A framework and decision support tool for improving value chain resilience to critical materials in manufacturing

Abstract

Certain non-energy materials have been identified as being critical to the manufacturing sector and wider economy due to having a high risk of supply disruption combined with high economic importance. The criticality of specific raw materials is becoming increasingly acute as the escalating use of resources is driven by an increasing global population. Critical materials are vital elements in the value chain yet their supply risk may often be ineffectively addressed by traditional supply chain management strategies. Most research to date has been focused at a national or industrial policy level thus many manufacturers are unaware if their operations are at risk from critical materials at a product level. This paper presents a framework that takes a systematic approach to identifying, assessing and mitigating risk associated with critical materials bilaterally along the value chain to facilitate manufacturers in the identification, assessment and mitigation of critical material supply risk. This paper also describes how the framework can be facilitated for application in industry through preliminary design specifications towards a development of a decision support tool.

The case for value chain resilience

“…Klibi et al (2010, 2012) argue that optimizing supply chain efficiency in times without disruption limits the overall value that a supply chain brings to business. While Klibi et al (2010) discuss a generic methodology, Sprecher et al (2015) and Gardner and Colwill (2018) provide specific recommendations to make the supply chain of critical manufacturing materials more resilient; assessment tools are also discussed. Finally, Collier et al (2017) consider supply chain resilience in the context of biofuels and provide overall recommendations on value chain resilience.…”

“…Though some reports include calls for value chain resilience, most grey – non-academic – literature focuses on highlighting the overall importance of resilience without providing specific recommendations. Concept delineation may prove an obstacle: despite an article title about “improving value chain resilience”, Gardner and Colwill (2018) frame their discussion around risk and in terms of processes often characteristic of supply chains.…”

Ecologically Embedded Design in Manufacturing: Legitimation within Circular Economy

“…Assuming that extracting virgin resources is more environmentally damaging than recycling and that the cost of recycling is at least competitive in price and quality to encourage the purchase of recycled resources, the environment benefits [16]. The manufacturer may also benefit if critical materials are maintained in their supply chain, but this is a strategic advantage that is not currently being realized [17].…”

A framework for firm-level critical material supply management and mitigation

“…The major point of distinction among the studies reviewed is the scope of each criticality assessment, which varies from global, to European, to national, to firm level. Of the 42 studies, 10 assess criticality at the global level exclusively (Buchert, Schüler et al 2009, Rosenau-Tornow, Buchholz et al 2009, Bauer, Diamond et al 2010, Bauer, Diamond et al 2011 (Duclos, Otto et al 2010, Nieto, Guelly et al 2013, Bensch, Kolotzek et al 2015, Gardner and Colwill 2016, Lapko, Trucco et al 2016, Miehe, Schneider et al 2016, Hallstedt and Isaksson 2017, Gardner and Colwill 2018, Kolotzek, Helbig et al 2018). An additional 7 studies address the global, national, and firm levels (Graedel, Barr et al 2012, Graedel, Gunn et al 2014, Helbig, Wietschel et al 2016, Knobloch, Zimmermann et al 2018.…”