Product Sourcing Best Practices

Recycling of Critical Minerals Strategies to Scale Up Recycling and Urban Mining - World Energy Outlook Special Report (International Energy Agency (IEA)) As the shift to a clean energy system accelerates, substantial investments in new mines and refining capacity, especially in geographically diverse regions, will be required to produce essential minerals such as #copper, #lithium, #nickel, #cobalt and #rareearths. #Recycling is indispensable to the security and sustainability of critical minerals supply for clean energy transitions. While recycling does not eliminate the need for mining investment, it creates a valuable secondary supply source that reduces reliance on new mines and enhances supply security for countries importing minerals. Moreover, scaling up recycling mitigates the environmental and social impacts related to mining and refining while preventing waste from end-use technologies ending up in landfills. Link: https://lnkd.in/eUXisC5D #supplychains #criticalminerals #ewaste #urbanmining #circulareconomy

Relatively small amounts of critical minerals underpin trillions of dollars in economic value globally. New IEA analysis highlights growing risks, including export controls, although countries are also taking steps to make supply chains more secure 👉 https://iea.li/4aTpQ33 The geographic concentration of critical mineral supply chains continues to grow, particularly for refining. Rare earths are the exception. The top supplier's share fell from 90% in 2023 to 85% in 2025, showing progress is possible with strong policies. Read more in the International Energy Agency (IEA)’s Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2026 👉 https://iea.li/4bNpwDh While critical mineral projects are being announced & developed across the globe, we see a structural imbalance in diversification efforts. Investment outside the dominant supplier remains concentrated in mining, while efforts to expand refining & downstream capacity lag behind. In a complex geopolitical environment, critical minerals have moved to the forefront of countries’ energy, economic & national security agendas. This is making a difference: public finance commitments more than quadrupled between 2023 and 2025, reaching $65 billion. New IEA analysis also sees a major opportunity to diversify supplies of strategic minor minerals. The investment needed is much smaller than the potential risks of disruption and can be seen as economic insurance. Since #CriticalMinerals account for a small share of final product prices, the cost of diversification could have a limited impact on consumers. For example, critical minerals account for around a quarter of battery cell costs but only about 3% of the price of an average EV. Diversified supply is not only a matter of investment: it also means tackling gaps in technology, equipment & workforce skills. Our new Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2026 includes guidance for policymakers on this & more. Read it in full on our site 👉 https://iea.li/4bNpwDh

Critical mineral traceability is becoming one of the most important pillars of the energy transition. A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) highlights how traceability is rapidly moving from a compliance exercise to a strategic business capability. Demand for copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite and rare earth elements continues to accelerate as electrification, battery production, grid expansion and AI infrastructure scale globally. Yet supply chains remain highly concentrated, particularly in processing and refining. According to the IEA-OECD survey of more than 80 companies across critical mineral supply chains: • Around two-thirds already have some form of traceability system in place. • Upstream companies are implementing traceability at roughly twice the rate of downstream actors. • Three-quarters expect to increase investment in traceability over the next three years. What stands out is that this is no longer just about reporting, traceability is increasingly tied to: supply chain resilience, operational risk management, market access, due diligence requirements, responsible sourcing expectations, investor scrutiny, and long-term competitiveness in clean energy markets. The report also suggests that traceability could become foundational for standards-based markets, where minerals with verified sustainability credentials or lower emissions profiles may eventually command commercial advantages. At the same time, major barriers remain. More than half of surveyed companies identified implementation costs and lack of interoperability between systems as key challenges. Others pointed to fragmented reporting standards, commercial confidentiality concerns and difficulty obtaining information beyond tier-one suppliers. In other words: many companies can trace direct suppliers, but visibility still drops sharply deeper into the supply chain. For businesses, the broader implication is significant. Critical mineral traceability is evolving into infrastructure for the energy transition itself. Not only for compliance purposes, but for: - Securing resilient supply chains. - Validating ESG claims. - Enabling responsible procurement. - Supporting financing mechanisms. - Reducing exposure to geopolitical and operational disruption. The companies that build transparent and interoperable supply chain systems early may be better positioned as sustainability expectations, sourcing standards and market pressures continue to tighten globally. The question is no longer whether traceability will matter in critical minerals. It is how quickly it becomes a competitive requirement rather than a voluntary differentiator. #supplychain #traceability #energy #regulations

For months, I've been highlighting how critical mineral supply chains would become a defining factor in EV success. And the "mineral reality check" is finally here. Last month's 2W sales says it all. Bajaj, which was consistently 2nd in sales, saw it's Chetak e-scooter sales plunge 37% year-on-year, to slide to 5th place. The setback stemmed from a shortage of rare-earth magnets, which the company had flagged as a supply chain risk months earlier. Last month, MD Rajiv Bajaj warned of a “severe shortage” of heavy rare-earth magnets that could halt output in August. Even the #1 player, TVS Motors' President, Gaurav Gupta said "Almost every player has been impacted by that (rare earth shortage). There is no clear one way forward as of now. The industry is navigating the supply chain crisis on a day-to-day, week-to-week basis.” The good news, though, is that Bajaj has resumed supplies of the Chetak from August 20th after resolving sourcing issues. But the global economy is facing a 46% supply-demand gap for lithium by 2030, 20% gap for nickel & 30% for cobalt! This means that companies that secured robust mineral supply chains early are the ones maintaining stable growth. This isn't about who has the best marketing or the flashiest features anymore. It's about who has locked in their lithium, cobalt, and nickel sources for the next decade. In emerging tech markets, the winners aren't always the first movers. They're the ones who solve the supply chain equation first.

Critical minerals like cobalt, lithium, nickel, and rare-earth elements are essential resources that power electric vehicles, wind turbines, semiconductors, and advanced weapons systems. They underpin the technologies that define economic security and military power in the 21st century. In a new article in The Diplomat Magazine on “Vietnam and the geopolitics of critical minerals,” we explore how this is reshaping the strategies of great powers and emerging middle powers. Much of the policy debate in Washington, Brussels, and other advanced economies has focused on building alliances to diversify supply chains, and crucially, to reduce dependence on China’s near-monopoly in rare earth refining and processing. U.S.-led initiatives such as the Critical Minerals Ministerial, FORGE, and broader efforts to link minerals, semiconductors, and AI infrastructure into a “#PaxSilica” ecosystem illustrate how governments are attempting to coordinate responses to this strategic vulnerability. But not all U.S. partners are following this coalition-building approach. #Vietnam, despite possessing some of the world’s largest #RareEarth reserves, appears to be pursuing a different path. By tightening restrictions on exports of unprocessed rare earths and prioritising domestic refining and downstream manufacturing, #Hanoi is attempting to use mineral resources as a tool of economic statecraft. The strategy reflects Vietnam’s long-standing “bamboo diplomacy”: maintaining flexibility between #geopolitical blocs while strengthening its own economic capabilities. It also points to a broader phenomenon that Ramón Pacheco Pardo and I described in our Foreign Policy article as the rise of “niche superpowers”—countries that achieve global influence by specialising in highly strategic segments of #SupplyChains. As demand for critical minerals accelerates, the global system may fragment into multiple overlapping supply networks rather than great powers-led orders. Thanks to Kristi Govella and the Nissan Institute of Japanese Studies, University of Oxford for convening the excellent "From Economic Security to Economic Statecraft" symposium last week. In the piece, Adam Chalmers, Berlin Tran, and Robert Wade (The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)) and I open with the symposium's timely discussions, and the attention paid to #CriticalMinerals across panels covering the private sector and technology. Adam, Berlin, Robert and I draw on our large study of Vietnamese media coverage of rare earths, between 2010 and 2025, where we observe securitisation in the lead-up to the December 2025 entrenching of the ban on exports of unrefined rare-earths. Thank you Mitch Shin for the opportunity. King's Business School King's College London The University of Edinburgh University Of Economics Ho Chi Minh City

Every government wants critical minerals. Almost none of them are making it easier to mine them. The ICSG's Regulatory Survey 2026 maps the global regulatory landscape. Over 100 countries have published critical-minerals strategies. The EU wants 10% domestic extraction and 40% processing by 2030. The US has invoked the Defense Production Act and added copper to the critical-minerals list for the first time. India expects copper demand to triple by 2030. Argentina is rolling out incentives for projects over US$200M with a pipeline that could deliver a million tonnes of copper annually by 2035. But read the other half of the report and you get a different story. Tailings governance is going global with 77 auditable requirements. Social licence has moved to regulatory gating item, the CSIRO estimates failure to maintain public trust can reduce a project's market value by up to 70%. Seabed mining is stalled by moratoriums and scientific objections. Permitting reform, despite all the rhetoric, remains glacial in most places that matter. And announced projects currently meet only around 70% of projected copper requirements and 50% for lithium. This is the contradiction no one wants to name. The same governments declaring minerals "strategic" are layering on complexity that extends timelines, increases costs, and narrows the pool of capital willing to engage. Each individual regulation is defensible. Collectively, they're compounding the very supply gap they claim to be solving. The report calls this a "dual reality." That's generous. What it describes is a policy environment where ambition and execution are moving in opposite directions. And the gap between them is where supply shortfalls get priced in. Jurisdictional complexity isn't declining it's becoming the defining variable in project economics. The companies and jurisdictions that resolve the tension between regulatory legitimacy and development speed will attract the capital. Everyone else will just publish strategies. For more of my takes on the resource industry sign up to my weekly newsletter www.kamoacap.com #Mining #CriticalMinerals #Copper #Resources #CapitalMarkets #EnergyTransition Source: International Copper Study Group, Regulatory Survey 2026

Over the past two decades, global standards on #responsiblemineral sourcing —regardless of the mineral — have established a clear expectation: companies are responsible for conducting robust, ongoing #duediligence on their suppliers and the origins of the minerals entering their #supplychains. The era of trust-based assurances is over. Periodic audits alone are not enough—particularly when sourcing from high-risk areas. Conditions on the ground, especially in #gold production, can shift rapidly. This requires ongoing, risk-based due diligence, paired with clear mitigation strategies to ensure that sourcing does not contribute to the financing of non-state armed groups or criminal networks. Cases like this also underscore the urgent need for greater transparency across mineral supply chains. Without more granular visibility into origin and flows, the sector will continue to face skepticism, and confidence in industry-led due diligence efforts will lack in credibility. Most importantly, it is artisanal miners and their communities who bear the greatest cost. Too often, they are caught in environments shaped by violence, coercion, and economic vulnerability—conditions that allow illicit actors to operate and sustain themselves. Companies need to do their part in ensuring that they are not helping armed groups and criminal actors thrive. Strengthening supply chain integrity is not only about compliance—it is about accountability and impact. Companies must invest in more effective due diligence systems and commit to meaningful, verifiable transparency. https://lnkd.in/e8denhru

**Trade policy is increasingly being used to secure access to, and participate in, critical minerals supply chains** Since 2022, bilateral critical minerals partnership agreements have expanded rapidly across the world. A new UNCTAD publication analyzes 73 of these agreements and finds that a small group of major economies is driving this trend. The European Union, the United States, India, Canada, Indonesia, and Japan have all negotiated critical minerals partnerships with a wide range of countries. Of the agreements examined, 27 are between a developed and a developing country, 26 are between developed countries, and 20 are between developing countries. Read the UNCTAD publication here: https://lnkd.in/eymFxAdq A few months ago, I published a paper examining how the United States is using #tradepolicy instruments as part of an #industrialpolicy toolkit to secure critical minerals supply chains. Entitled “The International Trade Dimensions of the United States Critical Minerals Security Strategy”, it offers one of the first comprehensive, empirically grounded assessments of the recent U.S. critical minerals trade-related agreements negotiated with six countries: Australia, the DRC, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, and Ukraine. The paper finds that these six agreements combine both “familiar” and “novel” features. They build on “longstanding” elements of U.S. international economic engagement—including investment facilitation, standards alignment, and technical cooperation. The minerals deals also introduce “newer” features such as preferential treatment for U.S. firms, greater emphasis on domestic processing in select partner countries, and the use of third-party exclusion clauses. The paper concludes by considering the implications for the U.S., partner countries—particularly in the Global South—and the future of the global trading system, as more of these agreements continue to emerge. Read my paper here: https://lnkd.in/eudjR9zy This is a remarkably dynamic and rapidly evolving policy space. I look forward to reading similar empirical assessments of the EU, Japan, the UK, South Korea, and South-South #criticalminerals partnerships as this new generation of trade and investment arrangements continues to evolve.

❗Geopolitical Tensions Impact Supply Chains AND Balance of Power ⚠️Heads up, Procurement & Supply Chain Folks. Building and executing robust category strategies and preventing risks arising from complex supply chains and critical minerals/rare earths require a deep understanding of your supplier structure, down to the raw material sources. Many new regulations, such as the German LkSG or the European CSDDD, also require this. These days, it is essential to fully understand your supply chains, your business partners, and geopolitical developments to identify, assess, and prevent (commodity) risks, particularly those coming from regions that we would consider medium or high-risk regions. Critical minerals such as copper, cobalt, lithium, and rare earths are often used in climate, automotive, energy, digital technology, and military equipment. 📌Lithium, nickel, and cobalt are considered HIGH “Importance” & “Supply risk” from 2025 to 2035 by the U.S Department of Energy 📌Gallium: needed to build semiconductors essential for missile guidance systems and computer systems (not produced in the US) 📌Germanium: needed for infrared night vision goggles and solar panels on satellites (not produced in the US) 📌Titanium: used for aerospace components, missiles, armor plating, and naval ships. The US is reliant on 90% of titanium ore imports (US production fell from 140k to 50k tons in 2020) 📌Niobium: used in superalloys for jet engines (not produced in the US) The high demand has geopolitical consequences that we can’t ignore. China dominates about two-thirds of mineral processing worldwide, refining over half of aluminum, lithium, and cobalt and 90% of rare earths. This dominance gives China, in many ways, immense power over global supply chains and economies. However, we probably see a small but important development here. From a China-dominated monopoly to an oligopoly, including countries like the U.S., Australia, Myanmar, and Thailand, rare earth production is increasing, challenging China's supremacy. Supply security and economic resilience are not just important to corporations but also to maintaining the balance of power (the US Congressional Research Service, for instance, published the impact of rare earths on US fighter jets, vessels, and submarines). 👉 If you are a Risk Manager, CPO, Category Manager/Buyer, or Supply Chain Leader, follow not just the market price. Understand the rationale behind it and plan accordingly. Your CFO and your CEO need your comprehensive expertise, not just on pricing. We all are becoming Risk Analysts above and beyond cost and savings.

🔍 In this new article, I explore how 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐞𝐬, prompting governments to rethink how they secure supply, build processing capacity and participate in global value chains. These inputs are essential for 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬, 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠, yet their supply chains remain structurally vulnerable. Their strategic relevance arises not only from geological availability, but also from concentrated production, limited refining capacity, long permitting processes and rapidly rising demand that outpaces investment. A material’s importance can shift quickly as technologies evolve and supply networks adjust, which is why governments are increasingly focused not just on extraction, but on the capacity to refine, process and embed these resources in high-value industries. Recent shifts at the policy and industrial level reveal several key trends: 🔸 𝐄𝐱𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 remains fundamental, although the competitive edge is increasingly shaped by processing and refining capacity. 🔸 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 are taking on geopolitical importance, influencing which countries can accelerate or delay strategic projects. 🔸 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐲𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 strategies are moving into the core of industrial policy, rather than acting as peripheral sustainability efforts. 🔸 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 are being redefined by access to resources, rather than ideology or traditional diplomatic alignments. 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. The countries that control mineral value chains will determine who leads in batteries, semiconductors, defence systems and clean technologies. The analysis is supported by figures from the World Resources Institute, International Energy Agency (IEA), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Statista, and Visual Capitalist. #Mining #CriticalMinerals #Strategy #Policy