Reassessing tin circularity and criticality
J.E. Bradley (TU Delft - Policy Analysis)
Willem L. Auping (TU Delft - Policy Analysis)
René Kleijn (Universiteit Leiden)
Jan H. Kwakkel (TU Delft - Policy Analysis)
Benjamin Sprecher (TU Delft - Design for Sustainability)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Tin is an important metal for society with a high risk of supply disruptions. It is, therefore, classified as a critical material in many parts of the world. An exception is the European Union, for which tin was classified as a non-critical material in 2023. However, there are many discrepancies in the literature regarding the definitions and values of the indicators used to determine tin criticality in general, and recycling indicators in particular. Values for end-of-life recycling rate (EoL RR) range between 20% and 75%, and values for end-of-life recycling input rate (EoL RIR) range between 11% and 32%. In this paper, we critically assess the circularity and criticality indicator values for tin and calculate new values using material flow analysis. The new values for tin recycling indicators are lower than those used in most previous research, with a global EoL RR of 16% and an EoL RIR of 11% in 2017. Based on the updated recycling values, combined with a highly concentrated supply, high import reliance, and difficult substitution, we argue that the European Union should classify tin as a critical material. This reclassification can lead to more policy attention for tin, which can help reduce the impact of future supply disruptions and increase the resilience of the European and global tin supply chains.
help_outline