Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
The Iran crisis has exposed a hard truth for global business: supply chains are only as resilient as their weakest link. When conflict disrupts major trade routes, the effects spread quickly through the wider economy. The immediate shock may be geopolitical, but the underlying business problem is dependence. Too much reliance on fragile external supply chains leaves companies exposed when conditions change.
This is where critical materials come into focus. For years, discussion has centred on critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements. These matter, and governments are right to worry about them. But for business, the more immediate issue often sits further along the value chain.
What matters operationally are critical materials: batteries, magnets, alloys, catalysts and electronic components that deliver the performance modern products depend on. These materials are often hidden within products, used in low concentrations and difficult to substitute without losing performance. They are also tied to long, complex and fragile global supply chains. That makes them a resilience issue, not just a resource issue.
The transition to renewables must also be resilient
None of this is an argument against renewables. Quite the opposite. Greater use of renewable energy is critical because continued dependence on oil and gas leaves economies exposed to repeated price shocks and geopolitical disruption. But the transition brings a second challenge.
Many renewable and low-emissions technologies rely on critical materials and concentrated supply chains of their own. If we are not careful, we risk replacing one form of dependence with another.
That is why resilience needs to be designed in from the start. Are these technologies being built for durability? Can components be recovered and reused? Are products designed for disassembly? How much value is likely to be lost at end of life?
Why circularity matters to critical materials
For many businesses, this volatility is becoming a persistent feature rather than an occasional disruption. Circularity is emerging as one of the most practical ways to respond.
Keeping materials in use for longer reduces reliance on unstable supply chains and preserves the value already embedded in products. Extending product life, recovering components and retaining control over high-value materials all contribute to a more predictable cost base and stronger resilience.
This is particularly important for critical materials, where conventional recycling often fails to recover full value. Many are used in small quantities and are lost or diluted during standard recycling processes. As a result, approaches that prioritise durability, reuse and remanufacturing are gaining traction.
Circularity is not just a theoretical construct. Leading companies are already demonstrating commercial value. Renault has built a profitable remanufacturing business, while Rolls-Royce has integrated material recovery into its operations through revert systems and service-based models.
In the electric vehicle sector, battery leasing and swapping models are helping manufacturers maintain access to scarce materials while improving utilisation. Companies such as Caterpillar and Philips are extending product life through refurbishment, reducing reliance on new material inputs. These models are delivering measurable outcomes, including lower input costs, reduced exposure to disruption and new revenue streams.
What businesses should do next
The first step is visibility. Critical materials are often hidden within products and used at low levels. Businesses need to know where those materials sit in their products, components and supply chains.
The next step is to understand exposure. What happens if one of those materials becomes unavailable? What happens if the price rises sharply? Can that cost be passed on? Would customers still buy the product? Could competitors outbid you for supply? What substitutes are available, and what performance trade-offs would follow? At what price point would redesign become necessary?
From there, businesses can assess circularity. How likely are those materials to be recovered? Are they currently lost in use or at end of life? Could design changes improve durability, repair, recovery or reuse? Metrics such as Material Circularity Indicator can help identify where critical materials sit and how circular current systems are, giving businesses a practical base for action.
Then comes model innovation. Could high-value components be leased rather than sold? Could take-back schemes retain access to scarce materials? Is there a secondary market for used products? Could a revert arrangement with suppliers create value from returned material? These are not fringe ideas. They are practical ways to reduce dependence on volatile supply chains.
Any change carries a cost, so businesses also need to understand trigger points. Knowing when circular strategies become commercially preferable gives teams time to stress test options, make low-cost enabling changes and build resilience before disruption forces a rushed response.
In a more volatile world, the businesses best placed to adapt will be the ones that understand which critical materials matter, where they are exposed and how to keep those materials in circulation for longer.