Critical Minerals Across Countries

Earlier this month, China stopped approving rare earth export licenses to Japan. There was no formal announcement, but the impact was immediate. Japanese companies supplying automakers, semiconductor manufacturers, and defense firms began feeling the strain almost at once. According to The Wall Street Journal, the move followed political tensions over Taiwan, reinforcing how critical minerals are now used as instruments of economic leverage rather than neutral trade inputs.

The episode highlights a broader reality shaping global supply chains today. Criticality is no longer determined by how rare a mineral is in the ground, but by where processing capacity sits, who controls export licensing, and how national regulatory frameworks define strategic risk. This shift explains why countries increasingly disagree on what qualifies as a critical mineral and why those differences matter.

That divergence sets the context for how critical minerals are defined, classified, and governed across major economies.

Definitions, Processing Control, and Regulatory Divergence Across Major Economies 

Defining Critical Minerals 

Critical minerals are materials that are essential to economic activity, technological development, and national security, while simultaneously facing elevated risk of supply disruption. The concept is not driven by geological scarcity alone. A mineral becomes critical when it is economically indispensable and when its supply chain is vulnerable due to concentration, geopolitical exposure, regulatory risk, or lack of viable substitutes. 

Lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and rare earth elements are among the most widely recognized critical minerals today. These materials underpin electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, semiconductors, defense technologies, and advanced manufacturing. Global demand for critical minerals used in clean energy technologies is expected to increase between four and six times by 2040 under current energy transition scenarios.

National and Regional Definitions of Critical Minerals 

There is no globally unified definition of critical minerals. Countries and regions classify criticality based on economic structure, industrial priorities, and exposure to supply risk. 

Country / Region	Cobalt	Copper	Graphite	Lithium	Nickel	Rare Earth Elements
United States	Critical. Listed under USGS Critical Minerals List	Not classified as critical. Monitored due to infrastructure relevance	Critical. Listed under USGS Critical Minerals List	Critical. Listed under USGS Critical Minerals List	Critical. Listed under USGS Critical Minerals List	Critical. Listed under USGS Critical Minerals List
United Kingdom	Critical. Listed under UK Critical Minerals Strategy	Not classified as critical	Critical. Listed under UK Critical Minerals Strategy	Critical. Listed under UK Critical Minerals Strategy	Critical. Listed under UK Critical Minerals Strategy	Critical. Listed under UK Critical Minerals Strategy
European Union	Critical Raw Material under EU Critical Raw Materials Act	Not classified as critical	Critical Raw Material under EU Critical Raw Materials Act	Critical and Strategic Raw Material	Critical Raw Material under EU Critical Raw Materials Act	Critical Raw Material under EU Critical Raw Materials Act
Germany	Critical. EU-aligned classification with automotive focus	Not classified as critical	Critical. EU-aligned classification	Critical. EU-aligned classification	Critical. EU-aligned classification	Critical. EU-aligned classification
Japan	Critical. Classified under METI supply risk assessments	Not classified as critical	Critical for battery and electronics supply chains	Critical. High import dependency	Critical for battery-grade alloys	Critical following historical supply disruptions
South Korea	Critical under Industrial Materials Security Framework	Not classified as critical	Critical for battery anode production	Critical for EV and energy storage	Critical for battery manufacturing	Critical for electronics and defense
Taiwan	Indirectly critical for battery supply chains	Not classified as critical	Indirectly critical for lithium-ion batteries	Indirectly critical for energy storage	Indirectly critical for battery supply	Indirectly critical for semiconductor manufacturing

Processing and Control of Rare Earth Elements 

Rare earth elements illustrate the structural imbalance between resource availability and supply chain control. While rare earth ores are distributed across multiple geographies, processing and separation capacity is highly concentrated. 

According to the International Energy Agency, China accounts for approximately 60 percent of global rare earth mining but more than 85 percent of global processing and refining capacity. This concentration reflects decades of investment in chemical separation infrastructure, cost advantages, and regulatory frameworks that enabled industrial scale. 

Processing rare earth elements involves complex chemical separation, solvent extraction, and waste management steps that are capital intensive and difficult to replicate quickly. As a result, supply chain risk is driven less by mining location and more by downstream processing control. 

Disagreement and Fragmentation in Classification 

Disagreements over what constitutes a critical mineral are structural rather than political. Economies differ in industrial composition, technology priorities, and risk tolerance. A mineral critical to semiconductor manufacturing may not be critical to economies without advanced fabrication capacity. 

Time horizons also differ. Some jurisdictions classify criticality based on current demand, while others model future technology adoption. Recycling potential and substitution pathways further complicate classification, resulting in fragmented global frameworks. 

Independent and Nationally Tailored Approaches 

As supply chain disruptions and geopolitical tensions intensify, countries are moving away from coordinated global definitions toward nationally tailored critical mineral strategies. Criticality is increasingly treated as a tool of industrial policy, national security planning, and regulatory governance rather than a purely economic classification. 

This shift prioritizes resilience over efficiency and signals where future trade controls, disclosure requirements, and domestic investment incentives are likely to emerge. 

From Fragmentation to Visibility 

Critical minerals now sit at the intersection of supply chain risk, regulatory exposure, and geopolitical strategy. The challenge for enterprises is no longer identifying which materials are classified as critical, but understanding where risk accumulates across extraction, processing, refining, and downstream manufacturing. Fragmented national definitions, concentrated processing capacity, and evolving regulatory constraints have made traditional supplier-level visibility insufficient. 

Sustain360°™ enables enterprises to move from fragmented information to decision-grade visibility across critical mineral supply chains. By integrating supplier data, processing geography, regulatory frameworks, and country-specific critical mineral classifications, Sustain360°™ provides a unified view of exposure across jurisdictions. This allows organizations to assess dependency risks, identify concentration and compliance hotspots, and evaluate alternative sourcing pathways aligned with national and regional regulations. As critical mineral strategies become increasingly nationally tailored, Sustain360°™ helps enterprises anticipate risk, demonstrate compliance, and make informed decisions in an environment where supply security and regulatory scrutiny are inseparable.