- AustraliaNorth AmericaWorld
Investing News NetworkYour trusted source for investing success
- Lithium Outlook
- Oil and Gas Outlook
- Gold Outlook Report
- Uranium Outlook
- Rare Earths Outlook
- All Outlook Reports
- Top Generative AI Stocks
- Top EV Stocks
- Biggest AI Companies
- Biggest Blockchain Stocks
- Biggest Cryptocurrency-mining Stocks
- Biggest Cybersecurity Companies
- Biggest Robotics Companies
- Biggest Social Media Companies
- Biggest Technology ETFs
- Artificial Intellgience ETFs
- Robotics ETFs
- Canadian Cryptocurrency ETFs
- Artificial Intelligence Outlook
- EV Outlook
- Cleantech Outlook
- Crypto Outlook
- Tech Outlook
- All Market Outlook Reports
- Cannabis Weekly Round-Up
- Top Alzheimer's Treatment Stocks
- Top Biotech Stocks
- Top Plant-based Food Stocks
- Biggest Cannabis Stocks
- Biggest Pharma Stocks
- Longevity Stocks to Watch
- Psychedelics Stocks to Watch
- Top Cobalt Stocks
- Small Biotech ETFs to Watch
- Top Life Science ETFs
- Biggest Pharmaceutical ETFs
- Life Science Outlook
- Biotech Outlook
- Cannabis Outlook
- Pharma Outlook
- Psychedelics Outlook
- All Market Outlook Reports
Roskill has analyzed a recent report from the European Union’s Ad-Hoc Working Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials.
Last month, the European Union’s Ad-Hoc Working Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials published a report aimed at updating the “criticality analysis for raw materials” that it completed in 2010.
In a recent briefing paper, Roskill Information Services Ltd. examines that report, commenting that while it is useful in some ways, it also has disadvantages.
For instance:
The headline findings of critical raw materials studies are circulated far beyond audiences that understand the limitations of methodologies and the real implications of the findings. Creating lists and rankings can lead to scaremongering as terms like ‘risk’ and ‘critical’ are emotive. Defining materials in these terms can lead to misunderstandings amongst end-users, and potentially prompt unnecessary substitution.
By their nature multi-commodity assessments cannot examine everything that is relevant to particular material supply chains. This means that the headline findings of such studies can lead to misapprehensions over how ‘critical’ or ‘at risk’ certain materials are. In this briefing paper, Roskill explores the value in considering the wider supply chain dynamics of the raw materials outlined above in order to develop a more nuanced understanding of supply risk.
Continuing, Roskill provides a case study of cobalt as a critical material.
Click here to read the full Roskill Information Services Ltd. commentary.
Latest News
Investing News Network websites or approved third-party tools use cookies. Please refer to the cookie policy for collected data, privacy and GDPR compliance. By continuing to browse the site, you agree to our use of cookies.