IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v8y2019i2p83-d227226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analyzing Changes in Supply Risks for Abiotic Resources over Time with the ESSENZ Method—A Data Update and Critical Reflection

Author

Listed:
  • Vanessa Bach

    (Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Markus Berger

    (Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Natalia Finogenova

    (Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Matthias Finkbeiner

    (Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Chair of Sustainable Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

In the last decade, several methods were developed to determine potential supply risks due to short term socio-economic aspects. One of them is the ESSENZ method (comprehensive method to measure and assess resource efficiency of products in the context of sustainable development) developed by the authors. Due to newly available data (e.g., production statistics) the characterization factors (CFs) of the ESSENZ method were updated (based on data from the years 2011 to 2015, with focus on 2014 and 2015) and compared with the original CFs (based on data from the years 2009 to 2013, with focus on 2012 and 2013) for six of the overall eleven categories. The goal of the paper is to analyze if changes in the underlying data are adequately reflected in the CFs of ESSENZ for the considered categories. Further, the updated CFs are provided. The six categories are analyzed by comparing original and updated CFs and clustering them into four groups: declining, emerging, persistent, and non-occurring potential supply risks. Significant differences in the CFs are evaluated by analyzing changes in the underlying data as well as the steps to determine the CFs. It could be shown, that for most of the considered categories and resources changes in the underlying data are reflected adequately in the CFs. However, some methodological challenges of ESSENZ, which limit the reflection of potential supply risks changes, could also be identified.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanessa Bach & Markus Berger & Natalia Finogenova & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2019. "Analyzing Changes in Supply Risks for Abiotic Resources over Time with the ESSENZ Method—A Data Update and Critical Reflection," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-16, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:83-:d:227226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/2/83/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/8/2/83/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T. E. Graedel & Barbara K. Reck, 2016. "Six Years of Criticality Assessments: What Have We Learned So Far?," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(4), pages 692-699, August.
    2. Blengini, Gian Andrea & Nuss, Philip & Dewulf, Jo & Nita, Viorel & Peirò, Laura Talens & Vidal-Legaz, Beatriz & Latunussa, Cynthia & Mancini, Lucia & Blagoeva, Darina & Pennington, David & Pellegrini,, 2017. "EU methodology for critical raw materials assessment: Policy needs and proposed solutions for incremental improvements," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 12-19.
    3. Mancheri, Nabeel A., 2015. "World trade in rare earths, Chinese export restrictions, and implications," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(P2), pages 262-271.
    4. Valentina Prado-Lopez & Ben A. Wender & Thomas P Seager & Lise Laurin & Mikhail Chester & Erdem Arslan, 2016. "Tradeoff Evaluation Improves Comparative Life Cycle Assessment: A Photovoltaic Case Study," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(4), pages 710-718, August.
    5. Eskinder D. Gemechu & Christoph Helbig & Guido Sonnemann & Andrea Thorenz & Axel Tuma, 2016. "Import-based Indicator for the Geopolitical Supply Risk of Raw Materials in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessments," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(1), pages 154-165, February.
    6. Kaufmann, Daniel & Kraay, Aart & Mastruzzi, Massimo, 2007. "The worldwide governance indicators project : answering the critics," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4149, The World Bank.
    7. Stephen A. Rhoades, 1993. "The Herfindahl-Hirschman index," Federal Reserve Bulletin, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), issue Mar, pages 188-189.
    8. Massari, Stefania & Ruberti, Marcello, 2013. "Rare earth elements as critical raw materials: Focus on international markets and future strategies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 36-43.
    9. Alexander Cimprich & Vanessa Bach & Christoph Helbig & Andrea Thorenz & Dieuwertje Schrijvers & Guido Sonnemann & Steven B. Young & Thomas Sonderegger & Markus Berger, 2019. "Raw material criticality assessment as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment: Examining methods for product‐level supply risk assessment," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 23(5), pages 1226-1236, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Iulia Dolganova & Vanessa Bach & Anne Rödl & Martin Kaltschmitt & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2022. "Assessment of Critical Resource Use in Aircraft Manufacturing," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1193-1212, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bach, Vanessa & Finogenova, Natalia & Berger, Markus & Winter, Lisa & Finkbeiner, Matthias, 2017. "Enhancing the assessment of critical resource use at the country level with the SCARCE method – Case study of Germany," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 283-299.
    2. Greenwood, Matthew & Wentker, Marc & Leker, Jens, 2021. "A region-specific raw material and lithium-ion battery criticality methodology with an assessment of NMC cathode technology," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 302(C).
    3. Jair Santillán‐Saldivar & Tobias Gaugler & Christoph Helbig & Andreas Rathgeber & Guido Sonnemann & Andrea Thorenz & Axel Tuma, 2021. "Design of an endpoint indicator for mineral resource supply risks in life cycle sustainability assessment: The case of Li‐ion batteries," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(4), pages 1051-1062, August.
    4. Zuo, Zhili & Cheng, Jinhua & Guo, Haixiang & McLellan, Benjamin Craig, 2021. "Catastrophe progression method - path (CPM-PATH) early warning analysis of Chinese rare earths industry security," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    5. Christoph Helbig & Martin Bruckler & Andrea Thorenz & Axel Tuma, 2021. "An Overview of Indicator Choice and Normalization in Raw Material Supply Risk Assessments," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-26, August.
    6. Iulia Dolganova & Vanessa Bach & Anne Rödl & Martin Kaltschmitt & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2022. "Assessment of Critical Resource Use in Aircraft Manufacturing," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 1193-1212, September.
    7. Schmid, Marc, 2019. "Mitigating supply risks through involvement in rare earth projects: Japan's strategies and what the US can learn," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Clement Bonnet & Samuel Carcanague & Emmanuel Hache & Gondia Seck & Marine Simoën, 2019. "Vers une Géopolitique de l'énergie plus complexe ? Une analyse prospective tridimensionnelle de la transition énergétique," Working Papers hal-02971706, HAL.
    9. Marie K. Schellens & Johanna Gisladottir, 2018. "Critical Natural Resources: Challenging the Current Discourse and Proposal for a Holistic Definition," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-28, December.
    10. Luisito Bertinelli & Stéphane Poncin & Benteng Zou, 2019. "The War of Rare Earth Elements: A Dynamic Game Approach," DEM Discussion Paper Series 19-11, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    11. Brown, Maxwell & Eggert, Roderick, 2018. "Simulating producer responses to selected chinese rare earth policies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 31-48.
    12. Islam, Md. Monirul & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Samargandi, Nahla, 2024. "The nexus between Russian uranium exports and US nuclear-energy consumption: Do the spillover effects of geopolitical risks matter?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 293(C).
    13. Černý, Igor & Vaněk, Michal & Maruszewska, Ewa Wanda & Beneš, Filip, 2021. "How economic indicators impact the EU internal demand for critical raw materials," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    14. Stanley Udochukwu Ofoegbu, 2019. "Technological Challenges of Phosphorus Removal in High-Phosphorus Ores: Sustainability Implications and Possibilities for Greener Ore Processing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-38, November.
    15. Schmid Marc, 2019. "Kritische Rohstoffe – Die Achillesverse der USA im Wettstreit mit China," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 68(3), pages 309-330, December.
    16. Yu, Shiwei & Duan, Haoran & Cheng, Jinhua, 2021. "An evaluation of the supply risk for China's strategic metallic mineral resources," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    17. Kim Maya Yavor & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2021. "Resource Assessment of Renewable Energy Systems—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, May.
    18. Fernandez, Viviana, 2017. "Rare-earth elements market: A historical and financial perspective," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 26-45.
    19. Buchmayr, A. & Verhofstadt, E. & Van Ootegem, L. & Sanjuan Delmás, D. & Thomassen, G. & Dewulf, J., 2021. "The path to sustainable energy supply systems: Proposal of an integrative sustainability assessment framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Machacek, Erika & Kalvig, Per, 2016. "Assessing advanced rare earth element-bearing deposits for industrial demand in the EU," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 186-203.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:83-:d:227226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.