Interview with Researcher Malene Skensved on a Just Transition

By Ilse Heine

As the global climate crisis accelerates, the demand for transformative action has never been greater. Companies are increasingly stepping up, setting ambitious targets to reduce emissions, adopt renewable energy, and drive innovation toward a more sustainable future. Yet, the path to decarbonization is not without its challenges—and its potential inequities. The concept of a just transition reminds us that while tackling climate change is a shared responsibility, the burden of change is often unevenly distributed. 

In this interview series, we will hear from researchers, industry leaders, and community advocates, among others, about what it means to implement a just transition, including the operational challenges and strategic opportunities that arise when businesses take a holistic approach to climate action. 

Just Transition Interview Series Part I 

For the first interview of this series, I had the pleasure of interviewing Malene Skensved. With a multicultural background from Denmark and the Philippines, Malene brings a global perspective to her work. She holds a Master of Science in Economics and Business Administration from Copenhagen Business School, and has worked in different roles in companies, business associations, consulting firms, NGOs, and government. She is passionate about leveraging her expertise in human rights due diligence (HRDD) and social impact assessment to help organizations navigate responsible business practices. She aims to support companies to create responsible supply chains that deliver positive outcomes for local communities. 

1. Can you describe your organization and how your work intersects with a just transition?  

I’m a researcher with Bantay Kita, a coalition of civil society organizations advocating for transparency and accountability in the extractive industry. Our stance on mining is neutral, and we intend to use data to drive policy recommendations for the benefits of the Filipino people. One of our current areas of focus is research on transition mineral mining—we look at nickel mining in the context of the energy transition and aim to make a case for a just transition. For example, we just published a report earlier this year where we assessed large-scale nickel mining in five different provinces in the Philippines. We consolidated our findings on all the impacts we are seeing on the ground. These impacts are intensified by the increasing demand for nickel due to the energy transition, primarily for batteries in electric vehicles.  

The negative impacts include significant environmental damage, which can result in human rights violations. Among these are environmental degradation, including deforestation and biodiversity loss. Mining operations overlap with protected key biodiversity areas, but poor law enforcement enables the mining to continue. Environmental degradation and pollution harms farmlands and coastal areas, where communities source their produce and seafood, resulting in a loss of livelihood. Irresponsible mining operations can lead to water pollution through carcinogenic chemicals, and air pollution from mining dust, impacting the health of community residents.  

There is also a significant overlap of mining tenements with Indigenous People’s (IP) ancestral lands. Although the Philippines has embedded Indigenous People’s rights into the national legislation, there are issues around implementation, especially when it comes to the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). Communities lack the ability to say ‘no’ to mining projects and individuals that speak out against injustices are facing violence on an increasing scale, from red-tagging (false accusations of communism) to kidnappings to killings. IPs face physical displacement and deterioration of their culture and traditions. 

Meanwhile, communities that host nickel mining are among the poorest in the region, with lack of access to energy. This highlights the energy injustice facing the communities that provide raw materials for many renewable energy technologies. 

There are several systematic problems in the Philippines that make sourcing greater volumes of nickel challenging—one of the key drivers is corruption connected to mining companies being owned by politicians. For instance, one of the previous secretaries of the Department of Natural Resources and Environment owns a mining company. So, in some cases, the people who are supposed to be protecting the environment are also benefiting from its degradation. 

Now that we have these findings, our aim is to conduct supply chain mapping to figure out where our nickel goes. We know that the Philippines is the second largest producer of nickel in the world, but we are not entirely sure who the downstream actors are. 

2. For those less familiar with the concept, and given that what is meant by a just transition is still crystallizing, how do you define a just transition?  

At Bantay Kita, we define just transition as an “accountable transition mineral mining in the Philippines that safeguards Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights, ensuring an equitable share of benefits in the green technology and renewable energy supply chains for a just, safe, and sustainable 1.5°C future by 2030 where no one gets left behind.”  

For me personally, I define a just energy transition, as a transition that doesn’t solely benefit private interests, for example, by having companies go into this space and profit from the demand for renewables while communities are being sacrificed to be able to produce those technologies.  

I think it’s important to look at all the stakeholders that are impacted by the just transition, which aligns with human rights due diligence. Companies need to account for all the stakeholders in their supply chains and ensure that they are not being left behind. 

3. How is nickel important for the energy transition? What will be the impact of the increasing demand for renewables? 

Nickel is a key material for the batteries used in electric vehicles and battery energy storage systems. With the push for renewable energy, there’s also more demand for battery energy storage systems that are installed in combination with solar panels, because homes still need energy when the sun isn’t shining. Large-scale battery energy storage systems are seeing an expansion, mostly in China, followed by the United States. As the second largest producer of nickel, more demand for it puts the Philippines in a vulnerable position.  

The government sees mining as a means for the country’s economic development. While I understand this, it may be misguided, because the impacts are not regulated properly. There are a lot of issues with lack of transparency in tracking the financial flows from mining. With the current situation, many host communities are not seeing the benefits from mining in the way that they should. 

Additionally, research indicates that irresponsible mining exacerbates the risk of natural disasters in the Philippines, which is already a highly climate-vulnerable country. The country experiences many typhoons every year, with three major, deadly storms occurring just this year. Increased mining activity leads to deforestation and soil erosion, which increases incidences of landslides and mudflows. Our efforts aim to protect the communities from the intensification of mining under the energy transition. There is growing concern that the mining industry is going to be “greenwashed” by the energy transition discourse, because it will justify the need for minerals, while downplaying the significant environmental and social consequences.  

4. There’s often a public perception that when a business has an “environmental sustainability” strategy, it automatically receives a positive or “clean” bill of approval. However, there is a growing recognition that environmental sustainability alone is not enough and that businesses must also address the social and economic impacts on affected communities, particularly through concepts like a just transition. From your perspective, what are businesses’ responsibilities when it comes to a just transition? Why should businesses prioritize this? 

That’s a really good question, and it’s definitely a challenge I’ve come across before. Many large companies are really championing renewable energy, which is great, but it’s not enough to focus on the green transition if it comes at the cost of human rights. In my opinion, the beauty of human rights is that they are universal and inalienable—everyone has them, and you can’t take them way. Companies should follow the standards from the UNGPs and conduct human rights due diligence in their supply chains. For example, with our work in Bantay Kita, we believe that renewable energy companies should be aware of the risks of sourcing from countries with weaker governance, such as the Philippines. 

Companies need to conduct human rights due diligence even if they say their supply chains are large and opaque, or that they can’t trace their suppliers beyond tier 1. I don’t think they can just close their eyes and say they don’t know what’s going on in their supply chain anymore, as expectations of companies are increasing. If a company contributes with high demand for a product, with that demand comes a certain level of responsibility. Companies must be aware that in some way they may be contributing to adverse situations through their demand for certain products and technologies.   

I also understand that it’s complex, and it makes it even more complex that companies should think about both the green transition and human rights at the same time. Some companies might be afraid to investigate further, because of the potential negative impacts on their reputation or risk of lawsuits, but being unaware puts them at risk as well. That said, I think there is going to be a shift towards companies “knowing and showing” what’s going on in their supply chains. At least, I hope that’s where we are heading.  

5. The concept of just transition is still new for most companies and many are still trying to understand how the concept translates into concrete steps for their business. You mentioned the importance of supply chain mapping. Do you have any other suggestions for companies who are trying to incorporate just transition into their climate strategies? What are the first steps? 

Human rights due diligence, such as the UN Guiding Principles and the OECD Guidelines are a good start. When I worked with the Ethical Trading Initiative, we brought companies together to conduct dialogues on various topics. For example, we had a confidential dialogue with companies to talk across industries about what they are facing with respect to addressing the issue of forced labor in Xinjiang, and if they needed any support. This approach, where companies share challenges and exchange ideas for addressing those challenges—whether confidentially or in open spaces—can be very useful. 

We also had “alliances” or multi-stakeholder groups concerned with different topics. For example, we had palm oil, soy, and coffee alliances. They would share knowledge, and develop action plans and targets together, raising the bar for action, instead of just meeting the “floor.” Since human rights issues are complex challenges, not just one company can address them alone. These multi-stakeholder groups enable companies to learn from each other.  

6. Once companies acknowledge that a just transition is important and they are committed to implementation, they want KPIs or metrics to demonstrate the impact or progress. However, we know that social impacts are not easily quantifiable. Is it possible for businesses to measure the impact of their just transition efforts? How?  

It’s not something that I have personally assessed yet. However, I’m aware that companies can assess their progress against a checklist of HRDD expectations, which include having a human rights policy, a stakeholder engagement plan, and public reporting, among other requirements. In a sense, they can use this checklist as a KPI – to say they’ve done X% of these steps. That’s one way of quantifying efforts around human rights due diligence and just transition measures.  

That said, this approach doesn’t always reflect what is happening on the ground. It’s a tricky topic, because one of the problems is that companies are trying to quantify what’s happening in their supply chains, but they don’t have direct control over their supply chain. For example, if a company owns a factory, they have a lot more control over the impacts, as opposed to a supplier that they don’t have direct ownership over. This becomes a particularly significant challenge for measuring the progress of a company’s just transition strategy, given that a significant portion of a company’s total emissions are typically attributed to Scope 3 emissions.  

Particularly in the context of a just energy transition, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) have developed useful tools for renewable energy companies and investors to follow to measure the impact of their just transition efforts. Since 2021, they have published a benchmark, which scores renewable energy companies on their human rights performance. Apart from the general HRDD of identifying impacts and communicating on progress, companies should develop KPIs  specific to the salient human rights risks from renewable energy. Depending on their context, these risks could include protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and ensuring FPIC, sourcing from conflict affected and high-risk areas, and protecting human rights defenders of affected communities. 

7. Meaningful engagement with affected communities is a critical part of HRDD, but it’s also very challenging. It can be a slow and lengthy process, and communities may be resistant to participate given their distrust in institutions and corporations. What best practices have you seen around community engagement in this space?  

It’s true that communities may be distrustful, especially for those who have felt let down by similar engagements. Most importantly, if companies want to engage with local communities, they must respect human rights and Indigenous Peoples’ rights, since a significant portion of renewable energy projects take place on IP lands with adverse impacts. One of these rights includes free prior and informed consent (FPIC)–a principle and process that is intended to ensure Indigenous Peoples and local communities have the right to make decisions about activities or projects that may affect their lands, territories, resources, and rights.  

For example, the Philippines has an abundance of rivers and mountains, so there is a big push for more hydropower. The government just approved several hydropower sites, which will take place on ancestral lands. Almost half of the Philippines is ancestral land, so adhering to FPIC is a necessary process. This rapid expansion of hydropower could become a challenge for respecting human rights and IP rights. 

However, there are examples where local communities and IPs can work together with companies on projects. The BHRRC is advocating for shared prosperity and benefit-sharing models, particularly through equity co-ownership of renewable energy projects with IPs. This model could improve the sharing of financial benefits with IPs from those projects, as well as ensuring that IPs take part in decision-making to align projects with their ways of life and respect for nature. In the Philippines, there is an organization called Right Energy Partnership. The organization is led by IPs, and they are open to partnering with companies, institutions, and others to develop renewable energy partnerships on their land, while respecting their rights.  

Another example of best practices for working with communities was through my time at the Ethical Trading Initiative and The Centre for Child Rights and Business, where there were several examples of companies working with local communities. To be successful, they worked with an NGO as an intermediary who could sensitize the company to the specific context of the community and help them have a better understanding of the environment in which they were operating. Meanwhile, the NGO also needs to have the trust of the community, to be able to facilitate the entry of the company to engage with the community. When companies partner with NGOs, they are able to benefit from the strengths of the NGO, including their deep understanding of the needs of the community, while providing resources and funds to facilitate the engagement. 

8. Finally, what do you see as the future of just transition efforts in the business sector, and how can businesses prepare for these changes? 

If companies want to be prepared, then they should start by conducting human rights due diligence now, including assessing and addressing risks around their climate transition strategies. I know HREDD is not simple, but there is an established process and consultancies they can reach out to for support, such as Article One. In the European Union, there is regulation that will drive companies to do this work. Although the earliest set of companies are not scheduled to comply with the regulation until 2027, by starting the HRDD process now, companies will be better prepared by starting implementation in order to avoid having it fall onto the company all at once.