A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality

Alessandra Hool; Dieuwertje Schrijvers; Gian Andrea Blengini; Wei-Qiang Chen; Jo Dewulf; Roderick Eggert; Layla van Ellen; Roland Gauss; James Goddin; Komal Habib; Christian Hagelüken; Atsufumi Hirohata; Margarethe Hofmann-Amtenbrink; Jan Kosmol; Maïté Le Gleuher; Milan Grohol; Anthony Ku; Min-Ha Lee; Gang Liu; Keisuke Nansai; Philip Nuss; David Peck; Armin Reller; Guido Sonnemann; Luis Tercero; Andrea Thorenz; Patrick Wäger

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617

A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality

Alessandra Hool, Dieuwertje Schrijvers, Gian Andrea Blengini, Wei-Qiang Chen, Jo Dewulf, Roderick Eggert, Layla van Ellen, Roland Gauss, James Goddin, Komal Habib, Christian Hagelüken, Atsufumi Hirohata, Margarethe Hofmann-Amtenbrink, Jan Kosmol, Maïté Le Gleuher, Milan Grohol, Anthony Ku, Min-Ha Lee, Gang Liu, Keisuke NansaiPhilip Nuss, David Peck, Armin Reller, Guido Sonnemann, Luis Tercero, Andrea Thorenz, Patrick Wäger

Electronic Engineering

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

The assessment of the criticality of raw materials allows the identification of the likelihood of a supply disruption of a material and the vulnerability of a system (e.g. a national economy, technology, or company) to this disruption. Inconclusive outcomes of various studies suggest that criticality assessments would benefit from the identification of best practices. To prepare the field for such guidance, this paper aims to clarify the mechanisms that affect methodological choices which influence the results of a study. This is achieved via literature review and round table discussions among international experts. The paper demonstrates that criticality studies are divergent in the system under study, the anticipated risk, the purpose of the study, and material selection. These differences in goal and scope naturally result in different choices regarding indicator selection, the required level of aggregation as well as the subsequent choice of aggregation method, and the need for a threshold value. However, this link is often weak, which suggests a lack of understanding of cause-and-effect mechanisms of indicators and outcomes. Data availability is a key factor that limits the evaluation of criticality. Furthermore, data quality, including both data uncertainty and data representativeness, is rarely addressed in the interpretation and communication of results. Clear guidance in the formulation of goals and scopes of criticality studies, the selection of adequate indicators and aggregation methods, and the interpretation of the outcomes, are important initial steps in improving the quality of criticality assessments.

Original language	English
Journal	Resources, Conservation and Recycling
Early online date	9 Nov 2019
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617
Publication status	Published - 27 Jan 2020

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617

A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality_revised_highlights
© 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.
Accepted author manuscript, 1.56 MBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

Hool, A., Schrijvers, D., 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. (2020). A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617

@article{4c7c1947d12a498caf0044b50ebd36c1,

title = "A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality",

abstract = "The assessment of the criticality of raw materials allows the identification of the likelihood of a supply disruption of a material and the vulnerability of a system (e.g. a national economy, technology, or company) to this disruption. Inconclusive outcomes of various studies suggest that criticality assessments would benefit from the identification of best practices. To prepare the field for such guidance, this paper aims to clarify the mechanisms that affect methodological choices which influence the results of a study. This is achieved via literature review and round table discussions among international experts. The paper demonstrates that criticality studies are divergent in the system under study, the anticipated risk, the purpose of the study, and material selection. These differences in goal and scope naturally result in different choices regarding indicator selection, the required level of aggregation as well as the subsequent choice of aggregation method, and the need for a threshold value. However, this link is often weak, which suggests a lack of understanding of cause-and-effect mechanisms of indicators and outcomes. Data availability is a key factor that limits the evaluation of criticality. Furthermore, data quality, including both data uncertainty and data representativeness, is rarely addressed in the interpretation and communication of results. Clear guidance in the formulation of goals and scopes of criticality studies, the selection of adequate indicators and aggregation methods, and the interpretation of the outcomes, are important initial steps in improving the quality of criticality assessments.",

author = "Alessandra Hool and Dieuwertje Schrijvers and Blengini, {Gian Andrea} and Wei-Qiang Chen and Jo Dewulf and Roderick Eggert and {van Ellen}, Layla and Roland Gauss and James Goddin and Komal Habib and Christian Hagel{\"u}ken and Atsufumi Hirohata and Margarethe Hofmann-Amtenbrink and Jan Kosmol and {Le Gleuher}, Ma{\"i}t{\'e} and Milan Grohol and Anthony Ku and Min-Ha Lee and Gang Liu and Keisuke Nansai and Philip Nuss and David Peck and Armin Reller and Guido Sonnemann and Luis Tercero and Andrea Thorenz and Patrick W{\"a}ger",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.",

year = "2020",

month = jan,

day = "27",

doi = "10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617",

language = "English",

journal = "Resources, Conservation and Recycling",

issn = "0921-3449",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Hool, A, Schrijvers, D, Blengini, GA, 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, Nansai, K, Nuss, P, Peck, D, Reller, A, Sonnemann, G, Tercero, L, Thorenz, A & Wäger, P 2020, 'A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality', Resources, Conservation and Recycling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617

TY - JOUR

T1 - A review of methods and data to determine raw material criticality

AU - Hool, Alessandra

AU - Schrijvers, Dieuwertje

AU - Blengini, Gian Andrea

AU - Chen, Wei-Qiang

AU - Dewulf, Jo

AU - Eggert, Roderick

AU - van Ellen, Layla

AU - Gauss, Roland

AU - Goddin, James

AU - Habib, Komal

AU - Hagelüken, Christian

AU - Hirohata, Atsufumi

AU - Hofmann-Amtenbrink, Margarethe

AU - Kosmol, Jan

AU - Le Gleuher, Maïté

AU - Grohol, Milan

AU - Ku, Anthony

AU - Lee, Min-Ha

AU - Liu, Gang

AU - Nansai, Keisuke

AU - Nuss, Philip

AU - Peck, David

AU - Reller, Armin

AU - Sonnemann, Guido

AU - Tercero, Luis

AU - Thorenz, Andrea

AU - Wäger, Patrick

PY - 2020/1/27

Y1 - 2020/1/27

N2 - The assessment of the criticality of raw materials allows the identification of the likelihood of a supply disruption of a material and the vulnerability of a system (e.g. a national economy, technology, or company) to this disruption. Inconclusive outcomes of various studies suggest that criticality assessments would benefit from the identification of best practices. To prepare the field for such guidance, this paper aims to clarify the mechanisms that affect methodological choices which influence the results of a study. This is achieved via literature review and round table discussions among international experts. The paper demonstrates that criticality studies are divergent in the system under study, the anticipated risk, the purpose of the study, and material selection. These differences in goal and scope naturally result in different choices regarding indicator selection, the required level of aggregation as well as the subsequent choice of aggregation method, and the need for a threshold value. However, this link is often weak, which suggests a lack of understanding of cause-and-effect mechanisms of indicators and outcomes. Data availability is a key factor that limits the evaluation of criticality. Furthermore, data quality, including both data uncertainty and data representativeness, is rarely addressed in the interpretation and communication of results. Clear guidance in the formulation of goals and scopes of criticality studies, the selection of adequate indicators and aggregation methods, and the interpretation of the outcomes, are important initial steps in improving the quality of criticality assessments.

AB - The assessment of the criticality of raw materials allows the identification of the likelihood of a supply disruption of a material and the vulnerability of a system (e.g. a national economy, technology, or company) to this disruption. Inconclusive outcomes of various studies suggest that criticality assessments would benefit from the identification of best practices. To prepare the field for such guidance, this paper aims to clarify the mechanisms that affect methodological choices which influence the results of a study. This is achieved via literature review and round table discussions among international experts. The paper demonstrates that criticality studies are divergent in the system under study, the anticipated risk, the purpose of the study, and material selection. These differences in goal and scope naturally result in different choices regarding indicator selection, the required level of aggregation as well as the subsequent choice of aggregation method, and the need for a threshold value. However, this link is often weak, which suggests a lack of understanding of cause-and-effect mechanisms of indicators and outcomes. Data availability is a key factor that limits the evaluation of criticality. Furthermore, data quality, including both data uncertainty and data representativeness, is rarely addressed in the interpretation and communication of results. Clear guidance in the formulation of goals and scopes of criticality studies, the selection of adequate indicators and aggregation methods, and the interpretation of the outcomes, are important initial steps in improving the quality of criticality assessments.

U2 - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617

DO - 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104617

M3 - Article

SN - 0921-3449

JO - Resources, Conservation and Recycling

JF - Resources, Conservation and Recycling

ER -