There is a growing concern over the security and sustainable supply of raw material among businesses and governments of developed, material-intensive countries. This has led to the development of a systematic analysis of risk incorporated with raw materials usage, often referred as criticality assessment. In principle, this concept is based on the material flow approach. The potential role of life cycle assessment (LCA) to integrate resource criticality through broadening its scope into the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework has been discussed within the LCA communities for some time. In this article, we aim at answering the question of how to proceed toward integration of the geopolitical aspect of resource criticality into the LCSA framework. The article focuses on the assessment of the geopolitical supply risk of 14 resources imported to the seven major advanced economies and the five most relevant emerging countries. Unlike a few previous studies, we propose a new method of calculation for the geopolitical supply risk, which is differentiated by countries based on the import patterns instead of a global production distribution. Our results suggest that rare earth elements, tungsten, antimony, and beryllium generally pose high geopolitical supply risk. Results from the Monte Carlo simulation allow consideration of data uncertainties for result interpretation. Issues concerning the consideration of the full supply chain are exemplarily discussed for cobalt. Our research broadens the scope of LCA from only environmental performance to a resource supply-risk assessment tool that includes accessibility owing to political instability and market concentration under the LCSA framework. Keywords:criticality assessment geopolitical supply risk industrial ecology life cycle assessment life cycle sustainability assessment resources

No abstract

Highlights • This article proposes a characterization model for Geopolitical Supply Risk. • The characterization model is based on a socioeconomic cause-effect mechanism. • Supply risk is the multiple of probability and vulnerability. • Two embodiments of the characterization model are presented. • The methods are applied to conventional and electric vehicles.

No abstract

Purpose Introducing a geopolitical-related supply risk (GeoPolRisk) into the life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework adds a criticality aspect to the current life cycle assessment (LCA) framework to more meaningfully address direct impacts on Natural Resource AoP. The weakness of resource indicators in LCA has been the topic of discussion within the life cycle community for some time. This paper presents a case study on how to proceed towards the integration of resource criticality assessment into LCA under the LCSA. The paper aims at highlighting the significance of introducing the GeoPolRisk indicator to complement and extend the established environmental LCA impact categories. Methods A newly developed GeoPolRisk indicator proposed by Gemechu et al., J Ind Ecol (2015) was applied to metals used in the life cycle of an electric vehicle, and the results are compared with an attributional LCA of the same resources. The inventory data is based on the publication by Hawkins et al., J Ind Ecol 17:53-64 (2013), which provides a current, transparent, and detailed life cycle inventory data of a European representative first-generation battery small electric vehicle. Results and discussion From the 14 investigated metals, copper, aluminum, and steel are the most dominant elements that pose high environmental impacts. On the other hand, magnesium and neodymium show relatively higher supply risk when geopolitical elements are considered. While, the environmental indicator results all tend to point the same hotspots which arise from the substantial use of resources in the electric vehicle's life cycle, the GeoPolRisk highlights that there are important elements present in very small amounts but crucial to the overall LCSA. It provides a complementary sustainability dimension that can be added to conventional LCA as an important extension within LCSA. Conclusions Resource challenges in a short-term time perspective can be better addressed by including social and geopolitical factors in addition to the conventional indicators which are based on their geological availability. This is more significant for modern technologies such as electronic devices in which critical resources contribute to important components. The case study advances the use of the GeoPolRisk assessment method but does still face certain limitations that need further elaboration; however, directions for future research are promising.

Due to the material diversity of high-tech products and globalized supply chains, it is important to be able to assess geopolitical supply risks for the supply chain of any commodity. This article extends the Geopolitical Supply Risk assessment method under the Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment framework to account for multi-stage supply chains as well as domestic production and applies this extended method to the supply chain of carbon fibers based on polyacrylonitrile. Particularly, the article estimates the Geopolitical Supply Risk factors emerging from international trade of petroleum, propene and acrylonitrile. Risk factors are calculated for 145 countries, and a total set of six scopedependent indicators is identified for 54 countries. The case studies of acrylonitrile supply chains for Russia, Peru, Japan and Greece exemplify this approach and risk mitigation strategies are discussed for each of them. The results show the applicability of the modified Geopolitical Supply Risk characterization factor to a multi-stage supply chain with different internationally traded commodities in the petrochemical industry. Thereby the method serves to further integrate Life Cycle Assessment and the socio-economic dimension of natural resource impacts.

No abstract

No abstract