Highlights
- Global critical minerals policies are rapidly proliferating without robust scientific integration across geological, environmental, and socio-economic dimensions.
- EU and US policies show significant gaps in:
- Transparent life cycle analysis
- Mineral reserve data
- Community engagement metrics
- Researchers recommend multilateral frameworks and data-sharing systems to improve policy effectiveness and earn public trust in critical minerals development.
A new intelligence briefing (opens in a new tab) in Global Sustainability by lead author Thomas Nolan Hale, PhD (opens in a new tab) student at University of Delaware and colleagues including Saleem H. Ali (opens in a new tab), University of Delaware & University of Queensland, argues that global critical minerals policies are proliferating rapidly—but often without a scientific foundation. Their paper, “Critical minerals policies need clearer interface with scientifically credible targets,” highlights the gap between political ambitions and the data-driven frameworks needed to meet sustainability, social, and economic goals.
Hypothesis and Objective
The authors hypothesize that while national efforts to secure critical raw materials (CRMs) are accelerating, they remain poorly integrated with geological, environmental, and socio-economic data. Their objective is to analyze how over 400 global CRM policies, particularly in the European Union (EU) andthe United States, are shaping supply chains—often with misaligned or missing scientific baselines.
Key Findings
- EU Leadership but Gaps Remain: The 2024 EU Critical Raw Materials Act is praised as a landmark effort, setting firm targets (e.g., 10% extraction, 40% processing, and 15% recycling of CRM consumption by 2030). However, the Act lacks robust integration with life cycle analysis (LCA), mineral reserve data, and community engagement metrics.
- Lithium as a Case Study: European lithium projects (Portugal, Czech Republic, France) face resistance due to insufficient transparency on local environmental and economic impacts. The authors recommend using tools like LCA, economic geological modeling, and ecosystem valuation to evaluate project tradeoffs.
- U.S. Emphasis on Security over Sustainability: The U.S. has led in the number of CRM policies—driven by national security and industrial competition—but lags in enforcement and sustainability integration. Many initiatives are not yet yielding production-ready results.
- Data Is Essential for De-risking: Life cycle assessments and shared “scoreboard” metrics could help prioritize projects and avoid social backlash. The authors highlight the role of third-party certifications (e.g., IRMA) and transparent permitting in earning a social license to operate.
Limitations
The study does not include real-time monitoring of policy effectiveness or capital deployment, and it lacks midstream processing and workforce data. It relies heavily on policy documentation rather than primary field data, making it more diagnostic than predictive.
Implications
Without scientifically grounded, data-transparent frameworks, CRM policies risk stalling due to social conflict, environmental concerns, or misaligned expectations. The authors call for multilateral frameworks, including UN or WTO-led agreements, to harmonize global efforts, and stress the need for broader public trust through data-sharing systems.
Source: Hale, T. N., Ali, S. H., et al. (2025).Critical minerals policies need clearer interface with scientifically credible targets. Global Sustainability, 8, e25. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2025.10014 (opens in a new tab)
Leave a Reply