Ending the raw materials roulette: How recycling secures Europe’s strategic autonomy

Dependence on raw material imports is becoming Europe’s Achilles heel. However, new data confirms that an intelligent circular economy could drastically reduce the need for new primary sources by 2050 – if industry and politicians take the right steps now.

Written by Marius Schaub

In a hall, two piles of waste can be seen in the background. One pile is being fed onto a conveyor belt. In the foreground, a worker wearing a high-visibility vest and helmet supervises the process. — Europe sits on mountains of valuable resources. To use them, recycling must be stepped up and a genuine circular economy pursued.

Europe is part of a high-tech world that relies on lithium, cobalt, nickel, and copper to drive the energy transition, digitalization, and other important tasks. But from a geological perspective, Europe has been dealt a poor hand when it comes to the distribution of mineral resources. As a result, the EU is dependent on imports, which often come from regions where political stability is lacking, or which strategically exploit their raw material power.

In times of geopolitical tension, this dependence becomes a risk for the economy. But there is good news: new sources are not located in China or Africa, but right on our doorstep – in used batteries, cables, and electronic devices. Recycling and the circular economy are no longer purely environmental issues – they are indispensable security policy. Or as the International Energy Agency (IEA) puts it in its report “Recycling of Critical Minerals”: Recycling is “indispensable for the security and sustainability of the supply of critical minerals.”

The bar chart shows the potential of recycling various raw materials: the demand for primary sources could be reduced by 30 percent. — In the “Announced Pledges” and “Net Zero Emissions by 2050” scenarios in its report, the International Energy Agency concludes that recycling certain raw materials could reduce the need for additional primary sources by around one third.

The business case for raw material security

Critics often argue that recycling is only a drop in the ocean as long as demand continues to grow exponentially, for example due to e-mobility or renewable energies. However, current data refutes this pessimism. According to IEA scenarios, a massive expansion of recycling could significantly reduce the need for new mines by 2050 – by around 40 percent for copper and cobalt and around 25 percent for lithium and nickel. This scenario assumes that national climate targets are achieved.

The measures described would not make mining redundant, but the pressure on the primary supply of raw materials would be massively reduced. The market for secondary raw materials is huge: the market value of recycled minerals for the energy transition has already increased elevenfold between 2015 and 2023 (albeit starting from a low level). By 2050, it could increase fivefold again and reach a volume equivalent to 170 billion euros.

In addition to security of supply, there is a free “ecological dividend”: recycled battery metals cause on average 80 percent less greenhouse gas emissions than their counterparts from mining. This is an important lever for companies that need to reduce their carbon footprint.

Deep Dive: Technology Meets Reality

But why aren't the measures described by the IEA simply being implemented? This is where process engineering comes into play. It is not enough to simply shred old vehicles – the challenge lies in the chemical complexity.

One current problem is the trend toward lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries. These are cheaper and more robust but contain fewer valuable metals such as nickel or cobalt. This not only reduces manufacturing costs, but also the economic incentive for recyclers. The process industry is called upon to develop processes that efficiently recover raw materials from these low-value streams. This could be achieved, for example, through optimized hydrometallurgical processes.

In addition, the industry is also lagging behind with some long-established materials. While more than a third of aluminum has long come from recycled material thanks to reliable processes, the proportion of copper has recently fallen from 37 to 33 percent. This shows that the technology is there, but the logistics and collection systems are not yet perfect. The efficient separation of copper alloys from complex electronic waste remains a process engineering challenge that must be overcome in the future.

Political framework conditions: Prevention is better than cure

However, technology alone will not solve the problem – the right political framework is also needed. In its position on the Circular Economy Act, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) points out that the world cannot simply “recycle its way out” of the resource crisis if consumption continues to rise.

Instead, the EEB’s motto is “prevention is better than cure”: the safest resource is the one that does not need to be consumed in the first place. The EEB therefore calls for sufficiency and strategic autonomy to be considered together: a smaller material footprint would make Europe less vulnerable to blackmail.

An interesting proposal for policymakers in this context is to shift the tax burden. Currently, labor is heavily taxed in Europe, while resource consumption is often inexpensive. A reform that reduces the tax burden on labor and increases the tax burden on resource consumption would suddenly make business models such as repair, remanufacturing, and high-quality recycling profitable. From the EEB’s point of view, such a measure could help the circular economy achieve a decisive breakthrough.

Digression: Stumbling blocks can become steppingstones

But why is progress often so slow? An article published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology in July 2025 offers a remarkable scientific perspective. The authors argue that, paradoxically, it is precisely the failure to implement the ideal circular economy that could be a driver of innovation.

The gap between the moral imperative – to keep everything in circulation – and the harsh economic reality – lack of financial viability – creates “productive irritation.” This tension forces companies and legislators to become creative, whether through new technologies or smarter laws. From this perspective, the current teething problems are not a sign of failure, but a necessary evolutionary step in which markets and morals are slowly adjusting to each other.

Outlook: Europe's future is circular – or it will disappear

What could a sustainable Europe look like in 2050? The European Environment Agency (EEA) has developed four visions of the future, ranging from a technology-driven world to an ecological utopia. All scenarios have one thing in common: the circular economy is the central immune system against shocks. Whether it's climate crisis, trade wars, or digital breakdowns, systems that can regenerate their own resources are more resilient.

For European industry, this means that the ability to close material cycles – whether in energy, mobility, or construction – will become a crucial skill for its future viability.

Conclusion: Resilience instead of playing roulette

The “raw materials roulette” game, in which European countries bet on uncertain imports, is one that the continent can only lose in the long term. Recycling and urban mining are the way forward to secure the EU's strategic autonomy.

This outlook is also a wake-up call for experts in the process industry and process engineering: they hold the key technologies in their hands to turn today’s black mass into tomorrow’s gold. Politicians must set the guidelines – through incentives for secondary raw materials and smart legislation. However, the implementation of the circular economy lies in the hands of industry.

Author

Marius Schaub