The Strategic Imperative of Decarbonizing Materials Value Chains

Materials value chains are complex and span the entire globe, and they represent 20 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To reach net-zero targets, the world is undergoing a materials transition in tandem with the ongoing energy and mobility transitions.

Organizations around the world are making net-zero and circularity pledges to support this transition and decarbonize. Increasingly, consumers and governments are championing regulations and policies that promote a circular economy, signaling a paradigm shift in public sentiment toward sustainable practices, which fundamentally strengthens the business case for transitioning to low-carbon, circular materials. However, many companies experience challenges in building integrated perspectives about materials value chains because of, among other factors, the broad scope of materials they use and limited visibility on operational drivers and interdependencies, especially further upstream in the value chain.

This series aims to shed light on decarbonization and circularity opportunities across materials’ value chains—such as those for plastics, copper, aluminum, rare earth elements, and glass—to help companies navigate the materials transition.

Decarbonizing the production of materials will be critical for overall decarbonization

The production of materials is responsible for approximately 20 percent of global GHG emissions today, making tackling materials-related emissions a critical objective for companies looking to decarbonize.

Emission intensity and hotspots of emissions vary considerably by material

A cross-materials view on emissions shows that for some materials, such as aluminum and copper, decarbonizing Scope 2 emissions (indirect emissions from electricity usage) will go a long way. However, other value chains, such as those for steel and nickel, will need to address Scope 1 (process) emissions to decarbonize effectively.

In the coming years, demand growth for low-carbon, circular materials is expected to outstrip additions to supply capacity

As pressure for decarbonization and derisking of supply chains grows, so does material demand. Demand growth is expected to accelerate because of the higher material intensity of low-carbon technologies (as compared with conventional technologies) and fundamental shifts in materials footprints. For example, we expect 1.4 to 6.3 times higher material intensity for solar and wind, respectively, and an unprecedented need for materials such as lithium and rare earth metals.

While there is no principal shortage of most materials available in Earth’s crust, it’s unknown how quickly capacities (especially for low-carbon or circular materials) and supporting infrastructure can be added to meet rising demand, which has already led to price spikes for some materials today.

For recycled and other low-carbon materials, there is additional uncertainty related to how green premiums could evolve in the face of already-rising materials costs, requiring companies to act to secure supply.

In the journey toward low-carbon, circular materials, understanding unit economics will remain crucial, and the slow maturation of a premium market could be a bottleneck for broader development.

Some abatement levers work across different materials value chains

From the perspective of a downstream consumer, decarbonizing value chains requires an end-to-end approach tailored to the emission hot spots of each commodity (from raw material to production and preparation to tier-one manufacturing).

Renewable electricity will be part of most pushes for decarbonization across value chains. Many materials will also require carbon transparency along the chain to inform industry and materials-specific abatement levers such as process adaptations and sourcing of low-carbon materials and consumables.

Importantly, circularity has the potential to address emissions across industries and value chains. However, to increase recycled content in their products, companies need a detailed understanding of current barriers and unlocks. One important area of focus could be tapping new secondary pools instead of competing for already-scarce existing supplies of secondary materials.

Access to scrap and recycled materials is critical

Based on our assessment of the state of recycling across materials, we see five cross-industry themes for secondary materials:

1. Pre- and postconsumer scrap. According to McKinsey analysis, for most materials, preconsumer scrap recycling could reach its technical limits (that is, greater than 80 percent) by 2035 if industries invest in innovation in areas supported by economics and policy. This means that companies interested in securing additional volumes will need to think through how to tap new secondary pools (such as those from end-of-life products—that is, postconsumer scrap) or use existing pools more effectively (for example, by avoiding downcycling). Specifically, materials such as aluminum are often commingled in manufacturing processes and products, making it difficult to recover and preserve specific alloys and limiting recycling of mixed scrap to cast alloys. Such challenges present opportunities to diversify the supply from primary materials, expand into new regions, and engage new stakeholders.
2. Collection. Increased collection is a gateway to access incremental material streams across most commodities, especially for materials with significant exposure to nonindustrial applications (for example, from waste, electrical, and electronic equipment recycling). While regulators are in part already addressing this circularity opportunity, companies could tap additional volumes through partnerships and build specific e-waste recycling channels and infrastructure.
3. Technology. Addressing technological barriers along the secondary value chain could become a key enabler to advance recycling. For example, dismantling technology could help tap pools of secondary magnetic rare-earth elements currently lost in electronics and home appliances because of a lack of preseparation. Advanced sorting could also provide access to high-quality feedstocks of aluminum scrap or plastic waste. There are also monomer- or solvent-based recovery technologies to unlock virgin-quality recycled plastics. However, these technologies need to scale and become cost-competitive. Importantly, while some recycling processes, such as mechanical recycling and methanolysis, offer lower-carbon alternatives, others, such as pyrolysis, may result in carbon emissions similar to those of producing virgin plastics, highlighting the need for careful selection of recycling technologies based on their environmental impact.
4. Alliances. Reaping the fruits of circularity requires stakeholders across the value chain to collaborate to make sure the value of complex, postconsumer material streams can be realized effectively, such as through offtakes to pool demand and diversify risk. For example, various aluminum grades originating from sorting mixed aluminum scrap may need different offtakers, which can help improve unit economics via scaling and accelerating the technology learning curve. Alternatively, value chain partners can collaborate on building closed-loop integration to lower production costs.
5. Multimaterials plays. Approaches aiming to recover multiple types of material at once will become more interesting in areas where the bulk of the value has been already extracted, but some critical materials, such as tin, tantalum, and other materials in printed circuit boards, remain untapped. These strategies will need to integrate into existing value chains and process flows to be cost-competitive, potentially with the addition of premiums to meet industry hurdle rates.

Unlocking new pools of secondary materials could save on carbon costs

Looking into new pools of secondary supply across materials, we find that most materials will be marginally more expensive than their primary counterparts from today’s perspective.

Successful stakeholders in the recycling value chain will need to identify the major cost-drivers in their respective ecosystems (for example, collection, dismantling, sorting, or processing) and how they can effectively be mitigated through, among other factors, technological development, scale, low-cost logistics networks, and partnerships to make a favorable business case for the use of new pools of secondary materials.

The good news is that scaling supplies and, in some regions, rising carbon costs—as well as regulatory tailwinds for product design, transparency, or recycled-content targets (such as the EU Battery Passport, Critical Raw Materials Act, and End of Life Vehicles Directive)—are expected to help make recycled materials more competitive with conventional alternatives.

Low-carbon, circular materials are critical to lowering the emissions footprints of complex products

As the momentum behind environmental regulations and public demand for sustainable solutions intensifies, businesses that proactively align with these shifts by embracing low-carbon, circular materials will not only help mitigate climate change but also capture competitive advantages in evolving markets. With respect to the availability and cost of materials, collaboration will be critical to scaling solutions. By highlighting areas in which companies can be most effective in the short term and strategize for the long term, this article series provides a jumping-off point for discussions across value chains.

FAQs

1. What are the main sources of emissions in materials value chains?

2. How can companies tap into new secondary pools of materials?

3. What role does renewable electricity play in decarbonizing materials production?

Conclusion

The transition to low-carbon, circular materials is a strategic imperative for companies looking to decarbonize and meet sustainability goals. By understanding the complexities of materials value chains and leveraging innovative solutions, organizations can drive meaningful change, reduce emissions, and create a more sustainable future for all.