business Material criticality: an overview for decision-makers Brochure by the International Round Table on Materials Criticality, IRTC Glossary BGS : British Geological Survey BRGM : French Geological Survey CRMs : Critical Raw Materials IRTC : The International Round Table on Materials Criticality PGMs : Platinum Group Metals REEs : Rare Earth Elements TMS : The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society USGS : United States Geological Survey 2 Table of contents Introduction 4 Which materials are critical ? 6 How is a criticality method established ? 8 Which indicators are used in criticality methodologies ? 10 Criticality assessments throughout the world 12 How industry manages criticality 14 Criticality and the Circular Economy 16 Criticality in practice – the COVID-19 pandemic 18 Summary and Outlook 21 3 Introduction Looking back at technological developments the uneven distribution of reserves in the world, mak- throughout the past centuries, we are living in an ex- ing many countries highly dependent on only a few citing era of technological innovation. Technological exporting countries. Furthermore, mining can be en- complexity has been increasing exponentially since ergy-intensive and can be associated with environ- the industrial evolution and is accelerating ever since. mental and social problems, such as deforestation This has provided us great wealth, but at the same and child labor. Recycling of materials - which could time has led to several societal challenges. contribute to a stable supply and less environmental and social burden – is often not taking place, due to High levels of pollution, losses of biodiversity, and, of the complex raw materials mixes within the products, course, climate change are consequences of contin- making them difficult to separate, and lacking eco- ued economic growth worldwide. The first challenge nomic incentives. Finally, certain technologies, such we face now lies in the prevention of further envi- as electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels, ronmental detriment, while maintaining stable econ- have high expected growth rates. It is not guaran- omies and increased welfare globally. A key strategy teed that this increasing demand for raw materials to achieve this is to increase energy efficiency and can be met by an increased supply, considering that decrease dependency on fossil fuels. the development of new mines is a slow process and many minority metals do not provide sufficient reve- This brings us to the second challenge of this era. nue to drive mining operations. Technologies, including technologies that contrib- ute to sustainable development, such as renewable Raw materials that play an important role in eco- energy and low-carbon mobility, rely increasingly nomic or technological development, while at the on raw materials. Materials are not only used in in- same time have precarious supply chains, are often creasing quantities, also a wider range of materials is called “critical”. The identification of these critical raw used, which are often combined, resulting in increas- materials (CRMs) and the mitigation of their critical- ingly complex products Figure 1 . Whereas some ity has become an important task of researchers, of these materials can be considered scarce, more companies, and policymakers in their pursuit of sus- pressing concerns about the use of raw materials is tainable economic well-being. Figure 1 Pd Rh Ta Te U Ru In K Li Nb P Re Pt Si Th Ti V Pt Si Th Ti V Ge Sn W Sn W Mg Mo Ni Sn W Mg Mo Ni Ga Cu Mn Pb Cu Mn Pb Co Cr Cu Mn Pb Co Cr Cd C Ca Fe C Ca Fe C Ca Fe AI REE C Ca Fe AI REE Ag 1700 1800 1900 2000 ELEMENTS WIDELY USED IN ENERGY PATHWAYS. NB. POSITION ON THE TIME AXIS IS INDICATIVE ONLY (ZEPF ET AL. 2011) 4 The US National Research Council was among the Figure 2 first institutes to publish a method for assessing Raw High A Material Criticality, with the aim of compiling a list of CRMs for the US economy (NRC 2008). Following the NRC methodology, a material is deemed critical when it has both a high supply risk and a high impact of supply restriction Figure 2 . In the years that followed, many more criticality as- Medium sessments were conducted by governments, com- Mineral CriticalityB panies, and researchers. An overview of the most prominent methods (i.e. methods that are often cited Impact Supply of Restriction and have a large influence in method development and decision-making) is provided in Figure 3 . Low Low Medium High Supply Risk THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL CRITICALITY MATRIX AS DEVELOPED BY NRC (2008). MATERIALS ARE DEEMED CRITICAL WHEN BOTH THE SUPPLY RISK (ALSO CALLED “THE PROBABILITY OF A SUP- PLY DISRUPTION”) AND THE IMPACT OF A SUPPLY RESTRICTION (OR “VULNERABILITY TO A SUPPLY RESTRICTION”) ARE HIGH. Figure 3 2012 - 2015 2016 - 2017 Global YALE NSTC 2008 2012 - 2015 NRC YALE 2011 2014 2017 EU EU EU 2009 2010 - 2014 Economy NEDO KIRAM/KITECH 2010 - ongoing BRGM 2010 2012 2012 2015 BGS BGS BGS BGS 2010 - 2011 US DoE Technology 2010 2011 2013 Thomason JRC JRC 2010 2012 - 2015 2017 Company GE Yale EBP/Empa 2013 - ongoing Granta Product 2016 GeoPolRisk & ESSENZ 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TIMELINE AND SCOPE (GLOBAL, ECONOMY, TECHNOLOGY, COMPANY, PRODUCT) OF PROMINENT CRITICALITY ASSESSMENT METHODS 5 Which materials are critical ? Criticality assessments tend to focus on non-energy Many criticality assessments aggregate partic- minerals. In their review of 42 criticality assessments, ular groups of materials, as frequently seen in the Schrijvers et al. (2020) found that the materials most case of PGMs and REEs. However, Figure 5 a n d frequently included in the assessment are indium, Figure 6 illustrate that there can be differences in gallium, cobalt, lithium, nickel, tellurium, copper, plat- the criticality of specific materials within each group. inum group metals (PGMs) and rare earth elements For example, although osmium and samarium are (REEs). Only a few studies include other types of ma- often mined together with other PGMs and REEs, terials than metals, such as aggregates, carbon fiber, respectively, each of these elements have different chlorine, rubber, and wood. properties and therefore are used in different appli- cations – resulting in different criticality scores. As can be seen in Figure 4 , criticality studies do not provide a clear and consistent answer to the ques- Ideally, criticality studies should include all materials tion of “which raw materials are critical”. As further used by the system under study (e.g. the economy discussed in the review by Schrijvers et al. (2020), the or the company), at all points in the supply chain, diverging results of criticality assessments can be at- to highlight the supply bottlenecks. Even for a given tributed mainly to differences in the goal and scope material, varying material compositions should be of the study. For example, a material that is “criti- evaluated separately, as they may differ in supply cal” for the development of batteries used in electric pathways and/or importance to the evaluated sys- vehicles is not necessarily “critical” for the European tem. Given data gaps, however, materials are often economy as a whole , especially as long as the pro- evaluated only at the mining stage. duction of battery materials is widely taking place outside Europe. Therefore, criticality studies need to clearly describe the context in which materials are assessed for their criticality. 6 Figure 4 Indium Gallium Cobalt Lithium Nickel Tellurium Copper 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Number of criticality studies CRITICALITY DETERMINATION OF METALS THAT ARE MOST FREQUENTLY INCLUDED IN CRITICALITY STUDIES CONDUCTED DURING THE PERIOD OF 2008-2019. Figure 5 Platinum Group Metals High criticality Iridium Osmium Medium criticality Palladium Low criticality Platinum Rhodium Ruthenium 0 3 6 9 12 15 Number of criticality studies CRITICALITY DETERMINATION OF PLATINUM GROUP METALS, EVALUATED EITHER AS A GROUP OR AS INDIVIDUAL METALS, IN CRITICALITY STUDIES CONDUCTED DURING THE PERIOD OF 2008-2019. Figure 6 Rare earth elements Light REEs Heavy REEs Cerium Dysprosium Erbium Europium Gadolinium Holmium Lanthanum Lutetium Neodymium Prasedymium Samarium Scandium Terbium Thulium Ytterbium Yttrium 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Number of criticality studies CRITICALITY DETERMINATION OF RARE EARTH ELEMENTS (REES), EVALUATED EITHER AS A GROUP, AS A SUB-GROUP (I.E., “HEAVY” OR “LIGHT” REES), OR AS INDIVIDUAL METALS, IN CRITICALITY STUDIES CONDUCTED DURING THE PERIOD OF 2008-2019. 7 How is a criticality method established ? Criticality assessments have been published in var- tion of the “probability of a supply disruption” with ious forms and styles. To make the differences be- the “vulnerability to this disruption”, as in classical risk tween these assessments more explicit, and to make assessments (Frenzel et al. 2017). Aggregation can future assessments more rigorous, a general frame- mask the underlying indicator values, and therefore work for criticality assessment methodology could is not recommended for understanding sources of be applied Figure 7 . risk and identifying suitable mitigation options. An- other challenge in constructing CRM lists is in de- As can be seen in Figure 7 , criticality studies can, fining threshold values for criticality indicators (e.g., depending on the goal and scope of the assessment, what constitutes “high” probability of supply disrup- consider different types of risks, such as disrupted tion, or “high” vulnerability to disruption ?). trade flows, material scarcity, price fluctuations, or reputational risks. In practice, many assessments Criticality studies often rely on geological and trade consider some combination of these risks. The study data that approximate the flows of interest for the goal also influences the way the results are present- assessment. Limitations of data quality, in con- ed, such as a list of critical raw materials, or a two-di- sideration of the goal and scope of the study, can mensional matrix format (as in Figure 2 ), potential- introduce significant uncertainty to criticality as- ly including uncertainty ranges.