Critical materials: when Life Cycle Assessment is no longer enough to secure design decisions

Going beyond the "lowest impact"

At EVEA, we've used Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to inform design decisions for over twenty years. In most cases, it provides a solid foundation for quantifying environmental impacts, comparing design options and supporting technical choices.

But some projects don't fit this pattern. Results are mixed, sometimes ambiguous, with no clear winner emerging. Yet on the ground, these choices can have radically different consequences—in terms of costs, operational continuity, supply chain pressures, and more.

This is especially true when choosing materials that involve critical metals. Here, LCA remains essential but is no longer sufficient on its own. It needs to be complemented by explicit analysis of supply chain risks, dependencies and vulnerabilities.

What LCA clarifies... and what it doesn't address

Life Cycle Assessment is designed to answer a specific question: what environmental impacts does a product or service generate over its entire life cycle?

It provides:

• a systems-level view of material and energy flows
• rigorous comparison at equivalent functionality
• a scientifically robust framework to avoid impact shifting

For these reasons, LCA forms the backbone of any ecodesign approach. But practical experience also reveals its limits. LCA doesn't address geopolitical, economic or strategic risks linked to the materials involved.

In other words, a product can be environmentally optimized while remaining structurally vulnerable from an industrial or strategic standpoint.

Material criticality: about risk, not impact

A complementary perspective, not an alternative to LCA.

Criticality doesn't measure pollution, resource depletion or emissions. It characterizes dependency levels and the risk of supply disruption.

It's shaped primarily by:

• geographical concentration of extraction or refining
• political stability of producing countries
• availability of viable substitutes
• strategic importance of the material for a sector or region

This is why criticality can't be directly integrated into a conventional LCA framework. It operates in a different domain—one focused on value chain resilience rather than environmental impacts.

A fundamentally contextual concept

One of the most common misconceptions is treating criticality as an inherent property of a material. In reality, it varies depending on the actor, the region and the position within the value chain.

A material considered critical at European level may pose no supply risk for an organization with direct access to extraction or refining capacity. Conversely, a material barely mentioned in regulatory lists may become critical for a highly specialized company with limited sourcing alternatives.

At EVEA, we therefore approach criticality as a situated question: critical for whom, where, and under what industrial configuration?

Refined cobalt clearly illustrates this relativity. While classified as critical by the European Union, it poses no supply risk for China, which produces over three-quarters of global refined cobalt according to the International Energy Agency. Material criticality is never absolute.

Lithium-ion batteries: when LCA alone doesn't settle the decision

Comparisons between NMC (Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt) and LFP (Lithium-Iron-Phosphate) batteries illustrate this complexity well. At equivalent functionality, LCA results vary depending on modelling assumptions, impact indicators and system boundaries. Differences can be observed, but they don't always lead to a clear, unambiguous conclusion.
Introducing a criticality analysis changes the picture.

Whether based on matrices like the European framework combining economic importance and supply risk, or on specific indicators such as GeoPolRisk, this perspective highlights dependencies on metals like cobalt or nickel, their strong geographical concentration and the associated supply tensions—particularly for Europe.

These two approaches are detailed in the following section.

The central question therefore shifts. It's no longer just "which battery has the lowest environmental impact?" but rather "which technology is more robust against future constraints?"

At this stage, LCA remains essential, but it becomes one decision-support tool among several.

Combining LCA and criticality: EVEA's approach

In the projects we support, LCA provides the shared analytical foundation. Its detailed inventories of flows, quantities and geographical origins form a critical starting point for further analysis.

We then build on this foundation through:

• tailored criticality indicators, including European matrices and sector-specific approaches such as GeoPolRisk
• expert analysis of the relevant value chains
• contextual interpretation of results considering the client's economic, industrial and regulatory constraints

This combined approach is particularly relevant when:

• mineral and metallic materials represent a central concern for the product
• environmental results are close or internally contradictory
• decisions commit the organization long-term

Anticipating rather than reacting: a strategic imperative

Regulatory developments like the Critical Raw Materials Act confirm a broader trend. Dependence on critical materials is becoming a defining element of industrial strategy.

This European regulation sets ambitious targets for 2030: at least 10% of EU demand should be met through domestic extraction, 40% through processing within Europe, and 25% through recycling. Additionally, no more than 65% of annual EU consumption of any strategic material should come from a single non-EU country.

In this context, sound decision-making can't be reduced to optimizing a single environmental indicator. It must also:

• secure supply chains
• limit exposure to price volatility
• strengthen value chain resilience

We see LCA's value not only in measuring impacts, but in its ability to inform robust decisions—complemented where necessary by additional analytical perspectives.

Because an environmentally sound decision is only sustainable if it remains viable over time.

Article authored by Martin Fabregues, LCA and ecodesign consultant