As governments race to secure critical minerals vital to the clean energy transition, digital infrastructure and defence, supply-chain resilience has become a strategic priority. Jamie Williamson argues that this ambition cannot be met through industrial policy alone: responsible business conduct—particularly the governance of private security in high-risk environments—has emerged as a decisive factor. Poorly governed security arrangements can undermine human rights, disrupt operations and derail investments, while responsible private security practices can strengthen social licence, reduce risk and support resilient, sustainable critical mineral supply chains.
I. Critical Minerals: the Race is On
Across the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, the G7 and Australia, to name but a few, critical minerals have become a cornerstone of economic security, industrial strategy and climate policy. Critical minerals—such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, rare earth elements and copper—are as materials strategically indispensable, face high supply risk, and have limited substitutes. They are essential inputs for batteries, renewable energy systems, electric vehicles, semiconductors, advanced manufacturing and defence technologies.
To quote Chris McDonal MP, UK Minister for Industry, “Without [critical minerals] our lives would grind to a halt. Industries would shut down overnight and communities would not be able to function”
These national strategies converge around common priorities: diversification of supply, reduction of excessive dependencies on one country for sourcing, development of domestic and allied capacity across the value chain, and stronger recycling and circularity. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA) and the continued refinement and adoption of national critical minerals strategies reflect a shared recognition: secure, resilient and sustainable access to critical minerals is essential to delivering the clean energy transition, digital infrastructure, advanced manufacturing and defence capabilities.
II. Critical Minerals and Responsible Business Conduct
The EU CRMA and national critical mineral strategies are increasingly embedding responsible business conduct as a condition of resilience and successful meeting of strategic objectives. Under the CRMA, selected strategic projects “would be implemented sustainably, in particular as regards the monitoring, prevention and minimisation of environmental impacts, the prevention and minimisation of socially adverse impacts through the use of socially responsible practices including respect for human rights, indigenous peoples and labour rights […].”
Similarly, the UK Criminal Strategy explains: “The UK has a leading role in ensuring critical minerals are produced responsibly and transparently. Currently, some critical mineral supply chains are associated with significant ESG harms, including human rights abuses, biodiversity loss, deforestation and corruption. The government is committed to promoting improved governance, increased supply chain transparency, and greater adoption of responsible business practices that protect the local environment and surrounding communities. ESG risks also create added vulnerability to supply disruption: critical mineral supply chains are not secure unless they are also responsible and sustainable.”
What does this mean for stakeholders operating in the Critical Minerals sector? For corporates, this translates into heightened expectations around responsible business conduct, ESG performance, human rights due diligence and operational transparency. For investors, it shapes access to capital, insurance, public finance and strategic partnerships. For governments, it underpins public trust and political legitimacy, coupled with secure and stable supply chains.
III. Critical Minerals and Private Security?
Critical minerals strategies cannot be implemented through industrial policy alone. Security governance—on land and at sea—is a structural risk factor that must be integrated into responsible sourcing criteria, strategic projects, and public financing instruments. Indeed, many significant reserves are located in conflict-affected, fragile or politically unstable environments, including the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Sudan, Ukraine and Venezuela. In parallel, more than 80% of global critical minerals trade is transported by maritime routes, exposing supply chains to geopolitical chokepoints and security threats.
As strategies move to implementation, as commodity traders and the extractive industry step up explorations and governments secure critical minerals deals, there is one operational risk that needs to be fully integrated into policy and investment frameworks: the governance of private security in critical mineral supply chains. For policy makers, companies and investors alike, responsible private security practices cannot be a niche concern. They are a material determinant of whether critical minerals strategies succeed or fail. Too often, responsible business commitments falter at the point of implementation—particularly where security arrangements are poorly governed.
Private security providers play a central role in critical mineral operations, protecting mine sites, processing facilities, ports and transport corridors. This is especially true in high-risk environments where state security capacity is limited or contested. Excessive use of force, intimidation of communities, abuses against protesters or artisanal miners, and failures to respect Indigenous rights can rapidly escalate into conflict.
When private security providers are inadequately regulated, trained or overseen, they can directly jeopardize mining operations, derail supply chains, and undermine investments. For policy makers, such incidents undermine the credibility of responsible sourcing frameworks and expose governments to reputational and political risk. For companies, they erode social licence to operate, increase operational disruption and delay production. For investors, they translate into material financial risk, including project delays, litigation exposure, stranded assets and ESG underperformance.
Conversely, responsible private security practices can act as a risk mitigator and resilience multiplier across critical mineral supply chains. When security providers are properly selected, trained and governed, they can help de-escalate tensions, support lawful community engagement, protect human rights and prevent disruptions. This strengthens social licence to operate, stabilises production, secures transport routes and aligns operational realities with policy commitments.
For governments, this supports the implementation of critical minerals strategies by reducing geopolitical, social and reputational risks. For corporates, it enhances compliance with ESG and due diligence obligations. For investors, it reduces volatility and improves long-term value preservation.
IV. Integrating responsible security into Critical Minerals policy, corporate and investment frameworks
Responsible private security practices are not a peripheral operational issue. They directly affect social licence, regulatory compliance, ESG performance and project timelines. Weak security governance can negate otherwise strong responsible-sourcing commitments evoked in critical mineral strategy. In other words, responsible private security is a linchpin to resilient supply chains, sustainable practices and successful investments, not merely a cost of doing business.
The EU, UK, Canada, the United States and Australia are aligned in their ambition to secure critical minerals in ways that are resilient, sustainable and consistent with shared values. Delivering on this ambition requires coherence between policy objectives, corporate practices and investment decisions. To fully realise the objectives of the EU CRMA and national critical minerals strategies, responsible private security must be integrated explicitly into decision-making frameworks. This includes:
- Policy makers embedding security governance into responsible sourcing criteria, strategic projects and public financing mechanisms
- Corporates incorporating private security oversight into ESG, human rights due diligence and supply-chain risk management systems
- Investors and lenders treating security governance as a core factor in project evaluation and portfolio risk
Engaging with expert organisations such as ICoCA enables all three groups to move from high-level commitments to credible, auditable implementation. As the only international multi-stakeholder organisation dedicated to setting and overseeing standards for private security companies operating in complex and high-risk environments ICoCA provides a uniquely practical solution at the intersection of security, human rights and supply-chain governance. ICoCA stands ready to support policy makers, companies and investors in addressing this challenge—ensuring that critical minerals strategies are not only ambitious on paper, but robust, responsible and resilient in practice.
