Greater circularity leads to lower criticality, and other links between criticality and the circular economy

by Espinoza, L.-T.; Schrijvers, D.; Chen, W.-Q. Dewulf, J.; Eggert, R.; Goddin, J.; Habib, K.; Hagelüken, C.; Hurd, A.-J.;Kleijn, R.; Ku, A.; Lee, M.-H.; Nansai, K.; Nuss, P.; Peck, D.; Petavratzi, E.; and Sonnemann, G

Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2020,157: 104718.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104718

Abstract

Society requires a stable and secure supply of raw materials. Raw
materials supply stability and security are, amongst others, addressed
by the concept of raw materials criticality, which focuses on the vulnerability
of an economic unit (most commonly a country or region, but
also the world, specific sectors, companies or products) to supply restrictions
of certain mineral raw materials (cf. Schrijvers et al., 2020).
The idea of keeping materials in the economic cycle for longer is specified
in the Circular Economy (CE) concept, which encompasses efforts
that reduce waste and improve material efficiency (Ellen McArthur
Foundation, 2013; European Commission, 2018). So far, CE beyond
recycling has not played a prominent role in the criticality debate. At
the same time, critical raw materials (CRM) have only been a minor
topic in the discussion on CE (recent exceptions include European
Commission, 2018, and Gaustad et al., 2018). If properly aligned, criticality
assessments might help in defining priority materials for the CE,
and circularity strategies could substantially mitigate supply risks. In
this paper, we explore the potential benefits, as well as caveats, of
adopting a CE approach to CRM, based on our own experiences and our
discussions organized by the IRTC (International Round Table on Materials
Criticality) project.