SummaryA closed-loop supply chain (CLSC) is considered not only an important solution for ensuring sustainable exploitation of materials, but also a promising strategy for securing long-term availability of materials. The latter is especially highlighted in the materials criticality discourse. Critical raw materials (CRMs), being exposed to supply disruptions, create an uncertain operational environment for many industries, particularly for green energy technologies that employ multiple CRMs. However, recycling rates of CRMs are very low and engagement of companies in CLSC for CRM is limited. This study examines factors influencing CLSC for CRM development in photovoltaic panels and wind turbine technologies. The aim is to analyze how the factors manifest themselves in different companies along the supply chain and to identify enabling and bottleneck conditions for implementation of CLSC for CRM. The novelty of the study is twofold: the focus on material rather than product flows, and examination of factors from a multiactor perspective. The evidence obtained suggests that the manufacturing companies and reverse supply-chain operators engaged in the study take different perspectives (product vs. material) regarding development of CLSC for CRM and thus emphasize different factors. The findings underline the need for interactions between supply-chain actors, a sound competitive environment for recycling processes, and investment in technologies and infrastructure development if CLSC for CRM is to be developed. The paper provides implications for practitioners and policy makers for implementation of CLSC for CRM, and suggests prospects for further research.

The European Commission identified a group of materials that were claimed to be critical due to their high economic importance and high supply constraints, which could become bottlenecks for the deployment of emerging technologies and enabling sustainable production. Currently this discourse takes place at the industrial system level from a policy perspective, and it is unclear if what is perceived by policy circles as critical could be true for manufacturing operations. This paper explores how five EU manufacturing companies in different sectors and supply chains see materials criticality, and their strategies to mitigate such criticality. On the one hand, the results indicate the limited scope of the criticality factors and employed mitigation strategies considered, compared to those established in the literature. On the other hand, the findings point to the existence of interdependences between companies within and between supply chains, which should be incorporated into the materials criticality assessment, if viable implications for the industrial systems are to be developed. The paper concludes by discussing the implications for manufacturing companies and policy-makers, and suggests prospects for further research.

No abstract