Navigating the Electric Vehicle Sustainability Paradox: The Pivotal Role of Corporate Waste Management Disclosure

The global transition of world transportation to electric vehicles (EVs) is central to decarbonising transport, however, it is fraught with an inherent sustainability paradox. The paradox lies in the tension between the clear operational benefits of zero tailpipe emissions and the significant, often hidden, environmental burdens embedded within EV lifecycle. The EV lifecycle which involves from intensive mining of critical minerals to the burgeoning challenge of end-f-life battery waste. This academic overview argues that robust Corporate Waste Management Disclosure (CWMD) is a critical mechanism for navigating this complex trade-off. The CWMD could navigate the paradox by mandating transparent and quantifiable reporting on waste streams across the entire value chain. The CWMD moves the industry beyond a narrow focus om use-phase emission. It enhances transparency for stakeholders, enables greater producer accountability for full lifecycle impacts, and drives innovation in circular economy strategies, such as recycling and second-life applications. Ultimately, this study suggests that comprehensive waste disclosure is not merely compliance exercise. comprehensive waste disclosure should also act as a foundation for resolving the EV sustainability paradox. Which it will foster a transition that is truly sustainable from resource extraction to final disposal.

Electric Vehicle Sustainability Paradox, Corporate Waste Management Disclosure (CWMD), Circular Economy, Battery Waste Management and Environmental Transparency and Accountability

1. Anderson, R., Brown, K., & Johnson, M. (2024). Sustainability challenges throughout the electric vehicle battery value chain. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 192, 114234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114234 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Chen, L., Wang, X., & Liu, Y. (2022). Tracking waste management information disclosure behavior connected to financial performance through moderating variables. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(20), 13068. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013068 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2022). Global EV Outlook 2022. Retrieved from https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2022 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Madaram, V. G., & Biswas, P. K. (2024). Advancement of electric vehicle technologies, classification of charging methodologies, and optimization strategies for sustainable development—A comprehensive review. Heliyon, 10(20), e39299. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Rodriguez, M., Brown, K., & Silva, T. (2022). Assessing the European electric-mobility transition: Emissions from electric vehicle manufacturing and use in relation to the EU greenhouse gas emission targets. Environmental Science & Technology, 57(1), 74-85. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c06304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Silva, R., Kumar, P., & Anderson, M. (2024). Sustainable management of rechargeable batteries used in electric vehicles. Batteries, 10(5), 167. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries10050167 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Tarroja, B. (2024). Overcoming barriers to improved decision-making for battery deployment in the clean energy transition. iScience, 27(6), 109898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.109898 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Wong, K., Smith, L., & Brown, M. (2023). The influence of external stakeholders on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting: Toward a conceptual framework for ESG disclosure. Foresight and STI Governance, 17(2), 9-20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]