Abstract
This dissertation examines how critical mineral supply risks shape United Kingdom industrial strategy decisions, with particular emphasis on the geopolitical dimensions that influence policy formation. Through a comprehensive literature synthesis, the study analyses the interplay between geological concentration, market dominance, and governance challenges in producer states that collectively heighten supply vulnerability for materials essential to clean energy technologies. The research demonstrates that supply risks, arising from geopolitics, market concentration, and governance deficiencies, compel a fundamental reorientation of UK industrial strategy away from cost-minimisation toward resilience-based approaches. Key findings reveal three primary strategic responses: supplier diversification and ally-shoring arrangements, vertical integration through long-term contractual agreements, and the embedding of circular economy principles as a hedge against external vulnerabilities. The analysis concludes that the UK increasingly treats minerals policy as core industrial strategy, prioritising resilience, diversification, domestic capabilities, and circularity over short-term cost efficiency to secure the green transition and maintain competitiveness under intensifying geopolitical uncertainty. These findings hold significant implications for policymakers navigating the complex intersection of resource security and industrial development.
Introduction
The global transition toward decarbonised energy systems has fundamentally altered the strategic calculus surrounding mineral resources. Unlike the hydrocarbon-dominated energy paradigm of the twentieth century, the emerging clean energy economy depends upon a distinct portfolio of materials—including rare earth elements, cobalt, lithium, and gallium—whose geological distribution and processing infrastructure present novel geopolitical challenges. For the United Kingdom, a nation committed to ambitious net-zero targets whilst possessing limited domestic mineral endowments, these supply dynamics carry profound implications for industrial strategy formulation.
The contemporary geopolitical landscape surrounding critical minerals exhibits characteristics that distinguish it from previous resource security challenges. Whereas oil supplies are distributed across numerous producer states spanning multiple continents, many critical minerals concentrate within a handful of jurisdictions, with processing capacity even more narrowly confined (Dou and Deyi, 2022). China’s dominance across multiple critical mineral value chains—from rare earth extraction to lithium-ion battery manufacturing—creates structural vulnerabilities that market mechanisms alone cannot adequately address. This concentration introduces systemic risks that transcend conventional commercial considerations, touching upon national security, economic sovereignty, and the viability of climate commitments.
The academic significance of this investigation lies in its contribution to the nascent but rapidly expanding literature on critical minerals governance. Scholars have increasingly recognised that traditional approaches to resource economics, premised upon assumptions of fungible commodities and efficient global markets, inadequately capture the strategic dimensions of mineral supply (Nassar et al., 2020). The intersection of resource geography, industrial policy, and great-power competition demands interdisciplinary frameworks that integrate insights from geopolitics, economics, and technology studies.
From a practical standpoint, this research addresses questions of immediate policy relevance. The UK Government has explicitly acknowledged critical minerals as a strategic priority, establishing the Critical Minerals Strategy in 2022 and subsequent institutional mechanisms for monitoring and response. Yet the translation of supply risk assessments into coherent industrial strategy remains contested, with tensions between market-oriented approaches and more interventionist frameworks unresolved. Understanding how supply risks shape strategic decisions illuminates the policy logic underlying current initiatives whilst identifying potential gaps and contradictions.
The societal implications extend beyond industrial competitiveness to encompass fundamental questions about the sustainability and equity of the energy transition. Critical mineral extraction frequently occurs in jurisdictions with weak governance frameworks, raising concerns about environmental degradation, labour exploitation, and community displacement (Giese, 2022). UK industrial strategy decisions therefore carry ethical dimensions that merit careful examination, particularly as policymakers balance security imperatives against commitments to responsible sourcing.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically analyse how critical mineral supply risks influence United Kingdom industrial strategy decisions, with particular attention to the geopolitical factors that shape policy responses.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives guide the investigation:
1. To examine the conceptual foundations of critical mineral supply risk, identifying the principal factors—geopolitical, economic, and governance-related—that generate vulnerability in mineral-dependent value chains.
2. To analyse the specific supply risk profile confronting the United Kingdom, considering both the material requirements of strategic industries and the structural characteristics of global mineral markets.
3. To evaluate the strategic responses available to UK policymakers, including supplier diversification, ally-shoring, vertical integration, and circular economy approaches.
4. To assess the extent to which supply risk considerations have driven a reorientation of UK industrial strategy away from cost-minimisation toward resilience-based frameworks.
5. To identify the policy implications of current strategic approaches and suggest directions for future research and policy development.
Methodology
This dissertation adopts a literature synthesis methodology, drawing upon peer-reviewed academic publications, government documents, and reports from reputable international organisations to construct a comprehensive analytical framework. The synthesis approach proves appropriate given the interdisciplinary nature of the research questions, which span geopolitics, economics, industrial policy, and resource governance, and the existence of a substantial body of recent scholarship requiring systematic integration.
The literature search strategy employed multiple academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, using search terms related to critical minerals, supply risk, industrial strategy, geopolitics, and the United Kingdom. Boolean operators facilitated the combination of terms to maximise relevance whilst maintaining breadth. Additional sources were identified through citation tracking and reference list examination of key publications.
Inclusion criteria prioritised peer-reviewed journal articles published within the past five years, reflecting the rapidly evolving nature of both the geopolitical landscape and the scholarly understanding thereof. Government publications from the UK, European Union, United States, and relevant international bodies provided primary source material on policy positions and institutional frameworks. Grey literature from established research institutions supplemented academic sources where appropriate.
The analytical approach combined thematic analysis with comparative examination. Themes were identified inductively from the literature before being organised within a deductive framework aligned with the research objectives. The comparative dimension enabled assessment of UK approaches relative to peer nations and regional blocs, thereby illuminating distinctive features and potential policy learning opportunities.
Quality assurance measures included triangulation across multiple sources, preferential weighting of high-impact peer-reviewed publications, and critical evaluation of potential biases within individual studies. Particular attention was devoted to distinguishing empirical findings from normative prescriptions within the policy-oriented literature.
Limitations of the methodology warrant acknowledgement. Literature synthesis necessarily relies upon existing scholarship, potentially inheriting gaps or biases present within the source material. The dynamic nature of geopolitical developments means that some recent policy shifts may not yet have received adequate scholarly treatment. Furthermore, the interdisciplinary scope, whilst a strength for comprehensive understanding, introduces challenges of conceptual integration across distinct disciplinary traditions.
Literature review
Conceptualising critical mineral supply risk
The academic literature on critical mineral supply risk has developed considerably over the past decade, moving beyond simple scarcity-based frameworks toward more sophisticated conceptualisations that integrate geopolitical, economic, and governance dimensions. Supply risks arise fundamentally from geopolitics, market concentration, and governance problems in producer states, which collectively increase the probability of supply interruptions and price volatility (Dou and Deyi, 2022; Nygaard, 2022). This tripartite understanding provides the analytical foundation for contemporary criticality assessments.
Nassar et al. (2020) offer a particularly influential framework that conceptualises risk as a combination of three interrelated factors: the likelihood of foreign disruption, import dependence, and the absorptive capacity of domestic industry. This formulation moves beyond simple metrics of geological abundance to consider the full supply chain, recognising that chokepoints may emerge at extraction, processing, or manufacturing stages. Their empirical application to US manufacturing sectors demonstrates measurable relationships between supply risk profiles and industrial vulnerability.
The geopolitical dimension has attracted substantial scholarly attention, particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Saadaoui, Smyth and Vespignani (2025) provide econometric evidence linking geopolitical risk to critical mineral price dynamics, demonstrating transmission mechanisms through which political instability in producer regions affects global commodity markets. Their findings underscore the interconnected nature of resource markets, wherein localised disruptions generate systemic effects.
Market concentration represents a structural characteristic that distinguishes critical minerals from many conventional commodities. Unlike oil, where production disperses across numerous major producers, several critical minerals exhibit extreme concentration. Dou et al. (2023) document how key inputs for clean energy technologies—rare earth elements, cobalt, lithium, and gallium—are geologically concentrated and often processed within China or a small number of other states. This concentration creates what economists term ‘quasi-monopolistic’ market structures, wherein dominant producers possess considerable pricing power and potential leverage over dependent importers.
Clean energy technologies and mineral dependencies
The materiality of the energy transition constitutes a distinctive feature of contemporary resource geopolitics. Clean energy technologies embed mineral dependencies that differ substantially from the hydrocarbon requirements of conventional energy systems, creating novel vulnerability profiles that policymakers are only beginning to comprehend. The International Energy Agency has projected that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 would require a quadrupling of critical mineral supplies by 2040, with particularly acute growth in demand for lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements (International Energy Agency, 2021).
Zhao et al. (2023) provide sector-specific evidence demonstrating how critical mineral supply risks affect industrial competitiveness, with particular reference to solar photovoltaic manufacturing. Their comparative analysis of chromium and gallium supply chains across China, the United States, and India reveals measurable relationships between geopolitical and resource security risks and competitive positioning. Higher supply risk demonstrably reduces industrial competitiveness, suggesting that mineral vulnerability translates into economic disadvantage through multiple channels.
The electric vehicle sector exemplifies these dynamics with particular clarity. Battery production requires substantial quantities of lithium, cobalt, nickel, and graphite, with processing concentrated heavily in Chinese facilities regardless of extraction location. Nygaard (2022) characterises this dependency as creating strategic uncertainty that complicates green growth pathways, particularly for nations pursuing aggressive electrification targets. The challenge extends beyond simply securing adequate volumes to ensuring supply chain resilience against potential disruptions.
Wind energy presents analogous concerns centred upon rare earth elements essential for permanent magnet generators. Neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium enable the high-performance magnets that characterise modern wind turbine designs, with Chinese production accounting for the overwhelming majority of global supply. Defence applications create additional demand pressure, generating potential conflicts between civilian and military requirements during supply constraints.
Governance frameworks and institutional responses
Criticality assessments have emerged as principal tools through which governments identify and prioritise mineral vulnerabilities. The UK employs approaches developed by the British Geological Survey that evaluate materials against criteria including supply risk, economic importance, and substitutability. Hotchkiss, Urdaneta and Bazilian (2024) provide a comparative analysis of criticality methodologies, concluding that static, slow-update assessment methods can misalign with fast-moving industrial needs. This temporal mismatch between assessment cycles and market dynamics represents a significant governance challenge.
The institutional architecture for critical minerals governance continues to evolve. Čavoški et al. (2023) examine the UK’s legal and regulatory framework, identifying a ‘conundrum’ wherein existing legislative structures inadequately address the distinctive characteristics of critical mineral supply chains. Their analysis highlights tensions between trade liberalisation commitments and security-motivated interventions, suggesting the need for novel governance instruments tailored to the unique features of mineral dependencies.
International coordination presents both opportunities and challenges. Crochet and Zhou (2024) analyse the European Union’s strategy for stable mineral supply, identifying tensions between security objectives and international economic law obligations. Their examination of the Critical Raw Materials Act illuminates how regional blocs navigate the intersection of industrial policy and trade rules, with implications for UK strategy formation in the post-Brexit context.
The Minerals Security Partnership, launched in 2022 with UK participation, represents an emerging model of plurilateral coordination among like-minded nations. This alliance-based approach reflects recognition that individual nations possess insufficient leverage to reshape global supply chains unilaterally, necessitating collective action amongst consumer states with shared vulnerability profiles.
Strategic responses to supply risk
The academic literature identifies several distinct but complementary strategic responses to critical mineral supply risk. These may be conceptualised along a spectrum from market-oriented measures that accept existing supply structures to interventionist approaches that seek fundamental restructuring of value chains.
Supplier diversification represents perhaps the most intuitive response to concentration-driven vulnerability. States and firms shift from just-in-time global sourcing toward broader supplier portfolios, reducing dependence upon single high-risk hubs (Dou and Deyi, 2022; Maltais, Canales and Larsen, 2025). Ally-shoring—the preferential cultivation of supply relationships with geopolitically aligned partners—represents a more explicitly political variant that trades potential efficiency losses for enhanced security assurance.
Vertical integration through long-term contracts offers an alternative pathway for securing access. Rather than relying upon spot market purchases, firms and governments increasingly pursue binding arrangements that guarantee supply over extended timeframes. Nygaard (2022) documents this trend within the electric vehicle sector, where major manufacturers have entered direct offtake agreements with mining companies to ensure battery material availability. Such arrangements reduce exposure to price volatility whilst creating mutual dependencies that stabilise supply relationships.
Domestic processing capacity development addresses a specific chokepoint that distinguishes critical minerals from many other commodities. Even where extraction occurs across diverse jurisdictions, processing frequently concentrates within a small number of facilities, predominantly in China. Building domestic or allied processing capabilities therefore represents a strategic priority that addresses vulnerability at mid-chain positions (Crochet and Zhou, 2024).
Circular economy and secondary supply
The circular economy has gained substantial attention as a potential contributor to supply security, though scholarly assessments of its realistic scope vary considerably. Given external vulnerabilities, UK policy thinkers increasingly emphasise treating domestic end-of-life products as strategic secondary resources rather than waste (Čavoški et al., 2023). This reconceptualisation positions recycling infrastructure as critical national assets rather than merely waste management facilities.
Nygaard (2022) provides a nuanced assessment acknowledging both the promise and limitations of circular approaches. Investing in recycling and closed-loop systems can ease geopolitical exposure over time, even though recycling cannot meet near-term demand growth. The temporal dimension proves crucial: circular strategies represent medium-to-long-term complements to primary supply security rather than immediate substitutes.
The economics of critical mineral recycling remain challenging. Low concentrations in many end-of-life products, combined with complex material compositions, generate processing costs that often exceed primary production expenses. Policy interventions—including extended producer responsibility schemes, recycling mandates, and research funding—may prove necessary to render secondary supply commercially viable at scale.
Discussion
The reorientation from cost-minimisation to resilience
The evidence assembled through this literature synthesis supports a central conclusion: critical mineral supply risks are driving a fundamental reorientation of UK industrial strategy away from cost-minimisation toward resilience-based frameworks. This shift represents more than incremental policy adjustment; it constitutes a paradigmatic change in how policymakers conceptualise the relationship between international economic engagement and national security.
The traditional industrial policy orientation prioritised cost efficiency, understood as minimising input costs through global sourcing from lowest-cost producers. This approach, consonant with comparative advantage principles, generated substantial welfare benefits through international specialisation and exchange. However, it also created dependencies that supply risk dynamics have revealed as strategically problematic. When lowest-cost producers simultaneously constitute highest-risk suppliers—as characterises several critical mineral value chains—the cost-efficiency calculus requires fundamental revision.
The emergent resilience orientation accepts higher costs as an acceptable trade-off for reduced vulnerability. Diversifying suppliers beyond lowest-cost options, maintaining domestic processing capabilities despite international competition, and investing in circular economy infrastructure all represent efficiency sacrifices motivated by security considerations. The literature documents this shift across multiple domains, suggesting a broad strategic reorientation rather than isolated policy adjustments.
This finding aligns with the first and fourth research objectives, demonstrating both the principal factors generating supply vulnerability and the extent to which these considerations have driven strategic reorientation. The evidence indicates that resilience imperatives now compete with, and often override, cost-efficiency considerations in industrial strategy formation.
UK-specific vulnerabilities and responses
The UK presents a distinctive vulnerability profile shaped by limited domestic mineral endowments, post-Brexit trade architecture, and ambitious decarbonisation commitments. Unlike Australia or Canada, the UK cannot pursue significant domestic extraction as a primary security strategy. Unlike the European Union, it lacks the scale and institutional mechanisms of a major regional bloc. These constraints channel UK strategy toward particular response patterns.
Alliance-building assumes particular importance within the UK context. Participation in the Minerals Security Partnership and bilateral relationships with mineral-rich allied nations represent principal mechanisms for securing access without domestic production. Maltais, Canales and Larsen (2025) document the challenges inherent in balancing sustainability, competitiveness, and geopolitical considerations within such alliance frameworks, tensions that UK policymakers must navigate.
The UK Critical Minerals Strategy and associated institutional mechanisms, including the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre, represent concrete policy manifestations of the strategic shift documented within the literature. These institutions serve surveillance and coordination functions essential for informed policy response. However, Hotchkiss, Urdaneta and Bazilian (2024) caution that assessment methodologies may lag behind rapidly evolving market and geopolitical conditions, suggesting ongoing refinement requirements.
Domestic processing development presents both opportunities and constraints for the UK. Whilst the development of refining and manufacturing capabilities could reduce mid-chain vulnerabilities, establishing such facilities requires substantial capital investment, skilled workforce development, and extended timeframes. Sinclair and Coe (2024) document challenges in achieving industrial upgrading within comparable contexts, noting tensions between economic, environmental, and social objectives.
Circular economy as strategic hedge
The circular economy emerges from this analysis as a strategically significant, though temporally bounded, response to supply vulnerability. The reconceptualisation of end-of-life products as strategic resources rather than waste represents a meaningful shift with practical policy implications. However, scholarly assessments uniformly caution against overstating the near-term contribution of secondary supply.
Čavoški et al. (2023) identify the legal and regulatory adaptations necessary to realise circular economy potential within the UK context. Their analysis highlights the ‘conundrum’ wherein existing frameworks inadequately support the collection, processing, and reintegration of critical materials from waste streams. Policy innovation therefore represents a prerequisite for achieving strategic circularity objectives.
The temporal dimension merits particular emphasis. Demand growth for critical minerals associated with clean energy deployment substantially exceeds potential secondary supply for at least the next two decades. Circular strategies therefore function as medium-to-long-term complements to primary supply security rather than immediate substitutes. This recognition should inform policy sequencing, with near-term emphasis on diversification and alliance-building whilst circular infrastructure develops.
Tensions and trade-offs in strategic response
The literature reveals significant tensions within and between strategic responses that policymakers must navigate. Diversification objectives may conflict with sustainability commitments when alternative suppliers present weaker environmental or social governance. Ally-shoring arrangements may prove incompatible with World Trade Organisation obligations or generate diplomatic complications with excluded partners. Domestic processing development may face environmental opposition from communities hosting proposed facilities.
Maltais, Canales and Larsen (2025) provide particularly incisive analysis of these tensions, documenting how sustainability, competitiveness, and geopolitical considerations generate conflicting imperatives. Their work suggests that no strategy configuration fully reconciles these objectives, necessitating explicit prioritisation and acceptance of trade-offs rather than aspirational synthesis.
The relationship between market mechanisms and state intervention represents a persistent tension within UK industrial strategy more broadly, with critical minerals providing a particularly acute instantiation. The evidence suggests that market failures—stemming from externalities, information asymmetries, and strategic interdependencies—justify substantial state involvement. However, the optimal extent and modality of intervention remain contested, with risks of government failure potentially replicating or exceeding market failure costs.
Implications for industrial competitiveness
The competitiveness implications of supply risk exposure, documented empirically by Zhao et al. (2023), underscore the economic stakes associated with strategic response. Their demonstration that higher geopolitical and resource security risk measurably reduces industrial competitiveness provides quantitative support for qualitative arguments regarding strategic necessity.
For the UK specifically, competitiveness concerns focus particularly upon the electric vehicle and renewable energy sectors where critical mineral dependencies concentrate. Failure to secure reliable supply chains would disadvantage UK manufacturers relative to competitors with superior access, potentially undermining both economic performance and climate objectives. The dual imperative—simultaneously advancing decarbonisation and maintaining competitiveness—heightens the strategic significance of mineral security.
The interconnection between supply security and industrial development suggests that minerals policy functions increasingly as industrial policy rather than a distinct domain. This integration implies that decision-making authority and analytical capacity should reflect industrial strategy imperatives rather than remaining within traditional resources ministry boundaries.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined how critical mineral supply risks shape UK industrial strategy decisions, demonstrating that geopolitical factors drive a fundamental reorientation toward resilience-based frameworks. The analysis has achieved the stated objectives through systematic literature synthesis and critical evaluation.
Regarding the first objective, the research has identified geopolitics, market concentration, and governance problems in producer states as the principal factors generating supply vulnerability. These factors interact to increase the probability of supply disruptions and price volatility, creating risks that transcend conventional commercial considerations.
The second objective, concerning the UK’s specific vulnerability profile, has been addressed through analysis of the intersection between limited domestic endowments, post-Brexit trade architecture, and ambitious decarbonisation commitments. These characteristics channel UK strategy toward alliance-building and circular economy approaches rather than domestic extraction.
The third objective, evaluating available strategic responses, has been achieved through examination of supplier diversification, ally-shoring, vertical integration, and circular economy approaches. The analysis reveals these as complementary rather than alternative strategies, with appropriate emphasis varying across timeframes.
The fourth objective, assessing strategic reorientation, finds strong evidence that supply risk considerations have driven a paradigmatic shift from cost-minimisation toward resilience-based frameworks. This shift pervades policy discourse, institutional arrangements, and concrete interventions.
The fifth objective, identifying policy implications, generates several recommendations. Assessment methodologies require accelerated update cycles to match dynamic market conditions. Legal and regulatory frameworks require adaptation to support circular economy objectives. Alliance coordination demands sustained diplomatic investment. Domestic processing development merits strategic support despite economic challenges.
The significance of these findings extends beyond immediate policy relevance to illuminate broader questions regarding the political economy of energy transitions. The material requirements of decarbonisation create novel resource dependencies that reshape geopolitical landscapes in ways only partially understood. The UK’s response to these dependencies will substantially influence both national economic trajectories and the feasibility of climate commitments.
Future research should address several limitations of the present analysis. Longitudinal studies tracking policy evolution would enable assessment of implementation effectiveness. Comparative analysis with peer nations would illuminate alternative strategic configurations. Quantitative modelling of circular economy potential would clarify realistic contribution timelines. Empirical investigation of alliance mechanisms would inform coordination strategy refinement.
In conclusion, the evidence demonstrates that critical mineral supply risks compel treatment of minerals policy as core industrial strategy. The UK increasingly prioritises resilience, diversification, domestic capabilities, and circular economy over simple short-run cost efficiency, seeking to secure the green transition and maintain competitiveness under intensifying geopolitical uncertainty. This strategic reorientation, whilst generating near-term costs, positions the UK to navigate the resource geopolitics of an emerging clean energy era.
References
Čavoški, A., Ahuja, J., Harper, G. and Peck, D., 2023. Securing technology critical materials for Britain – the legal and regulatory conundrum. *Environmental Law Review*, 25(4), pp. 311-325. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529231211746
Crochet, V. and Zhou, W., 2024. Critical insecurities? The European Union’s strategy for a stable supply of minerals. *Journal of International Economic Law*, 27(1), pp. 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgae003
Dou, S. and Deyi, X., 2022. The security of critical mineral supply chains. *Mineral Economics*, 36, pp. 401-412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13563-022-00340-4
Dou, S., Xu, D., Zhu, Y. and Keenan, R., 2023. Critical mineral sustainable supply: Challenges and governance. *Futures*, 152, 103101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103101
Giese, E., 2022. Strategic minerals: Global challenges post-COVID-19. *The Extractive Industries and Society*, 12, 101113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2022.101113
Hotchkiss, E., Urdaneta, M. and Bazilian, M., 2024. Comparing methods for criticality and security in minerals for clean energy. *The Extractive Industries and Society*, 17, 101402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2023.101402
International Energy Agency, 2021. *The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions*. Paris: IEA. Available at: https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions
Maltais, A., Canales, N. and Larsen, R., 2025. Challenges in Balancing Sustainability, Competitiveness and Geopolitics in Critical Mineral Supply Chains. *Business Strategy and the Environment*, 34(3), pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70213
Nassar, N., Brainard, J., Gulley, A., Manley, R., Matos, G., Lederer, G., Bird, L., Pineault, D., Alonso, E., Gambogi, J. and Fortier, S., 2020. Evaluating the mineral commodity supply risk of the U.S. manufacturing sector. *Science Advances*, 6(8), eaay8647. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay8647
Nygaard, A., 2022. The Geopolitical Risk and Strategic Uncertainty of Green Growth after the Ukraine Invasion: How the Circular Economy Can Decrease the Market Power of and Resource Dependency on Critical Minerals. *Circular Economy and Sustainability*, 3, pp. 1099-1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-022-00181-x
Saadaoui, J., Smyth, R. and Vespignani, J., 2025. Ensuring the security of the clean energy transition: Examining the impact of geopolitical risk on the price of critical minerals. *Energy Economics*, 141, 108195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2025.108195
Sinclair, L. and Coe, N., 2024. Critical mineral strategies in Australia: Industrial upgrading without environmental or social upgrading. *Resources Policy*, 89, 104860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.104860
UK Government, 2022. *UK Critical Minerals Strategy*. London: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-critical-mineral-strategy
Wu, Q., Zhou, N. and Cheng, J., 2020. A review and prospects of the supply security of strategic key minerals. *Resources Science*, 42(8), pp. 1439-1451. https://doi.org/10.18402/resci.2020.08.01
Zhao, Y., Shuai, J., Wang, J., Shuai, C., Ding, L., Zhu, Y. and Zhou, N., 2023. Do critical minerals supply risks affect the competitive advantage of solar PV industry? – A comparative study of chromium and gallium between China, the United States and India. *Environmental Impact Assessment Review*, 101, 107151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2023.107151
