The pursuit of a clean energy future is inextricably linked to the availability and responsible sourcing of critical raw materials (CRMs) such as copper, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements. These minerals are the fundamental building blocks powering the transition to low-carbon technologies, including electric vehicles, renewable energy infrastructure, and advanced electronics. However, the global race to secure these materials is creating significant ethical and geopolitical challenges, particularly for the communities situated near extraction sites—many of whom have historically contributed little to carbon emissions yet bear disproportionate environmental and social burdens.
Currently, the extraction and processing of CRMs are concentrated in a handful of countries, notably China, which dominates the rare earth elements market. This oligopolistic control exposes global supply chains to vulnerabilities due to geopolitical tensions, trade disputes, and regional instability. In response, powerful actors such as the United States and the European Union are attempting to restructure supply chains to reduce dependency and improve security. Strategies include on-shoring, which involves scaling up domestic mining and refining operations; re-shoring, bringing industries back from overseas locations; and friend-shoring, where operations are relocated to geopolitically allied countries. While these approaches may diversify supply sources, they often replicate systemic problems associated with mining—without addressing the underlying issues of community rights, environmental justice, or sustainability.
A recent commentary published in the prestigious journal Nature Energy introduces a paradigm-shifting framework termed “just-shoring,” aimed at reorienting how global actors approach the sourcing of critical materials. Authored by Jessica DiCarlo and colleagues, this framework emphasizes moving beyond competition and state security to focus on the rights, interests, and sovereignty of communities directly impacted by mineral extraction. It challenges the assumption that merely relocating supply chains leads to more ethical or sustainable outcomes, underscoring that extraction activities themselves must be governed by principles of justice, transparency, and enforceable community participation at every stage of the mineral lifecycle.
The just-shoring approach calls attention to the often-overlooked stakeholders in mining operations—particularly Indigenous peoples and agrarian communities—who face encroachment on their lands and disruption to their livelihoods. Current international frameworks such as the Paris Agreement and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals advocate for local resource control but predominantly as voluntary guidelines lacking binding enforcement mechanisms. Just-shoring proposes legal guarantees for affected communities to co-govern the entire extraction process, from exploration and permitting through to mine closure, environmental rehabilitation, and recycling efforts. Such governance ensures accountability, enabling communities to share decision-making power and benefits, while mitigating environmental degradation.
This framework asks critical questions that reframe the discourse surrounding critical material extraction: who truly benefits from these operations? Whose risks are heightened and left uncompensated? And crucially, how much material extraction is genuinely necessary to achieve a just energy transition? These inquiries force a reassessment of prevailing narratives that justify extensive mining under claims of climate urgency. DiCarlo warns that without redirecting benefits and distributing costs equitably, the green transition risks perpetuating the same patterns of injustice and ecological harm characteristic of the fossil fuel era—albeit under a more environmentally friendly label.
The challenge of securing CRMs cannot be divorced from broader considerations of environmental justice and climate ethics. Mining activities invariably affect air and water quality, biodiversity, and social structures, yet these risks are rarely assessed comprehensively in terms of their climate mitigation merits. The commentary highlights that many proposed mining and processing projects are concentrated near vulnerable populations and fragile ecosystems. Without stringent oversight and genuine community consent, these operations threaten to create new “sacrifice zones,” undermining the legitimacy and sustainability of the global energy transition.
Governments and corporations often frame extraction as a necessary trade-off for climate action. However, the just-shoring model advocates for maintaining urgency in decarbonization without sacrificing equity or environmental integrity. This demands a systematic recalibration of industrial and policy paradigms toward more sustainable resource management, emphasizing reduction, reuse, and recycling of critical materials alongside responsible mining practices. Only through such a holistic approach can the global community hope to meet climate goals without deepening existing inequalities.
Furthermore, the geopolitical dimension of CRM sourcing adds complexity to the issue. With supply chains interwoven with international relations, economic competition, and strategic alliances, the security narratives often dominate policies. But the just-shoring concept asserts that security must be reframed to include the security and resilience of communities on the ground, not just the stability of markets or the interests of powerful states. This shift demands institutional reforms that prioritize social justice and ecological stewardship as integral elements of supply chain governance.
The authors also underscore the necessity of transparency in decision making and data sharing. Opacity in mineral supply chains obscures human rights abuses, corruption, and environmental violations, hindering accountability efforts. By institutionalizing community co-governance and enforcing robust regulatory frameworks, just-shoring ensures that extraction projects undergo rigorous social and environmental scrutiny before approval and remain subject to continuous oversight.
This commentary arrives at a critical moment when governments worldwide are accelerating green transition policies amid geopolitical instabilities and escalating climate crises. It challenges policymakers, industry leaders, and civil society to rethink the foundations on which the energy transition is constructed. The future of sustainable energy may well depend on recognizing that ethical sourcing of critical materials is not simply a supply chain issue but a profound question of justice—one that requires an integrated approach centered on human rights, environmental protection, and equitable development.
Ultimately, embracing just-shoring could transform critical material extraction from a contested source of conflict and inequality into a model of responsible stewardship. Such transformation holds the promise of aligning the global imperative for rapid decarbonization with the ethical imperative of leaving no community behind. As the race for critical materials intensifies, the principles enshrined in just-shoring offer a pathway toward a truly just and sustainable energy future.
Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: A just energy transition requires just-shoring critical materials
News Publication Date: 9-Jan-2026
Web References:
- DOI link: 10.1038/s41560-025-01940-4
- Nature Energy, January 2026 edition
Keywords: critical raw materials, clean energy transition, just-shoring, ethical mining, supply chain security, environmental justice, indigenous rights, sustainable mining, decarbonization, geopolitical supply chains, mineral extraction governance, transparency
