What's behind corporate opposition to Deep Sea Mining

When faced with the potentially disastrous environmental impacts of Deep-Sea Mining (DSM), many third parties have called for a moratorium on DSM in international waters (a moratorium is a temporary prohibition or suspension of certain activities, typically imposed to prevent environmental harm while further studies, negotiations, or regulatory frameworks are developed).

These calls are centered on the potential harm that deep-sea mining would cause, and are urging caution. Last year, during the ISA’s meetings in summer 2024, five more countries committed to a precautionary pause or moratorium on large-scale, commercial deep-sea mining, bringing to 32 the number of countries that agreed with this position in the past two years.

There has also been a surprising number of companies that favor a moratorium on seabed mining. This is what we want to focus on today.

Automakers such as BMW and Rivian have said they will not use materials harvested from the deep sea to create batteries for electric vehicles—which is one of the main uses promoted by prospective miners. Tech companies, such as Apple, Google, and Samsung SDI also support a moratorium. And more and more investors, insurers and re-insurers have expressed significant concerns about deep-sea mining, threatening the industry’s viability. That includes Deutsche Bank, which, in September 2024, updated its ocean-related policies and joined 15 other financial institutions in saying it will not directly finance deep-sea mining projects. Similarly, major insurers have excluded deep sea mining from their portfolios.

While these corporate entities highlight the environmental concerns for this position on DSM, I urge anyone reading this to look further and ask about the possible underlying economic and strategic motives that may be at play behind the call for the moratorium:

1. Protection of Existing Supply Chains

Many corporations, particularly those in the electric vehicle (EV) and electronics industries, rely on land-based mining for critical minerals like cobalt, nickel, and lithium. A moratorium on deep-sea mining helps protect the value of their existing supply chains and investments in terrestrial mining operations.

2. Competitive Advantage and Market Control

Companies that already have long-term contracts or stakes in land-based mining may prefer to limit new sources of competition. If deep-sea mining were to become viable, it could increase mineral supply and drive prices down, potentially harming companies that depend on the scarcity-driven pricing of certain materials.

3. Regulatory and Public Relations Strategy

• Greenwashing: Some companies may support the moratorium primarily for public relations purposes, presenting themselves as environmentally responsible while continuing to source minerals from terrestrial mines with significant social and environmental issues (e.g., deforestation, labor rights violations).
• Shaping Future Regulations: By advocating for a pause, corporations may be positioning themselves to influence future regulations that will shape how deep-sea mining is eventually conducted—possibly in ways that benefit them.

4. Investment in Alternative Technologies

Companies that support the moratorium might be developing alternative battery chemistries or recycling technologies that reduce dependence on newly mined minerals. A delay in deep-sea mining gives them more time to scale up these alternatives before potential competitors can access new mineral sources.

5. Geopolitical Influence

Many deep-sea mining prospects fall under international waters, regulated by the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Corporations headquartered in countries with strong terrestrial mining industries (such as the U.S., Canada, and Australia) may favor delaying deep-sea mining to protect national economic interests and maintain leverage over global mineral markets.

6. Future Bargaining Leverage

By taking an early stance against deep-sea mining, corporations might later negotiate preferential access or exemptions once the moratorium is lifted. This could give them first-mover advantages in licensing or partnerships when regulations are eventually established.

The bottom line here is that corporate opposition is likely based on economic concerns, therefore it is important to learn how to balance these when calling for a moratorium on DSM.

The key to long-term corporate opposition is ensuring that it remains more profitable to stay against deep-sea mining than to support it. By using a mix of public accountability, regulatory pressure, alternative sourcing, and economic incentives, we can make sure companies maintain their stance and do not quietly shift toward exploitation.

Understanding these hidden agendas helps provide a more complete picture of why companies might advocate for a ban—beyond purely ecological motivations.