Download this article in PDF format.

Being able to track and trace extracted minerals from mine sites all the way through to processing and final production hasn’t gotten much easier in the last decade. Even with the rapid advancements in technology and software, the level of visibility in the electronics supply chain remains opaque at best and in some cases, non-existent. “

Amid rising risks linked to the high concentration of critical mineral supply chains, the ability to track where minerals originate, how they move through supply chains, who has custody of them and how they are transformed is increasingly important for policymakers seeking to create diversified and responsible supply chains,” the International Energy Agency (IEA) points out in Critical Mineral Traceability for Energy and Economic Security.

In that report, IEA focuses on six key minerals: copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite and rare earth elements. These minerals play an important role in energy and strategic industrial applications, it says, and traceability system adoption remains “relatively high,” but depth and end-to-end coverage are both limited.

“Nearly all companies with traceability systems report collecting country of origin data, while more detailed provenance information is less widely covered,” the IEA says, “while corporate transparency or environmental data [beingf] collected at around half [that] rate. End-to-end traceability nevertheless remains limited, with coverage typically dropping sharply beyond companies’ direct suppliers.”

High Demand, Low Visibility

With demand for critical minerals at record-high levels right now, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) just released new guidance focused on boosting mineral supply chain credibility. Traceability should be a core focus, it says, and that traceability needs to be rooted in reliable supply chain data.

“Price floors and similar trade-related measures need verified information on origin and production conditions to direct support toward trusted and responsible producers,” OECD points out in its report. “Stockpiling programs need provenance, grade and ownership data for acquired commodities. Finally, preferential procurement initiatives require chain of custody data to exclude entities of concern.”

Put simply, you have to know where the material came from, how it was produced and who touched it along the way. Otherwise, you won’t know who should qualify for support, what belongs in a government or industry stockpile (i.e., a reserve kept on hand for shortages or disruptions) or which suppliers should be excluded.

In electronics, for example, procurement teams need to know where materials came from, who handled them and which suppliers may fall outside government or procurement requirements. The problem is that this information isn’t always readily accessible. And even if it is, that data may be spread across different systems, platforms and even spreadsheets.

Managing Global Traceability

The global nature of the electronics supply chain makes traceability especially difficult and complicated. A mineral that’s mined in one country may be processed in another and then turned into a component in a completely different area of the world. Every handoff adds another way for sourcing data to get lost, delayed or disconnected from the material itself.

“There are substantial barriers to the uptake of traceability,” says the OECD, whose research shows that over 50% of companies point to costs and lack of interoperability as the key barriers to setting up traceability systems. Confidentiality concerns, supplier leverage and data quality concerns also factor in here. “Half of [our] survey respondents rank regulatory consistency as the top priority for scaling traceability,” it says, “with a similar share citing shared data infrastructure.”

Despite these challenges, OECD says industry adoption of traceability is increasing and that nearly 75% of organizations plan to increase investment in traceability, but most of them say it’s still too early to identify any tangible benefits. “Cost, interoperability and fragmented regulation are the principal barriers,” it notes. “This represents a window for policy action, in which targeted intervention can shape how traceability systems develop before they consolidate around incompatible standards.”