By John Hawkins
Critical minerals are increasingly important to the global economy. But their potential depends on more than the minerals themselves; it depends on the infrastructure that supports their supply chains.
Who decides what gets built and where, and on what evidence? How openly are contracts awarded and delivery monitored? Who benefits and who can hold decision makers to account?
These are questions CoST brings to this week’s EITI Global Conference in Brussels, exploring how our experience in infrastructure transparency, accountability and multi-stakeholder working can complement EITI’s work.
Why infrastructure matters for critical minerals
Roads, railways, ports, border crossings, electricity networks, water systems and social infrastructure determine whether mineral projects can operate reliably, whether responsible companies can compete, and whether producing countries can move beyond exporting raw or minimally processed materials to capture greater economic value.
The IEA’s Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2026 highlights, for example, that infrastructure constraints, water stress and regulatory uncertainty are barriers to greater refining and processing in Latin America.
Infrastructure risks and who benefits
Infrastructure investments in critical mineral supply chains create integrity risks throughout the infrastructure lifecycle: in project selection, financing and procurement; in concessions, public-private partnerships, beneficial ownership and contract changes; and in environmental commitments, community participation and security along logistics routes.
Critical mineral supply chains bring together two sectors with some of the most well-documented and highest corruption risks: mining and infrastructure development. This makes transparency and accountability in the infrastructure supporting these supply chains particularly important.
On top of this, how this infrastructure is planned and delivered also determines whether investment benefits local communities and other business sectors without damaging essential services such as water supply or the wider natural environment.
A shared multi-stakeholder approach
In 2006, a Department for International Development Minister is alleged to have said ‘lets do EITI in other sectors!’. It is one of those myths that no-one is certain of but nonetheless, two years later, CoST was launched as a pilot adopting EITI’s multi-stakeholder model, bringing government, civil society and the private sector together to strengthen transparency and accountability – this time in infrastructure. And today, as civil society space shrinks, this approach remains vital.
Multi-stakeholder working is hard and does not always succeed. But at its best, it can provide a safe space to build trust and share expertise, helping to influence and enable crucial reforms – as a recent independent evaluation of CoST found.
Our approaches have reflected the value chains of each sector. EITI’s with its focus on the flow of revenue from the private sector operator to the government and CoST’s focus on the infrastructure project cycle including the commercial relationship between a government procuring entity and the contracted supply chain. The EITI standard already reflects the potential for convergence by including the disclosure of information on infrastructure provision and barter arrangements. But more can be done.
Next steps for better understanding the integrity risks
At the conference, we want to hear from companies, governments and civil society about where these risks in critical mineral supply chains’ enabling infrastructure arise, how they are being managed, and where CoST’s experience could add value.
We will be working closely with the Centre for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) on identifying governance risks across mineral value chains, including joining its partner session on “Private sector leadership in critical minerals transparency”.
Your feedback will provide a starting point for a wider discussion to inform the development of a roadmap of risks and associated mitigation measures for infrastructure that enables the production and transportation of critical minerals. The roadmap will become a dedicated module in the Infrastructure Integrity Toolbox, a web-based tool that helps users identify measures and supporting resources to mitigate integrity risks on a specific infrastructure investment. The module will tailor this support to the particular risks associated with enabling infrastructure in critical minerals supply chains.
I look forward to hearing your views over beer, mussels and frites in Brussels.
If you are interested in working with CoST to drive integrity in critical mineral infrastructure do get in touch via the CoST website.
John Hawkins
John Hawkins is Programme Director at CoST where he is responsible for strategic development and overseeing member programmes. He is a specialist in UK and international procurement policy and governance in the infrastructure sector with extensive experience in the interaction between infrastructure procurement and social development.