A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access

Highlights

  • Differences in goal and scope of criticality studies result in different outcomes.

  • Cause-and-effect mechanisms of indicators and outcomes are poorly understood.

  • The availability of high-quality data limits the evaluation of criticality.

  • Criticality methods should be more transparent to support interpretation.

Abstract

The assessment of the criticality of raw materials allows the identification of the likelihood of a supply disruption of a material and the vulnerability of a system (e.g. a national economy, technology, or company) to this disruption. Inconclusive outcomes of various studies suggest that criticality assessments would benefit from the identification of best practices. To prepare the field for such guidance, this paper aims to clarify the mechanisms that affect methodological choices which influence the results of a study. This is achieved via literature review and round table discussions among international experts. The paper demonstrates that criticality studies are divergent in the system under study, the anticipated risk, the purpose of the study, and material selection. These differences in goal and scope naturally result in different choices regarding indicator selection, the required level of aggregation as well as the subsequent choice of aggregation method, and the need for a threshold value. However, this link is often weak, which suggests a lack of understanding of cause-and-effect mechanisms of indicators and outcomes. Data availability is a key factor that limits the evaluation of criticality. Furthermore, data quality, including both data uncertainty and data representativeness, is rarely addressed in the interpretation and communication of results. Clear guidance in the formulation of goals and scopes of criticality studies, the selection of adequate indicators and aggregation methods, and the interpretation of the outcomes, are important initial steps in improving the quality of criticality assessments.

Abbreviations

BGS
British Geological Survey
BRGM
Bureau de Recherches Géologiques et Minières
CRM
Critical Raw Materials
EC
European Commission
Empa
Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology
EIT
European Institute of Innovation & Technology
EU
European Union
GE
General Electric
HDI
Human Development Index
HHI
Herfindahl-Hirschman-Index
iCIRCE
Instituto Universitario Investigación CIRCE Universidad Zaragoza
INSEAD
Institut Européen d'Administration des Affaires
IRTC
International Round Table on Materials Criticality
ISO
International Organization for Standardization
KIRAM/KITECH
Korea Institute for Rare Metals/Korea Institute of Industrial Technology
LCA
Life Cycle Assessment
NEDO
New Energy and Industrial Technology Development
NIES
National Institute for Environmental Studies
NRC
National Research Council
NSTC
National Science and Technology Council
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OH
Oakdene Hollins
PGM(s)
Platinum Group Metal(s)
PPI
Policy Perception Index
REE(s)
Rare Earth Element(s)
SDU
University of Southern Denmark
SI
Supplementary Information
UBA
Umweltbundesamt
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP IRP
United Nations Environment Programme International Resource Panel
US DOE
United States Department of Energy
USGS
United States Geological Survey
VDI
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure
WGI
Worldwide Governance Indicators

Keywords

Critical raw materials
Material criticality
Critical resources
Strategic raw materials
Criticality assessment

Cited by (0)