
































01


 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

1 

Criticality assessment of green 
materials: institutional quality, 
market concentration and recycling 
potential 
Matteo Mazzarano1 

1 Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Department of Mathematics and Physics, Milan, Italy 
 
E-mail: matteo.mazzarano@unicatt.it 
 
Received: 29/07/2021 
Accepted for publication: 01/11/2021 
Published: 12/11/2021 

Abstract 

The carbon transition and digitalization transformation are tied to a set of critical raw materials (CRM). Energy accumulators, 
renewable energy modules, and electronic devices all contain a certain amount of these. The versatility and utility of such 
elements come together with the limited number of countries where their extraction and refining occur. As the demand for these 
materials is growing globally, concerns arise regarding the security of the production chain. Several works highlighted the risks 
associated with these materials without presenting clear interaction between such factors. This gap in literature might have 
overlooked systemic risks underlying green sectors. This article investigates the correlation between three aspects: market 
concentration, institutional quality, and circularity. The approach will contain the presentation of the main characteristics of 
recyclability and the institutional status of exporters. A synthetic index is derived and plotted against the potential of recycling 
per material. In such a manner, we can group minerals according to sourcing vulnerability: one comes from material recovery 
and the other via imports. An indicator calculated with a Cartesian distance method provides the synthesis of security versus 
safety. According to our findings, Electrical Vehicles carry the highest vulnerability for their main components in circularity 
and human rights violations. This implies that the supply chains' instabilities threaten the transition to a low carbon society. 
Ending remarks highlighted the limitations of our research, where possible interest for future research may lay. 

 

Keywords: Critical raw materials; Responsible Sourcing; Market Concentration; Conflict Minerals; Circularity 

 

1. Introduction 

Acquisition of CRMs is topical for the EU strategic Agenda: a stable and clean supply of raw materials is necessary to key 
industries. It is called criticality, the economic and technical dependency on a particular material, and the probability of supply 
disruptions for a defined stakeholder group within a specific time frame (Schrijvers et al., 2020). The EU institutions established 
a three-fold policy direction to aid in this context in 2008 with the raw material initiative (Commission of the European 
Communities, 2008). It involved three pillars: safe mining within the EU economic area, secondary materials from waste 
recovery, and sustainable and fair supply from global markets. The first relates to sustainable mining and new explorations 
(Hàmor, 2004; Vrkljan et al., 2017). Material recovery is also connected to municipal waste as urban mining (Cossu & 
Williams, 2015). Households are not the primary source of waste within the EU economy. However, it represents one of the 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

2 

core issues of EU waste policy (Expósito & Velasco, 2018). Finally, safe trade practices are intended to reduce the vulnerability 
of imports. Due to industrial dependency, CRM extraction cannot be delinked from nations that cannot foster human rights. 
This is why some of them are part of the so-called conflict minerals (Koch & Burlyuk, 2020). The policy issue abides by the 
OECD due diligence practices (OECD, 2016a). While internal EU production increases the safety of the supply line, the other 
two are face limitations. Material recovery from waste still faces technological uncertainties (Ali et al., 2017), and 
harmonization of due diligence data is still in evolution (OECD, 2020). Mineral Governance should and policy-making at 
different levels (Bleischwitz & Bahn‐Walkowiak, 2007), possibly anticipating risks and crises (Bleischwitz, 2020). Safe mining 
represents a strategic source. However, within a circular perspective, extractive practices might be taken as secondary. 
Therefore, the circular tools for material governance should focus on the limitations of the other pillars in Material Governance. 
Securing external sources and advancing recycling technologies could impact the resolution of the EU agenda for digitalization 
and green transition. Material governance is linked to several strategic industries: EEE, EV, Solar panels, and Wind farms 
(Bobba et al., 2020; Monnet & Ait Abderrahim, 2018). 
Safe trades and secondary materials are elements of the umbrella definition of Circular Economy (Homrich et al., 2018). Several 
authors have commented on the capability of circular economy practices to reduce the criticality of materials (Chiu et al., 2020; 
Tercero Espinoza et al., 2020). However, it was commented on the potential trade-offs between materials and processes 
(Schaubroeck, 2020). This might represent a structural limit to EU policies intended to reduce the criticality. Yet, there are few 
if no articles that address the complementarity between critical aspects. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the potential 
presence of a trade-off between circular economy pillars of material governance under the framework of internal versus external 
weakness of European raw material supply chain. The reference literature of criticality assessement for CRM have not 
investigated the issue so far (Mudd et al., 2018; Santillán-Saldivar et al., 2021a; Song et al., 2019).  We will develop an indicator 
for external safety according to market concentration and national institutional quality. For circularity, we will use the 
contribution of recycled materials to raw materials demand, known as the end-of-life recycling input rates (EOL-RIR). This is 
not the only possible indicator of circularity. It is, however, the one adopted by the EU commission and EUROSTAT to classify 
materials for circularity (Talens Peiró et al., 2018). Since market distribution, institutional quality cannot change is short term, 
we will consider them complementary in this study. The complementarity of recyclability and safe markets is analyzed using a 
Cartesian distance indicator, identifying as vulnerable the elements that cannot be accessed with either of the pillar.  

It is necessary to consider the changes in definition to recall which CRMs are. A revision of the criticality definition was 
implemented several times. The first official publication was in 2011 with 14 CRMs. Following editions every three years 
increased the number of elements: 2014 with 20, 2017 with 27, and 2020 with 30. Such a surge could be interpreted by the 
attention that the EU commission had towards several evolving topics. Circular economy policy packages were implemented 
during those years: 2008 and 2014 the Waste Framework Directive, Circular Economy Action Plan in 2015 and 2017 was the 
waste of the EEE package. The Paris Agreement's signatures accelerated climate Change policy in 2016. Regarding Responsible 
sourcing, the EU passed the EU's Regulation on Responsible Sourcing of Minerals, also sometimes referred to as the 'Conflict 
minerals Regulation', in May 2017. According to this legislation, by January 2021, around 95% of CRM imports should follow 
RS criteria (EU, 2017). The recommendations declined within the Due Diligence Guidelines follow the premise of corruption 
avoidance, human and environmental rights, conflict avoidance (OECD, 2016b).  

The article is structured in such a manner. The literature review presents the major works regarding CRM criticality. The 
methodology section is used to explain the derivation and use of indicators for our analysis. The Results will deliver a synthetic 
outcome. In the discussion, we will comment on the relevance of the results according to each sector and how this could affect 
the development of the EU agenda. Finally, a review of the limitations of our methodology is presented, along with the possible 
new application.  

 

2. Literature review 

 
The thriving market for consumer and portable electronics and low-carbon technologies (hybrid and electric vehicles, wind 

turbines, and solar panels) is heavily dependent on the availability of critical raw materials (CRMs): it is possible to find studies 
on EV (Jones et al., 2020), solar panels and wind farms (Rabe et al., 2017). Their extraction, production, and trade are associated 
with various risk factors. In 2013, a study conducted by the IISD identified 32 materials as significant for the de-carbonization 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

3 

of the European energy system (Church & Crawford, 2018). Some are classified as "critical" and included in the EU critical 
raw material list, being either scarce or extracted in a limited number of countries (Blagoeva et al., 2016). Commonly, criticality 
assessments consider the 'supply risk' and 'economic importance' of the raw material. Supply risk reflects the severity of the 
impact on the disruption of supply chains and is based on significant suppliers' concentration and political stability. Economic 
importance reflects the sum of the value of end-use sectors that consume the raw material (Song et al., 2019). Other studies 
also include analyses of the reserves and the number of raw materials. Some have been confirmed and can be economically 
recovered with current technology, even potentially by EEE waste (Mazzarano, 2020). It is possible to estimate depletion rates 
for global reserves with a long-time focus. In general sourcing material use from production, chains relate equivalent measures 
(Pehlken et al., 2017; Ziemann et al., 2018). Such approaches are similar to ecological footprint, applying water and carbon 
emissions (Misopoulos et al., 2020; Stefanakis, 2019). 

Criticality assessment usually involved the development of indexes. One of the most famous has been annually derived from 
UK geological survey (British Geological Survey, 2015). It uses a composition of several indicators involving geopolitical risk, 
economic relevance, recycling potential, and ore scarcity. However, several of such indicators have been subjected to criticism 
in the context of life-cycle assessment (Cimprich et al., 2019), in the sense that they made hands challenging to use in supply 
chain analysis. The geopolitical risk component is somewhat relevant in CRM studies, but it is significantly mitigated by 
recycling capacity, becoming a less critical factor (Santillán-Saldivar et al., 2021b). Furthermore, scales and non-continuous 
indicators are not helpful to capture correlations in the supply risk index used in criticality indicators (Blengini et al., 2017). 
From the Markowitz portfolio approach, the correlation between indicators is a possible tool to minimize risk. For CRM, there 
exists no significant correlation between depletion, self-sufficiency, and economic importance indicators (F. F. Martins & 
Castro, 2020). Economic importance has also been uncorrelated to supply risk (Arendt et al., 2020).  

The study of indicators correlation is a recent development, and RS aspects are often not considered a primary study interest. 
Furthermore, the result in terms of which material is more critical is a redundant exercise. Top positions are usually occupied 
by the same materials (F. Martins & Castro, 2019). There are comprehensive studies on the supply chain of CRMs such as 
lithium and cobalt. Macro-economic factors have been addressed in studies regarding European Union imports (Deloitte, 2015). 
Few studies pay attention to the correlation between the institutional quality of exporters and material circularity. The instability 
of institutional systems affects the endurance of economic relations. This generates uncertainty and impacts the value chain of 
products (Ambekar et al., 2019; Silva & Schaltegger, 2019). There is no absolute way to examine stability. According to a 
normalized scale, available indexes are based on the investigation of experts panel and grade nations (KUNČIČ, 2014). This 
indicator has been used in several studies of CRM supply risk. We will show in the next section how it is possible to correlate 
market safety to circularity in next section. 

3. Methodology 

 
We employed three indicators to evaluate the criticality of materials under the frame of circularity vs. market safety. For 

circularity, we adopted the percentage of reuse of discarded materials, the EOL-RIR. Volumes of CRM international 
transactions could be traced to the exporters using the COMTRADE dataset. We use the reference value of 2018, as it is its 
latest entry. According to each product, this trading indicator is hereby used to derive the market quota of each exporter. 
Institutional quality is based on six normalized indicators. The EOL-RIR was the most suitable circularity indicator in criticality 
analysis: it aligns well with EU targets, including raw materials policy, and the section explains how it can be calculated using 
Material System Analysis data (Talens Peiró et al., 2018). EOL-RIR refers only to available recycling. It is the percentage of 
participation of discarded materials in input to production. CRM is defined by both market concentration and a north-south 
dynamic of human rights. Since institutional quality does not identify directly human rights violations, we assumed that 
institutional quality is a robust measure of protection. Thus, we do not presume that nations with generally good institutions 
have no infringement. Human rights could be violated everywhere, but good institutions tend to repair or counter the damage.  

Raw materials exporters with stable institutions might host relatively decent work environments. When rights are violated, 
it is more probable to restore the previous situation than in a nation with weak or unstable institutions. The operational definition 
of institutional quality is based upon a rating approach. Estimating a general value of quality is non-trivial. According to 
Regulatory quality, six quality indexes evaluate nations, Government effectiveness, the rule of law, Corruption, Voice, and 
accountability index. Values of such variables are collected in indicators of Worldwide Governance Indicators. They are 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

4 

estimated using the unobserved components model (UCM). The premise underlying this statistical approach is straightforward 
– each of the individual data sources provides an imperfect signal of some more profound underlying notion of governance that 
is difficult to observe directly (Kaufmann et al., 2011). The distribution of such indexes is expected and always has a variance 
of 1 and a mean of 0, with a minimum value of -2.5 and a maximum of 2.5. Since we cannot choose which is more effective in 
preventing or restoring human rights, we will assume that they are jointly and equally responsible for human rights respect. 
Since it is needed positive values from a normal distribution, the exponential value will be used in such way: 

 𝐼! =#𝑒"#$
∀$

 (1) 

The generalized index "I" for a country "i" is the inverted average between the value of the six indexes. Each index 'm' could 
be given any weight 'x' according to the institutional quality the criticality assessment requires. However, as previously stated, 
it might be better to have no discrimination on such occasions. All weights are equal to 1/6. This methodology is helpful as it 
does not substantially change the value of the variance of distributions, avoiding other biases to our analysis. Since we had to 
refer the value to a material, we matched the generalized index with the market participation. 

 𝑀& =
1
𝑛#𝑝!𝐼!

∀!

 (2) 

 
In such a way, the index of market institutional quality "M" for material "k" is an average of the institutional quality of nations. 
The value can vary from 0 to 100. The meaning of the index is a positive interaction between a market distribution and the 
quality of partners. The maximum index level can only be achieved when the market is split between fair exporters: the lower 
the level, the more concentrated the market around unfair partners. Since market distribution is not necessarily normally 
distributed, we cannot expect the "M" index to appreciate the same properties as the institutional one.  
 
Figure 1. Classification Areas 

Source: Author’s elaboration 
 
According to circularity and market source vulnerability, the classification of materials will be plotted on a reference of two 
axes. The x-axis will represent the first while the y-axis the latter. Splitting the area into four, it is possible to discern between 
zones of no policies (both high values), overall criticality (low and low), high market vulnerability, and low circularity. 
Speaking of mere distribution, it is possible to see the objectives according to frequencies. The areas will be split according to 
the median value. As reported in figure 1, half of all materials have either very low EOL-RIR (˜8) or low market vulnerability 
(˜22). Each commodity is constituted by a cloud of points spread between four areas. According to where these dots are located, 
it is possible to see where each sector should focus its policy. 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

5 

Unfortunately for CRM in international trade datasets, Heavy and Light Rare Earth Elements (HREE and LREE) are used. The 
former comprehends Yttrium (Y), Gadolinium (Gd), Terbium (Tb), Dysprosium (Dy), Holmium (Ho), Erbium (Er), Thulium 
(Tm), Ytterbium (Yb), Lutetium (Lu). The latter comprehends Scandium (Sc), Lanthanum (La), Cerium (Ce), Praseodymium 
(Pr), Neodymium (Nd), Promethium (Pm), Samarium (Sm), Europium (Eu). Furthermore, Group 5 elements have to be 
considered as a whole. This collects Vanadium (V), Niobium (Nb), Tantalum (Ta), and Dubnium (Db). Criticality assessment 
considers, therefore, twenty-eight materials and groups. 
Market concentration could be considered on two levels. One could be captured by index M, as the proportion of trade that 
each nation control for a particular CRM. The second appears when nations participate and possibly control several markets. 
To summarize market concentration, Shannon index of attention is  
 
applied. Its derivation originates from communication theory but has prolific application in social sciences (Tabner, 2007). The 
lowest value of 0 indicates the monopoly of markets of one country on every market. The number of exporting counties is 
collected in i = 1,..., N, and commodities in k = 1,..., K 

 𝑆! =
1
𝐾##𝑝!

∀!

𝑙𝑛(𝑝!)
∀&

 (3) 

We suggested in figure 2 that the number of dominators is few in CRM markets. While these nations have unstable institutions 
and deal with low circular materials, it is rather challenging to address diversification. For our purpose, the M index is penalized 
by high concentration for commodities exchanged in this condition, even by very stable countries. It is possible to compare 
concentration from this panel to a" normal one" using a standard distribution fitting (blue). In figure 2, a comparison of 
concentration is highlighted. Dominant exporters do most transactions of CRM. The normal distribution in blue is centered 
around Si mean and standard deviation. 
 
Figure 2. Market concentration per exporters, Si 

Source: Author’s elaboration 

 

 

 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

6 

 
The M index multiplies market concentration to the I index of institutional quality. This index has low tails, and most firms are 
distributed around its mean of 6. Nations with an index around 1 have the most inferior instability to report, with all indexes 
near -2.5. The characteristics of such distribution are helpful to penalize extreme events and allow higher points on middle-tier 
countries. The interaction between such data is reported in the result section. To have a comparable criticality index, we needed 
to synthesize the correlation between the indicators and the distance to the most unsafe of trades for RS-circularity objective: 
those low on both M and EOL-RIR (c in equation 4). 
 
Figure 3. I index with normal density fitting 

Source: Author’s elaboration 
 
Since we intend to address the usefulness of the trade-off, we place no preference between the two indicators. Cartesian distance 
between each element to (0,0) functions as a Pareto-efficient indicator: elements are given a higher value if any form of hedging 
strategy exists between circularity or safe markets.     

𝐷& = /𝑀&
' + 𝑐&' 

According to EU standards, the analysis we provided allows for interpreting results for market safety according to possible RS 
considerations and circularity. We reported hereby the outcome of our study. 
 

4. Results  

 
We reported a summary of the preliminary analysis in table 1. Among essential categories of CRM, it is possible to find LREE, 
HREE, and G5. Their market is respectively controlled by Japan (15.44%), the Popular Republic of China (11.6%), and Brasil 
(24%). Cobalt, LREE, and Silicates are the lowest circularity in EV, EEE wind, and solar farms. For market and institutional 
fragility, Molybdenum and Cobalt are the lowest. The latter is particularly vulnerable for both factors. China represents the 
most relevant source of market concentration and instability. While it is ranked low on all institutional quality indicators, it is 
the dominant player in several markets. Among these, we find Bismuth, HREE, Molybdenum, and Nickel. Cerium and LREE 
are dominated by Japan, which generally accounts for stable institutions.  

In responsible sourcing, "top-down" approaches based on institutional indicators for critical analysis have generally similar 
results, despite different focuses. In our case, we developed a system based on three major indicators: market safety, circularity, 
and Cartesian distance index. Institutional quality has been weighted to market participation. In case most any market is 
composed mainly of overall fragile states, we called the market tainted. The comparison element to draw vulnerability is the 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

7 

circular limits of the EOL-RIR. The exposure is based on the possibility to acquire a material according to fair market or circular 
source, as recycled materials. 
 
Table 1. Table’s example 

HS92 M index EOL(RIR) Cartesian D Chemical Name Application Main Trader 
2613 5.68 30.00 30.532 Mo Wind CHN (31.036%) 
250410 36.57 3.00 36.693 C EV CHN (10.46%) 
251910 29.18 9.50 30.686 Mg  IND (23.039%) 
252010 32.57 1.10 32.589 Ca  ESP (5.29%) 
260111 20.31 24.00 31.439 Fe Solar, Wind, EV, EEE BRA (11.134%) 
260200 25.34 12.00 28.040 Mn Wind, EV GAB (17.484%) 
260300 24.69 55.00 60.289 Cu Solar, Wind, EV, EEE BGR (8.882%) 
260400 10.24 33.90 35.412 Ni EV, EEE CHN (40.858%) 
260500 4.73 0.00 4.729 Co Wind, EV, EEE AUT (28.584%) 
260600 31.03 12.40 33.413 Al Solar, Wind, EV, EEE GIN (17.477%) 
260700 19.49 75.00 77.490 Pb Solar, Wind, EV BLX (7.352%) 
260800 30.26 22.90 37.945 Zn Solar, Wind, EEE BLX (7.772%) 
260900 9.44 32.00 33.364 Sn EEE MYS (31.452%) 
261400 21.00 19.10 28.383 Ti EV, EEE BLX (9.73%) 
261590 11.22 15.43 19.079 G5 Solar, Wind, EV, EEE BRA (23.849%) 
261610 15.53 55.00 57.152 Ag Solar, EEE BOL (8.522%) 
280450 19.09 1.00 19.115 Te  CHN (15.148%) 
280490 33.78 1.00 33.798 Se Solar, EEE DEU (6.511%) 
280530 19.87 8.45 21.589 HREE Solar, EEE CHN (11.598%) 
282560 29.99 1.70 30.040 Ge  JPN (6.044%) 
283691 30.65 0.00 30.648 Li EV, EEE CHL (11.023%) 
284610 32.64 1.00 32.651 Ce EEE JPN (20.777%) 
284690 30.81 0.50 30,815 LREE EEE JPN (15.431%) 
391000 55.63 0.00 55.628 Si Solar, EV BLX (5.368%) 
711019 26.68 11.50 29.054 Pt  ZAF (23.751%) 
711029 24.72 9.70 26.555 Pd EEE RUS (34.217%) 
810600 27.57 1.00 27.590 Bi EEE CHN (19.52%) 
811219 13.55 0.00 13.549 Be EEE USA (20.995%) 

Source: Author’s elaboration 
 
 

 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

8 

Figure 4. Scatter plot areas’s indication 

Source: Author’s elaboration 
 

Critical materials for the sector intending to secure the production chain could look at circularity and/or market safety. Again, 
institutional quality is just a 'preventive' measure. It does not state an absolute and unequivocal measure of violations. In this 
application, we see that most green materials are outside the comfort zone of fair and recyclable materials; a synthetic graph of 
the analysis is portrayed in figure 4, along with the distinction areas we previously mentioned. 

With a wider perspective on all examples, we could outline a trade-off between circularity and institutional quality. The 
correlation for EEE is -26.5%, for solar panels is -37.2%, for EV -22.9% and finally Wind farms is 24.0%. Its relevance in this 
paper is to prove the existence of the inverse relation between Index M and EOL-RIR in CRM. The calculation has been made 
on all CRM according to the report of the EU commission. We collected the relevant information in table 1. The total panel of 
materials is referred to the category of Electronic and Electrical Equipment (EEE). They design all commodities that are 
designed to function via electricity. We used EEE as a yardstick configuration as they contain almost all CRM. Its waste 
designation is named waste EEE (WEEE) according to EU packages of 2008 and 2014. A recent report highlighted that these 
commodities are normally not designed to be fully recycled (Raudaskoski et al., 2019). They are relevant for the strategy of 
circularity, and usually, the other three products are considered related to them for sustainable electricity generation and 
components (accumulators). Therefore, we split materials according to the uses in three sectors of the Green Transition. These 
are Solar panels, electric vehicles (EV), and wind farms. The highlighted trade-off is present in both Solar farms and EVs. The 
difference between sector vulnerability is represented in figure 5. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

9 

 
Figure 5. Sector allocation of CRM 

Source: Author’s elaboration 
 

Wind farms are based on materials characterized by a heterogeneous set according to circularity and generally tainted 
markets. Solar farms register some materials in the comfort zone, such as Copper and Zinc. Outside HREE and G5 materials, 
it is overall a safe sector. Some materials could be recovered by discarded (Iron, Silver, and Lead). Others by acquired on fair 
markets (Silicon, Aluminum, and Selenium). Wind farms rely mostly on tainted markets, whereas most of these are easy to 
recover from European scrap metals (Copper and Lead). Unfortunately, Cobalt and G5 are necessary for components, greatly 
endangering this sector's circularity and production chain fairness. 

Finally, EV CRM is characterized by both trade-offs and deep criticalities. Due to the level of technological complexity, this 
should not sound surprising. Nonetheless, it is relevant to point out that both Lithium and Cobalt, the lowest in EOL-RIR, are 
required. According to our result, lithium is significantly safer than most other recyclable materials but not within the trade-
off. These two are, according to our criticality, the most difficult to control for a sustainability transition. The European 
production chain for transition commodities such as these is incredibly vulnerable in the following decades without institutional 
quality and recycling technology improvements. In this section, we briefly classified materials according to an index "M" and 
EOL-RIR. The first evaluated together market concentration and institutional quality. It greatly penalizes materials that are 
concentrated in fragile states. EOL-RIR refers to the recycling potential of the referred material. A brief discussion over the 
results will classify the focus of policies. 

5. Discussion  

Circularity and RS collect strategies are intended to reduce the adverse effects of external dependency. Since the EU is 
abiding by OECD Due Diligence practices, imports must conform to international standards. However, indicators for human 
rights violations are sparse, and data clearance is one of the main pillars of Due Diligence. Efforts to create a consensus have 
been made (OECD, 2020). Using national-level indicators for institutional quality allows having a homogenous measure 
comparable between suppliers and between sectors. Using such indicator along with market concentration is possible to identify 
the nodes of monopoly and political instability. Reducing dependencies from fragile nations (or fostering their development) 
represents a strategy for external risk mitigation. Investing in recycling technologies and enforce circularity policies reduce 
internal vulnerability: the lack of relevant raw materials' deposits. 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

10 

Demand for green transition commodities still is dominated by the European market. EU represents the destination of most 
of those raw materials, nevertheless their risk. The focus on GDP use in criticality analysis is redundant in these terms. The 
main vulnerability to recall is to EU welfare. The impossibility of applying carbon-neutral policies and allocate enough EEE 
affects contemporary and future standards of living. Thus, when considering RS, firms increase the welfare value of their chain 
more than the economic value. In such a sense, GDP is not a measure of welfare (Stiglitz et al., 2018). It is a common feature 
to use as an economical substitute when using economic value over the total GDP (or sector) (Ferro & Bonollo, 2019). In this 
sense, focusing on critical indicators of circularity and institutional quality allows identifying alternative strategies. For 
instance, sectors that are characterized by negative correlation could focus on circularity or RS efforts according to their cost 
function. Such approach could be done with three indicators at time, and could be repeated for as many indicators are necessary. 
However, literature has demonstrated that the relevance of geopolitical and economic relevance indicators could be redundant.  

The Cartesian distance approach has an inherent limitation: it is an indifference indicator. Since our interest was to give no 
particular preference to the indicators at any level, it does not penalize our results. The higher the value, the safest in the supply 
line. The Cartesian distance indicator grows logistically with its argumenta values. In case one of the two variables is near zero, 
the other hand explains its importance. Therefore, a long distance with one of the two arguments as near-zero indicates 
specialization possibility. If the application (for instance, solar panel) involves Lead, circular policies could mitigate risks on 
the supply line. Lead is relatively cheaper to recycle, but the sources are often not institutionally stable. As long as sectors can 
allocate their inputs according to the correlation, they can maximize their results in circularity and RS. Applications of Cobalt 
are, in terms of RS, the most unsafe. The nearest element in terms of low value is Beryllium, with 13.549 points of Cartesian 
distance. In our study, its applications are mainly concentrated in EEE, in particular for circuits. While its circularity is nearly 
null, its primary source consists of USA mines. This means that RS strategies might yield better results.   

Circularity policies are topical for CRM. Secondary materials substitute virgin materials, reducing dependency on fragile 
countries. As reported in results and figures 4 and 5, most materials low in the M index have decent EOL-RIR (in many cases 
debatable but helpful). Similarly, one LREE, Cerium, is low in circularity but proper in the M index. Sectors that rely on such 
material could focus on circularity improvements to success in SDG. Overall, commodities related to wind farms and solar 
panels employ CRM characterized by a decent level of circularity: most of them are above the median demarcation line. 
Complex commodities Such as EEE and EV are unfortunately challenging to manage. EEE is a comprehensive group. However, 
CRM applications are characterized by stable trade partners such as Japan. Our analysis may affect, for the most significant 
part, only some of the commodities within EEE. For instance, ICT-related commodities are composed of a complex set of CRM 
(Kasulaitis et al., 2015) compared to heavy household appliances.  

Green transition dependency to CRM does not represent a bottleneck for its policies. Some commodities critical for it could 
benefit from concentrated efforts on only one of these: RS or circularity. Solar farms, for instance, use HREE, but most of their 
materials generally have decent circularity levels. Therefore, improving RS factors by blending the product chain with 
secondary materials is possible. A similar approach could be made for Wind farms. Energy policies involving such instruments 
are fascinating nexus for mineral securities and RS. Considering their relatively low-risk sources, they are useful for carbon 
transition, considering conflict minerals legislation. On the other hand, EVs are a strong driver of carbon-free mobility. 
Unfortunately, their production relies on several CRM affected by possible conflicts and low circularity. 

6. Conclusion  

Although used in low concentrations, the growing electronics and transition commodities market has increased the global 
demand for critical materials. This has generated concerns about CRM international reserves and supply since they are either 
scarce or extracted in a limited number of countries. The main strategies for mitigating material criticality are recycling and 
responsible sourcing (Lapko et al., 2019; Young, 2018).  Recycling is likely to reduce input from primary raw materials, 
although it may not meet the growing market demand for certain materials (Mayyas et al., 2019). RS leverages stewardship and 
certification programs that support sustainable development and practices in mining countries, steering cooperation among 
countries and industrial sectors, arguably securing the supply of raw materials (Gandenberger et al., 2012). Both strategies 
present organizational and operational constraints, besides major technological issues (for recycling). Commonly described as 
immaterial, digital technology is, on the contrary, high energy and material intensive (see the work of EcoInfo in France. See 
also Maxwell (2014) and Lepawsky (2018)).  



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

11 

There is now vast literature documenting the materials, infrastructure, labor conditions, and energy requirements 
underpinning digital technology production, maintenance, and disposal. There is still no consensus, however, on which 
indicators are necessary for disclosure. NGOs and national laws in the US and EU have recently focused on supplying "conflict 
minerals" tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold. The first two, in particular, are used to produce components of circuit boards and 
electronic devices). Mining and trade are entangled in conflict and severe social conditions in the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo (DRC). Demanding enterprises to verify purchased goods as "conflict-free" means that they are not extracted in a conflict 
zone and used to finance war as in certain provinces of the DRC.  

Our paper has presented a critical study on CRM. To classify the vulnerability of the EU in terms of total supply, we 
considered two aspects: responsible sourcing and circularity. In this sense, the general objective should be to access materials 
on markets safe from human rights violations and secondary materials. We identified as a proxy variable for human rights 
safety an index of institutional quality. EOL-RIR is the reference for circularity. It is generally employed in criticality 
assessment for CRM, and it is a proxy for secondary material recovery. The former relates to the market concentration jointly 
with the institutional quality of exporters. We elaborated a synthetic index for these two aspects: market/Institution fragility 
versus circularity, hence internal versus external vulnerability. Using a classification based on trivial index generation, we 
presented evidence of a trade-off between circularity and market concentration/institutional quality. According to our results, 
energy commodities of wind and solar farms represent a safe instrument for transition policies when we consider internal and 
external vulnerability. The article presents a novel investigation of the systemic limits of outsourcing green commodities. 
Considering that European Union has put the transition to a low carbon society, the production of such artifacts should at least 
abide by principles of fair labor and democracy. It addresses the emergent correlation between the two aspects of circularity 
and safe trades using external and internal weakness as the key of interpretation.  

The study presents several limitations anyway. First, it was mainly an exploratory study over the limits of criticality studies 
in the context of CRM. The indicators employed were the most used in the literature. However, there is a lack of comprehensive 
indicators of welfare regarding raw materials and their extraction. The methodology tried to overcome the issue by generating 
more indicators from available data. The implied complementarity of the two weaknesses is highly debatable from an economic 
standpoint, especially if looking at a dynamic one. Thus, the paper presents a conservative perspective over the potential of 
electrification of the automotive sector.  

Transition commodities such as EV, solar panels, and wind farms present decent average circularity and safe external sources 
when the former lacks. The EV sector represents both methodologies, the most critical sector for circularity, market 
vulnerability, and human rights violation. In terms of liability risk, it means, according to these results, the industry with the 
most significant liability risk for responsible sourcing and material circularity. The exponential growth of markets for electric 
vehicles is likely to put under pressure in the short and medium-term. The results show that Beryllium and Cobalt traded in 
Europe are critical from the institutional quality and circularity perspective. The methodology applied is not necessarily bound 
to application in CRM. Energy commodities such as gas and oil are affected by similar performance. Instead of circularity, 
climate impact could be a possible substitute. Overall, the paper presented results on non-energetic elements using two main 
aspects. This limitation could hinder the completeness of our results. However, indicators of RS could greatly vary between 
commodities and nations. Circularity is based upon industrial definitions. Thus fewer indicators could be considered 
alternatives to EOL-RIR. Finally, RS and circularity represent a gap in the literature. While our study is not intended to give a 
complete toolkit for supply strategy, it identified an advantage. Future studies might consider the problem of destabilized supply 
chains. A trade war affecting green products could impede carbon reduction for short periods. The effect on welfare would 
therefore be significant, especially in the long term. Several studies have presented the potential for business accounting 
(Piontek et al., 2021; Scarpellini, 2021). Further data in the field could improve the understanding of listed companies' financial 
risks with unstable supply chains.  

Better knowledge of the complex supply networks of CRMs for Europe can provide several insights for European policy-
makers. Consensus over RS indicators is vital for this purpose and represents a relevant gap in the literature. It should be further 
explored to support the development of cooperation programs and actions (e.g., the Clean Cobalt Initiative). The challenges for 
a sustainable transition consist of discovering more innovative technologies and rethinking commodity design to improve their 
durability and reparability. Improved interaction with local communities might strengthen supply security even when national 
indicators say otherwise. Local realities often constitute particularities. 

 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

12 

References 

Ali, S. H., Giurco, D., Arndt, N., Nickless, E., Brown, G., Demetriades, A., Durrheim, R., Enriquez, M. A., Kinnaird, J., 
Littleboy, A., Meinert, L. D., Oberhänsli, R., Salem, J., Schodde, R., Schneider, G., Vidal, O., & Yakovleva, N. (2017). 
Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance. Nature, 543(7645), 367–372. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21359 

Ambekar, S., Prakash, A., & Patyal, V. S. (2019). Role of culture in low carbon supply chain capabilities. Journal of 
Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(1), 146–179. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2018-0024 

Arendt, R., Muhl, M., Bach, V., & Finkbeiner, M. (2020). Criticality assessment of abiotic resource use for Europe– 
application of the SCARCE method. Resources Policy, 67(December 2019), 101650. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101650 

Blagoeva, D., Alves Dias, P., Marmier, A., & Pavel, C. (2016). Assessment of potential bottlenecks along the materials 
supply chain for the future deployment of low-carbon energy and transport technologies in the EU: Wind power, 
photovoltaic and electric vehicles technologies, time frame: 2015-2030. https://doi.org/10.2790/08169 

Bleischwitz, R. (2020). Mineral resources in the age of climate adaptation and resilience. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 
24(2), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12951 

Bleischwitz, R., & Bahn‐Walkowiak, B. (2007). Aggregates and Construction Markets in Europe: Towards a Sectoral Action 
Plan on Sustainable Resource Management. Minerals & Energy - Raw Materials Report, 22(3–4), 159–176. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14041040701683664 

Blengini, G. A., Nuss, P., Dewulf, J., Nita, V., Talens Peiró, L., Vidal-Legaz, B., Latunussa, C., Mancini, L., Blagoeva, D., 
Pennington, D., Pellegrini, M., Van Maercke, A., Solar, S., Grohol, M., & Ciupagea, C. (2017). EU methodology for 
critical raw materials assessment: Policy needs and proposed solutions for incremental improvements. Resources 
Policy, 53(March), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.05.008 

Bobba, S., Carrara, S., Huisman, J., Mathieux, F., & Pavel, C. (2020). Critical Raw Materials for Strategic Technologies and 
Sectors in the EU - a Foresight Study. In European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2873/58081 

British Geological Survey, B. (2015). British Geological Survey Risk List 2015. Risk List 2015. 
Chiu, A. S. F., Aviso, K. B., & Tan, R. R. (2020). On general principles at the sustainability science-policy interface. 

Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104828 
Church, C., & Crawford, A. (2018). Conflict Minerals : The fuels of conflict (Issue August). 
Cimprich, A., Bach, V., Helbig, C., Thorenz, A., Schrijvers, D., Sonnemann, G., Young, S. B., Sonderegger, T., & Berger, M. 

(2019). Raw material criticality assessment as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment: Examining 
methods for product-level supply risk assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(5), 1226–1236. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12865 

Commission of the European Communities. (2008). The raw materials initiative : meeting our critical needs for growth and 
jobs in Europe (No. 699). 

Cossu, R., & Williams, I. D. (2015). Urban mining: Concepts, terminology, challenges. Waste Management, 45, 1–3. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.040 

Deloitte. (2015). Study on Data for a Raw Material System Analysis: Roadmap and Test of the Fully Operational MSA for 
Raw Materials. 

EU. (2017). Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply 
chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from 
conflict-affected and high-ri. Official Journal of the European Union, 60. 

Expósito, A., & Velasco, F. (2018). Municipal solid-waste recycling market and the European 2020 Horizon Strategy: A 
regional efficiency analysis in Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 938–948. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.221 

Ferro, P., & Bonollo, F. (2019). Materials selection in a critical raw materials perspective. Materials & Design, 177, 107848. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.107848 

Gandenberger, C., Glöser, S., Marscheider-Weidemann, F., Ostertag, K., & Rainer, W. (2012). Die Versorgung der deutschen 
Wirtschaft mit Roh- und Werkstoffen für Hochtechnologien – Präzisierung und Weiterentwicklung der deutschen 
Rohstoffstrategie. 

Homrich, A. S., Galvão, G., Abadia, L. G., & Carvalho, M. M. (2018). The circular economy umbrella: Trends and gaps on 
integrating pathways. In Journal of Cleaner Production (Vol. 175, pp. 525–543). Elsevier. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.064 

H�mor, T. (2004). Sustainable Mining in the European Union: The Legislative Aspect. Environmental Management, 33(2), 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

13 

252–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0081-7 
Jones, B., Elliott, R. J. R., & Nguyen-Tien, V. (2020). The EV revolution: The road ahead for critical raw materials demand. 

Applied Energy, 280(April), 115072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115072 
Kasulaitis, B. V, Babbitt, C. W., Kahhat, R., Williams, E., & Ryen, E. G. (2015). Evolving materials, attributes, and 

functionality in consumer electronics: Case study of laptop computers. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 100, 1–
10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.03.014 

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical 
Issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(02), 220–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1876404511200046 

Koch, D.-J., & Burlyuk, O. (2020). Bounded policy learning? EU efforts to anticipate unintended consequences in conflict 
minerals legislation. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(10), 1441–1462. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2019.1675744 

KUNČIČ, A. (2014). Institutional quality dataset. Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(1), 135–161. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137413000192 

Lapko, Y., Trianni, A., Nuur, C., & Masi, D. (2019). In Pursuit of Closed-Loop Supply Chains for Critical Materials: An 
Exploratory Study in the Green Energy Sector. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 182–196. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12741 

Lepawsky, J. (2018). Reassembling Rubbish: Worlding Electronic Waste. MIT Press. 
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/servlet/opac?bknumber=8544156 

Martins, F., & Castro, H. (2019). Significance ranking method applied to some EU critical raw materials in a circular 
economy – Priorities for achieving sustainability. Procedia CIRP, 84, 1059–1062. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.281 

Martins, F. F., & Castro, H. (2020). Raw material depletion and scenario assessment in European Union – A circular 
economy approach. Energy Reports, 6, 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.08.082 

Maxwell, R. (2014). Media and the Ecological Crisis. In Media and the Ecological Crisis. Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315885650 

Mayyas, A., Steward, D., & Mann, M. (2019). The case for recycling: Overview and challenges in the material supply chain 
for automotive li-ion batteries. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 19, e00087. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2018.e00087 

Mazzarano, M. (2020). Estimating total potential material recovery from EEE in EU28. Resources Policy, 68. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101785 

Misopoulos, F., Argyropoulou, R., Manthou, V., Argyropoulou, M., & Kelmendi, I. (2020). Carbon emissions of bottled 
water sector supply chains: a multiple case-study approach. International Journal of Logistics Research and 
Applications, 23(2), 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2019.1626815 

Monnet, A., & Ait Abderrahim, A. (2018). Report on major trends affecting future demand for critical raw materials. 
Mudd, G. M., Jowitt, S. M., & Werner, T. T. (2018). Global platinum group element resources, reserves and mining – A 

critical assessment. Science of The Total Environment, 622–623, 614–625. 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.350 

OECD. (2016a). OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and 
High-Risk Areas. In OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected 
and High-Risk Areas. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252479-en 

OECD. (2016b). OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and 
High-Risk Areas (Third). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252479-en 

OECD. (2020). Promoting coherence between standards on responsible mineral supply chains: The OECD Due Diligence 
Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas and the Extractive 
Industries Transparency Initiative Standard. 

Pehlken, A., Albach, S., & Vogt, T. (2017). Is there a resource constraint related to lithium ion batteries in cars? International 
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0925-4 

Piontek, F., Herrmann, C., & Saraev, A. (2021). Steps from Zero Carbon Supply Chains and Demand of Circular Economy to 
Circular Business Cases. European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy, 2(2 SE-). 
https://doi.org/10.13135/2704-9906/5712 

Rabe, W., Kostka, G., & Smith Stegen, K. (2017). China’s supply of critical raw materials: Risks for Europe’s solar and wind 
industries? Energy Policy, 101, 692–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.019 

Raudaskoski, A., Lenau, T., Jokinen, T., Gisslén, A. V., & Metze, A.-L. (2019). Designing plastics circulation. Nordic 



 
 

European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy - ISSN: 2704-9906  
DOI: 10.13135/2704-9906/5988 Published by University of Turin http://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/ejsice/index 
EJSICE content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License   

14 

Council of Ministers. https://doi.org/10.6027/TN2019-534 
Santillán-Saldivar, J., Cimprich, A., Shaikh, N., Laratte, B., Young, S. B., & Sonnemann, G. (2021a). How recycling 

mitigates supply risks of critical raw materials: Extension of the geopolitical supply risk methodology applied to 
information and communication technologies in the European Union. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 
164(February 2020), 105108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105108 

Santillán-Saldivar, J., Cimprich, A., Shaikh, N., Laratte, B., Young, S. B., & Sonnemann, G. (2021b). How recycling 
mitigates supply risks of critical raw materials: Extension of the geopolitical supply risk methodology applied to 
information and communication technologies in the European Union. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 
164(February 2020), 105108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105108 

Scarpellini, S. (2021). Social indicators for businesses’ circular economy: multi-faceted analysis of employment as an 
indicator for sustainability reporting. European Journal of Social Impact and Circular Economy, 2(1 SE-). 
https://doi.org/10.13135/2704-9906/5282 

Schaubroeck, T. (2020). Circular economy practices may not always lead to lower criticality or more sustainability; analysis 
and guidance is needed per case. In Resources, Conservation and Recycling (Vol. 162, p. 104977). Elsevier B.V. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104977 

Schrijvers, D., Hool, A., Blengini, G. A., Chen, W.-Q., Dewulf, J., Eggert, R., van Ellen, L., Gauss, R., Goddin, J., Habib, K., 
Hagelüken, C., Hirohata, A., Hofmann-Amtenbrink, M., Kosmol, J., Le Gleuher, M., Grohol, M., Ku, A., Lee, M.-H., 
Liu, G., … Wäger, P. A. (2020). A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality. Resources, 
Conservation and Recycling, 155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617 

Silva, S., & Schaltegger, S. (2019). Social assessment and management of conflict minerals: a systematic literature review. 
Sustain. Accounting, Manag. Policy J., 10(1), 157–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-02-2018-0029 

Song, J., Yan, W., Cao, H., Song, Q., Ding, H., Lv, Z., Zhang, Y., & Sun, Z. (2019). Material flow analysis on critical raw 
materials of lithium-ion batteries in China. J. Clean. Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.081 

Stefanakis, A. (2019). The Role of Constructed Wetlands as Green Infrastructure for Sustainable Urban Water Management. 
Sustainability, 11(24), 6981. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246981 

Stiglitz, J. E., Fitoussi, J.-P., & Durand, M. (2018). Beyond GDP. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264307292-en 
Tabner, I. T. (2007). A Review of Concentration, Diversity or Entropy Metrics in Economics, Finance, Ecology and 

Communication Science. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences: Annual Review, 2(4), 53–60. 
https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v02i04/52345 

Talens Peiró, L., Nuss, P., Mathieux, F., & Blengini, G. A. (2018). Towards Recycling Indicators based on EU flows and 
Raw Materials System Analysis data Supporting the EU-28 (Issue October). Publications Office of the European Union. 
https://doi.org/10.2760/092885 

Tercero Espinoza, L., Schrijvers, D., Chen, W.-Q., Dewulf, J., Eggert, R., Goddin, J., Habib, K., Hagelüken, C., Hurd, A. J., 
Kleijn, R., Ku, A. Y., Lee, M.-H., Nansai, K., Nuss, P., Peck, D., Petavratzi, E., Sonnemann, G., van der Voet, E., 
Wäger, P. A., … Hool, A. (2020). Greater circularity leads to lower criticality, and other links between criticality and 
the circular economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104718 

Vrkljan, D., Klanfar, M., Tost, M., & Endl, A. (2017). MIN-GUIDE Version Innovative Exploration and Extraction 
Deliverable 3.4. Guidelines and recommendations for future policy and legislation Minerals Policy Guidance for 
Europe MIN-GUIDE -D 3.4. Guidelines and recommendations for future policy and legislatio. 
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23128.65289 

Young, S. B. (2018). Responsible sourcing of metals: certification approaches for conflict minerals and conflict-free metals. 
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23(7), 1429–1447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0932-5 

Ziemann, S., Müller, D. B., Schebek, L., & Weil, M. (2018). Modeling the potential impact of lithium recycling from EV 
batteries on lithium demand: A dynamic MFA approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 133, 76–85. 
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.031 

 


