Critical raw materials: a new test for the resilience of business and politics

Cobalt, lithium, rare earths. Until a few years ago, for most companies these were technical items in the supply chain; today, critical raw materials are becoming a geopolitical weapon, a source of price shocks and a bottleneck for both the green and digital transitions. 

At the end of April, ministers, regulators, and business therefore met in Istanbul at the OECD Critical Minerals Conference 2026, and it was here that the Business at OECD (BIAC) working group, together with the U.S. USCIB, presented the priority document “Critical Minerals, Critical Partnerships”, which translates the debate into concrete demands: it calls on OECD member countries to adopt an action plan focused on more open trade, investment certainty, coordinated financing, simplification of responsible standards, and a genuine take off in recycling – in other words, on what companies see as essential for political strategies to be translated into real projects.

Why critical raw materials have suddenly become so crucial

Current forecasts make it clear that demand for these materials will surge steeply in the coming years – they are needed in many products, from batteries and semiconductors to infrastructure for renewable energy and data centres. The key problem is their extraction and processing. These processes are highly geographically concentrated and largely outside OECD economies. This increases vulnerability to export restrictions, political pressure, and non standard practices such as state managed overproduction aimed at driving down world prices.

According to the OECD, export restrictions on industrial raw materials have more than quintupled since 2009, and the trend has accelerated further after 2023. The result is tighter supply, higher price volatility, and less willingness by companies to embark on long term projects. In a situation where a mining project commonly takes 10–15 years from discovery to production, this is a toxic cocktail.

Five pillars of the action plan for critical raw materials

Business at OECD (BIAC) therefore proposes that the OECD adopt a targeted “Critical Minerals Action Plan” that does not rely on new regulation, but on better coordination of existing policies and instruments. Five areas are key:

1. Open trade and real diversification
   Companies rely on cross border flows of raw materials, semi finished products, and recycled materials. They therefore need a predictable, transparent and rules based trade environment, not ad hoc restrictions and lengthy customs procedures. According to BIAC, the OECD should strengthen monitoring of export restrictions, the sharing of data on value chains, and at the same time push back against unfair “non market” practices – from state investments without economic logic to non transparent deals that create debt dependency.
2. Investment environment for projects with a 2035+ horizon
   Without new mines, processing capacities, and recycling lines, the “green” transition will remain on paper. Besides capital, however, investors need certainty – clear and time limited permitting procedures, stable regulation, enforceable investment protection, and rapid dispute resolution. BIAC also stresses the role of the tax environment – the global minimum tax or sectoral taxes can fundamentally change the economics of projects with payback periods measured in decades. For OECD countries this should be a signal that being “investor friendly” is not an empty phrase, but a condition for their own raw material security.
3. Fewer fragmented standards, more meaningful due diligence
   Responsible business conduct and respect for human rights have become the standard, but the reality on the ground is different: companies face overlapping regulations, varying reporting obligations and sometimes unclear requirements, which can lead them to withdraw from high risk regions altogether. BIAC is therefore not calling for weaker ambitions, but for their harmonisation and simplification. Due diligence should be risk based, proportionate, and feasible. The OECD should help to connect existing standards, support interoperable traceability systems, and create conditions for markets that are able to “reward” material with a higher level of responsibility.
4. Smarter use of public financial instruments
   On paper there is a wide range of guarantees, insurance, export credits, and other public tools. In practice they are often uncoordinated, slow, and difficult for companies to read. BIAC sees an opportunity in the modernised OECD framework for officially supported export credits and, more broadly, in better alignment of financial and risk instruments across countries. Long term off take agreements should play a key role, giving banks and investors comfort that the project will have buyers. For less liquid commodities, there is also scope for price stabilisation mechanisms – for example minimum prices or “true cost” models that factor in the risk of supply disruption.
5. Recycling as a real pillar of raw material security
   The circular economy is not just a “green” buzzword, but the only way to keep up with the explosive growth in material consumption. The problem is that waste and scrap are among the most heavily regulated items in international trade. Divergent interpretations of the rules, administrative burdens, and lengthy notification processes often prevent valuable secondary raw materials from reaching the places where they can be processed efficiently. BIAC therefore calls for more uniform application of the OECD decision on transboundary movements of wastes for recovery, digitalisation of procedures, and greater use of quality standards for secondary metals and battery materials.

Two weaknesses to watch out for

The BIAC document also identifies two structural problems whose impacts companies deal with every day.

1. Responsible production vs. commodity market logic
   Prices in critical minerals today primarily reflect short term costs and liquidity, not environmental or social standards. Even producers who have invested in higher workplace safety, lower emissions, or better supply chain management often compete with cheaper – and sometimes subsidised – rivals. If states want companies to go “beyond the minimum”, these differences must be reflected in market conditions – whether through smart green public procurement schemes, premium pricing, or clearly defined standards in sectors such as automotive or energy.
2. Fragmented practice is blocking recycling flows within the OECD
   Although there is a common legal framework for the cross border movement of wastes for recovery, its interpretation differs dramatically between member countries. The same scrap can be classified as “low risk” in one country and fall into a category requiring a burdensome permitting process in another. The result is delays, higher costs, under used capacities and, in the extreme, the export of recyclable materials outside the OECD. BIAC is therefore calling on states to finally “unblock” their own system – to harmonise the interpretation of classifications, move notification procedures fully into digital form, and clearly define the point at which waste becomes a product.

What this means for companies and policymakers

For business, the document carries several practical messages – it pays to engage actively in dialogue with governments, to advocate interoperable standards, and to seek long term partnership models – for example joint investments in processing or recycling supported by off take contracts. Companies that can demonstrate a higher level of responsibility and traceability may gain an edge in a future “standards driven” market.

For OECD governments, the message is even more urgent. If they want to maintain an industrial base, support the energy transition, and at the same time reduce dependence on a handful of suppliers, they must stop adding further layers of ill thought out regulation and instead make better use of the tools they already have. Critical raw materials will not become any less critical – the only question is whether they become a source of competitiveness or a weakness.