MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406562698 · doi:10.1016/j.esg.2025.100235

The unbearable lightness of lithium governance: Legitimizing extraction for a just and sustainable energy transition

2025· article· en· W4406562698 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth System Governance · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSydney Environment Institute, University of Sydney
KeywordsLightnessCorporate governanceEnergy (signal processing)Transition (genetics)Extraction (chemistry)Lithium (medication)Energy transitionPsychologyEnvironmental economicsPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceEconomicsComputer scienceChemistryMathematicsStatisticsChromatographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The electrification of renewable energy systems is fostering a global surge in demand for the “critical” metals that are used in the production of lithium-ion batteries, raising concerns that the latest round of “renewable extractivism” is degrading some of the world's most fragile ecosystems and communities. In the absence of credible and legitimate forms of state regulation, transnational corporations in the mining, battery and auto sectors have used a range of procedures to monitor, report, and verify their performance on environmental, social, and governance indicators. This article examines how transnational governance initiatives seek to regulate the extraction of lithium for lithium-ion batteries and electric vehicles. It starts from the premise that their monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) procedures are “rituals of legitimation” or technical routines that frame and define what constitutes responsible mining practice while not mitigating harm. We analyze an original database of 18 public, private, and hybrid governance initiatives to investigate the types of rituals used. In theory, using third-party audits to monitor, report, and verify mining standards and regulations provides an important means of holding powerful mining companies accountable for the social and ecological harms of resource extraction. However, maintaining the autonomy of third-party auditors entails reducing or eliminating the role of mining interests in transnational governance practices. We find that the strongest and most independent forms of governance are ones that are rooted in public institutions with legal mechanisms for enforcing corporate compliance. By contrast, private initiatives place significant responsibility in the hands of subcontractors, offering limited opportunities for including or offering affected communities a means of redress. Finally, hybrid initiatives establish more comprehensive MRV practices, but these too adopt procedures that limit the conditions under which affected communities may question, negotiate, or – indeed – say no to mining. The findings highlight the importance of establishing governance procedures that maintain the autonomy of third parties by institutionalizing and enforcing independent site visits, local participation, grievance mechanisms, and meaningful consequences for non-compliance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it