORY INDICATORS
Disclosure of emissions ■ The company discloses total scope 3 GHG

and water management emissions due to purchased goods and services.
■ The company discloses “significant emissions” in
its supply chain.
■ The company discloses water usage by key
suppliers in its supply chain.
Target-setting and ■ The company has set and disclosed a scope 3 SBT
progress towards fossil (must include reference to upstream/purchased
free and environmentally goods & not only ‘Well to Wheel’)
Fossil Free and sustainable supply chains ■ The company commits to having suppliers provide
Environmentally science-based targets for GHG emissions.
Sustainable ■ The company discloses the current percentage of
Supply Chains suppliers providing science-based targets.
(General) ■ The company requires all significant suppliers to
disclose their water management plan and water
usage.
■ The company has programs in place to monitor
suppliers for compliance with GHG emissions
targets and other environmental impacts.
Use of supply chain ■ The company incentivises suppliers to reduce GHG

levers to achieve fossil and other significant air emissions.
free and environmentally ■ The company incentivises suppliers to improve
sustainable supply chains water management
Disclosure of scope 3 ■ The company discloses disaggregated GHG

GHG emissions due to emissions for their steel supply chains.
steel supply chains
Target setting and ■ The company has set targets for the use of fossil
progress towards fossil free and environmentally sustainable steel.
Fossil Free and free and environmentally ■ The company publishes progress towards their
Environmentally sustainable steel supply target by disclosing the current percentage of low-
Sustainable chains CO2 steel in their annual production cycle.
Steel ■ The company has a target for the use of
secondary/scrap steel by 2030.
■ The company publishes progress towards their
target by disclosing the current percentage of
recycled steel used in its annual production cycle.

Use of supply chain ■ The company participates in multi-stakeholder
levers to achieve fossil procurement initiatives to collaborate with other
free and environmentally buyers to incentivise investment in and production
sustainable steel supply of fossil-free steel at scale.
chains ■ The company participates in multi-stakeholder
standard / certification initiatives to drive
investment in and production of socially and
environmentally sustainable steel at scale.
■ Company has entered into formal arrangements
with suppliers to incentivise investment in and
greater production of fossil-free steel.
■ The company integrates improved recyclability of
steel into automobile design and manufacture.
Disclosure of scope 3 ■ The company discloses disaggregated GHG

GHG emissions due to emissions for their aluminium supply chains.
aluminium
Target setting and ■ The company has set targets for the use of fossil
progress towards fossil free and environmentally sustainable aluminium
free and environmentally ■ The company publishes progress towards their
sustainable aluminium target by disclosing the current percentage of low-
supply chains CO2 aluminium in their annual production cycle.
■ The company has a target to increase use of
secondary/scrap aluminium by 2030.
■ The company publishes progress towards their
target by disclosing the current percentage of
recycled aluminium used in its annual production
Fossil Free and
cycle.
Environmentally
Sustainable Use of supply chain ■ The company participates in multi-stakeholder
Aluminium levers to achieve fossil procurement initiatives to collaborate with other
free and environmentally buyers to incentivise investment in and production
sustainable aluminium of fossil free aluminium at scale.
supply chains ■ The company participates in multi-stakeholder
standard / certification initiatives to drive
investment in and production of socially and
environmentally sustainable aluminium
■ The company has entered into formal
arrangements with suppliers to incentivise
investment in and greater production of fossil free
aluminium
■ The company integrates improved recyclability
of aluminium into automobile design and
manufacturing process.

Disclosure of scope 3 ■ The company discloses disaggregated scope 3
GHG emissions due to emissions for their battery supply chains, including
battery supply chains a total for the whole battery and disaggregated
emissions for high intensity minerals, including
Nickel and Lithium at a minimum.
Target setting and ■ The company has set a target to produce fossil free
Fossil Free and progress towards fossil and environmentally sustainable batteries.
Environmentally free and environmentally ■ The company has set a target to reduce reliance on
Sustainable sustainable battery energy intensive minerals in battery production.
Batteries supply chains ■ The company has set collection and/or recovery
targets for high intensity battery metals.
Use of supply chain ■ The company requires all battery manufacturers to

levers to achieve fossil use 100% renewable electricity
free and environmentally ■ Company enters into formal agreements (inclusive
sustainable battery of joint ventures and investments) with extractives
supply chains and other value chain companies to reduce the
environmental impact of lithium sourcing.
■ 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.
■ 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.
■ 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.
■ 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.
■ The company invests in R&D to increase the
recyclability of their batteries.
■ The company has established closed loop
processes to increase the % of batteries being
recycled at end of life.

Human rights and responsible sourcing indicators
THEME INDICATOR CATEGORY INDICATORS
Commit ■ The company has a public commitment to human

rights.
■ The company extends their human rights
commitments to their Tier 1 suppliers and beyond.
Identify ■ The company has a process in place to assess

salient human rights risks in their supply chain.
■ The company discloses the salient human rights
risks in their supply chain and where they are
located.
Responsible ■ The company has a process for identifying high risk
Sourcing: supplier categories in their supply chain.
General HR
indicators Prevent, Mitigate and ■ The company assesses the risk of adverse human
Account rights impacts with suppliers prior to entering into
any contracts.
■ The company discloses how it monitors/audits
suppliers for compliance with the supplier code of
conduct during the contract period.
■ 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.
■ The company discloses how they verify the
implementation of corrective actions.
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.
■ 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.
■ The company has put in place a remedy process.
Responsible Commit ■ The company has a commitment to responsible

Sourcing of metals and minerals sourcing.
Transition ■ The company requires its suppliers to undertake
Minerals due diligence in accordance with the OECD
Due Diligence for Responsible Supply Chains of
Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High Risk
Areas

transition minerals risks in their supply chain to the
point of extraction.
■ The company discloses transition minerals risks in
their supply chain and where they are located.
■ The company publishes a smelter or refiner (SoR)
list and indicates which SoRs are conformant with
the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI).
Prevent, Mitigate and ■ The company discloses how it monitors/audits

Account suppliers for compliance with the transition
minerals due diligence requirements.
■ The company formally engages SoRs to build their
capacity to conduct due diligence of their own
supply chains.
■ The company formally engages extractives
companies and includes human rights clauses in
any contractual arrangements.
■ The company is a member of IRMA and actively
engages their suppliers with regards to IRMA
mining audits.
respond if it finds non-conformances associated
with its responsible minerals sourcing policy
occurring in its operations or supply chains.
■ The company discloses how they verify the
implementation of corrective actions.
Remedy ■ The company has put in place a formal mechanism

whereby grievances can be raised about SoR
facilities.
Indigenous Commit ■ The company explicitly commits to respecting

Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Free Prior Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
and Informed ■ The company has a public commitment to free,
Consent prior and informed consent.
■ The company extends their indigenous
■ These commitments are translated into the
Indigenous languages used by impacted
communities.

Indigenous rights risks in their supply chain to the
point of extraction.

Prevent, Mitigate and ■ The company provides additional discussion
Account regarding the practices by which a suppliers must
obtain FPIC, and explicitly states that the process
must reach and engage with impacted Indigenous
Peoples.
■ 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.
■ The auto manufacturer has a formal process in
place to engage critical upstream suppliers on FPIC
(e.g. extractives companies)
respond if it finds FPIC breaches in its supply
chain.
Remedy ■ The company has a process for investigating and

remedying breaches of FPIC that includes a formal
role for impacted Indigenous groups.
Commit ■ The company has a commitment to workers’ rights

■ The company extends their workers’ rights
Identify ■ The company consults trade unions in their

assessment of salient workers’ rights risks in their
supply chain.
■ The company discloses the salient workers’ rights
risks in their supply chain and where they are
located.
Prevent, Mitigate and ■ The company actively collaborates with workers’

Account and the representative organisation(s) of workers’
Respect for
own choosing to promote workers’ rights and
Workers’ Rights
prevent abuses in the supply chain.
respond if it finds non-conformances associated
with its workers’ rights policy occurring in its
operations or supply chains.
■ The company works with the relevant trade union
and/or worker representative organisation to verify
the implementation of corrective actions pertaining
to workers’ rights.
Remedy ■ Workers and the representative organisations of

workers’ own choosing are formally included in the
remedy process.

Endnotes
1 See: Science-based Target Initiative (2018), Value Chain in the Value Chain: Best Practices in Scope 3
Greenhouse Gas Management, https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBT_Value_Chain_Re-
port-1.pdf
2 See: UN OHCHR (2011), Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Na-
tions “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/
publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf
3 See: Germanwatch (2022), An Examination Of Industry Standards In The Raw Materials Sector, https://www.
germanwatch.org/sites/default/files/germanwatch_abstract_an_examination_of_industry_standards_in_
the_raw_materials_sector_2022-09.pdf
4 See: InfluenceMap, Automotive Climate Tool: https://automotive.influencemap.org/
5 See the First Movers Coalition’s website for information: https://initiatives.weforum.org/first-movers-coali-

tion/home
6 See the accompanying Lead the Charge methodology document for a more detailed explanation of why and
how this framework was used in the Leaderboard.
7 See the accompanying Lead the Charge methodology document for a more detailed explanation of why and
how this framework was used in the Leaderboard.
8 See: Germanwatch (2022), An Examination of Industry Standards in the Raw Material Sector, https://
www.germanwatch.org/sites/default/files/germanwatch_abstract_an_examination_of_industry_standards_
in_the_raw_materials_sector_2022-09.pdf 9 Stellantis is an Italian-American company. For the purposes of
US and European comparisons, Stellantis’s scores were equally divided between the two markets.

Learn more at
leadthecharge.org

2024LTC Report V11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2024LTC Report V11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2024LTC Report V11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Race to

About this report 03

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 2

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 4

This year’s analysis shows that the industry is mak-

U.S. automakers are making the fastest progress,

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 5

GM also made noticeable progress (a 7% improvement overall) and has

Advances in EU legislation appear to be having an impact on the due diligence practices of

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 6

Fossil-free and Environmentally Sustainable Supply Chains

Volvo continues to be significantly ahead of other companies in its approach

Tesla is now leading the industry on scope 3 emissions disclosure, becoming

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 7

Human Rights And Responsible Sourcing

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 8

01 29% 54% 42%

02 36% 44% 40%

03 31% 39% 35%

04 36% 27% 32%

05 16% 37% 27%

06 25% 26% 26%

07 17% 31% 24%

08 19% 26% 22%

09 17% 21% 19%

10 12% 18% 15%

11 12% 15% 13%

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 9

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 10

Network members work across multiple geographies

Our vision is an automotive industry where all vehicles

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 11

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 12

INDICATOR CATEGORIES % WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY UPDATES FOR THE SECOND

Within the Leaderboard, some indicators award

■ Multi-stakeholder initiatives other than IRMA no

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 13

Automakers included within the analysis:

OEM BEV Sales Total Vehicle BEV % Headquartered

BMW Group 165,303 1,286,153 13% Germany

BYD 711,556 1,474,077 48% China

Ford 43,570 1,763,257 2% United States

GAC 265,391 439,253 60% China

Geely Auto Group 172,105 690,161 25% China

GM 311,070 2,597,538 12% United States

Honda Motor 9,334 1,777,932 1% Japan

Mercedes-Benz Group 138,207 1,264,493 11% Germany

R-N-M Alliance (inc. Renault and Nissan) 152,517 2,302,027 7% France/Japan

SAIC 60,351 180,917 33% China

Stellantis 151,236 2,416,540 6% Netherlands

Tesla Inc. 945,119 945,119 100% United States

Toyota Motor Corp. 46,821 4,111,313 1% Japan

VW Group 370,513 4,145,279 9% Germany

Volvo Car Group 88,156 378,671 23% Sweden

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 14

The importance of equitable, sustainable and fossil-free

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 15

Environmental groups and US government officials

2024 LEADERBOARD REPORT | 16