In a study published in Communications Earth & Environment, researchers at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) show how the pursuit of security of supply has increasingly pushed sustainability principles into the background. The study also highlights how researchers can help to strengthen sustainability principles in political discourse.
Worldwide, new technologies in renewable energy, among other fields, have led to an increase in demand for critical raw materials since the 2000s. The EU has responded with policy measures, most recently with the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), which came into force in 2024. For some time now, researchers working at the intersection of ecology, economics, and politics have been warning of the ecological and geopolitical risks posed by rising demand for raw materials. However, EU policy continues to focus on securing supplies (i.e. on ensuring the availability of minerals and metals) rather than reducing consumption. By analysing political narratives, a research team at the UFZ has now traced how this policy came to prevail. “We know from social science research that narratives are an important element in decision-making processes”, says Professor Sina Leipold, a political scientist specialising in environmental policy and co-author of the study. “Narratives define what is politically plausible and which proposals are regarded as unrealistic. This shows us which proposals and ideas will shape the future.”
The UFZ research team, led by PhD student Theresa Herdlitschka, examined more than 180 publicly available strategy and position papers, press releases, and fact sheets published between 2000 and 2024 by key stakeholders from politics, industry, academia, and NGOs as part of the debate on the future of raw materials. The researchers carried out a qualitative analysis and coded them (i.e.assigned text passages to specific categories such as problem definitions and proposed solutions) in order to identify patterns and commonalities. “By tracing the entire course of the debate, we were able to see which events and interpretations had the greatest influence within the various groups”, says Herdlitschka.
The study found that, in the early 2000s, ‘corporate competitiveness’ was initially the dominant narrative in raw materials policy. Following the 2007/2008 financial crisis and the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the narrative of the EU as a ‘pioneer in global environmental protection’ emerged. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and the energy crisis, this was followed by the narrative of ‘strategic autonomy’. This refers to the guiding principle that the EU must become less dependent on other countries in key areas such as the supply of critical minerals and metals. However, throughout the years and various crises, the same guiding principle prevailed: Security of supply must be ensured. “Alternative ideas such as sufficiency or reducing demand have continually been sidelined”, says Herdlitschka. “Even in a context where reducing demand is ecologically necessary, this remains politically unthinkable because the prevailing narrative portrays the problem primarily as a lack of security of supply and competitiveness.” This interpretation was first put forward by industry and was later also advocated by policy-makers, including those in the European Commission.
Other narratives such as those centred on criticism of neo-extractivism played only a marginal role in the debate. This narrative emphasises that the extraction and export of natural resources from the Global South form the basis of Europe’s economic development while reinforcing existing dependencies and shifting environmental impacts elsewhere. Also the narrative of resource justice (i.e. the fair, sustainable, and globally equitable distribution and use of natural resources) failed to gain traction despite being promoted primarily by NGOs and environmental policy actors. Overall, only a few sustainability aspects, including those reflected in the EU Battery Regulation and the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation, became part of the dominant narratives. “A narrative put forward by one side gains traction when it incorporates the arguments of the opposing side and thereby weakens them.” Agenda-setting also plays an important role. Whoever is first to place an issue on the agenda has a decisive influence on how other actors in the debate can act”, explains Leipold.
The fact that voices within the scientific community repeatedly called for reducing resource consumption and accounting for planetary boundaries ultimately played only a minor role in the political negotiation process surrounding the CRMA. “Studies on reducing overall raw material consumption or proposals for the prudent use of critical minerals and metals were put forward by only a small group. “These voices failed to get their positions accepted in the negotiations”, says Herdlitschka. In order to be heard in these debates, scientists need to work even more closely at the interface between science and policy by engaging directly with political decision-makers. Demand for raw materials will continue to rise as the geopolitical situation remains tense.
To address these challenges and break free from unsustainable patterns, new narratives could prove crucial. One approach would be to use the concept of the circular economy and debates on conflicts in the mining sector within the EU to raise the profile of counter-narratives based on local supply chains, sufficiency, and social engagement. This could redefine raw material autonomy.
Publication:
Herdlitschka, T., Luo, A. & Leipold, S. Supply-security narratives have dominated EU raw materials policy, while demand reduction has been sidelined. Commun Earth Environ 7, 435 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-026-03593-x
Further information
Theresa Herdlitschka
UFZ Department of Environmental Politics
theresa.herdlitschka@ufz.de
Prof Dr Sina Leipold
Head of the UFZ Department of Environmental Politics
sina.leipold@ufz.de