タングステンからリチウムへ：重要原材料フレームワークの80年とEU・米国における持続可能性アジェンダ
From Tungsten to Lithium: Eight Decades of Critical Raw Materials Frameworks and the Sustainability Agenda in the European Union and the United States (原題)
E.M. Ruiz-Navas, Ignacio Báscones Velasco, Íñigo Muñoz Gutiérrez
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、1939年の米国戦略物資備蓄法から現在までの重要原材料（CRM）概念の進化をレビューし、EUと米国の評価手法を比較する。特に2023年EUリストを詳細に分析し、銅とニッケルの戦略的追加、循環経済目標や環境影響の統合を考察。持続可能性がCRM政策の構造的軸となったことを示す。
English
This paper reviews the evolution of critical raw materials (CRM) frameworks from the 1939 US Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act to the present, comparing EU and US methodologies. It analyzes the 2023 EU list in detail, including the strategic addition of copper and nickel, and the integration of circular economy and environmental criteria, showing sustainability has become a structural axis of CRM policy.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本は資源小国であり、重要鉱物の安定調達は経済安全保障の要。本論文のEU・米国の枠組み比較は、日本の資源戦略やGX政策における鉱物リスク評価の参考になる。特に、銅やニッケルの戦略的指定は、日本のバッテリー産業や水素社会構想にも示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
This paper provides a comprehensive comparison of EU and US critical raw materials frameworks, highlighting the integration of sustainability criteria. It offers valuable insights for global policy alignment with SDGs and circular economy goals, relevant for ISSB and CSRD reporting on resource dependencies and supply chain risks.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a methodological foundation for comparing criticality assessment frameworks and their sustainability integration.
🏢実務担当者:Useful for supply chain risk assessment and understanding regulatory trends in critical minerals for corporate sustainability reporting.
🏛政策担当者:Informs national strategies for critical raw materials, balancing supply security with sustainability goals.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Critical raw materials (CRMs) sit at the intersection of industrial strategy, climate policy, sustainable development, and geopolitics. This paper reviews how the concept has evolved since the 1939 US Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act, tracing the gradual addition of economic, energy, technological, environmental, and sustainability criteria to the original military framing. It then compares the methodologies developed by the European Union and the United States over the last fifteen years. The EU has published five consecutive lists between 2010 and 2023; the US has produced parallel frameworks through the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Energy, each weighing supply risk, economic importance, environmental impact, and clean energy relevance differently. The 2023 EU list is examined in detail, including the addition of copper and nickel on strategic rather than quantitative grounds. Convergences and divergences across the three frameworks are discussed, alongside their alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals—particularly SDG 7, SDG 9, SDG 12, and SDG 13—and the progressive integration of circular economy targets, recycling indicators, and environmental impact considerations into criticality assessment. The analysis shows that sustainability has become a structural axis of CRM policy rather than a peripheral concern. The review provides the methodological background for a companion paper that applies the EU methodology to resource-rich Latin American countries (Chile, Brazil, and Peru).
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.3390/su18157972first seen 2026-08-27 04:56:36
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。