Criticality Frameworks: How Nations Assess Mineral Criticality
Facts checked against sources on . How we check facts.
A criticality framework is the method a government or research body uses to decide which minerals matter most and are most at risk. The main public frameworks are the EU's two-index assessment (five rounds from 2011 to 2023), the 2025 USGS economic model, the U.S. Department of Energy's clean energy matrix and the 2008 National Research Council study that set out a methodology for the United States. They share the idea of weighing importance against supply risk, but they measure it differently and reach different lists.
2008
year of the National Research Council study that developed a U.S. methodology
Source: National Academies
How do the main criticality frameworks compare?
The frameworks differ in what they score and in what they produce. The table lists the ones this site relies on, with the details that each publisher states.
| Framework | Publisher and date | What it scores | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy | National Research Council, 2008 | Develops a methodology for identifying potentially critical minerals and proposes better federal data collection. | A method, not a list. |
| Critical Materials Strategy | U.S. Department of Energy, 2010 and 2011 update | Importance to clean energy and supply risk, for 16 elements in 2011, in a short-term (to 2015) and a medium-term (2015 to 2025) matrix. | In 2011, dysprosium, terbium, europium, neodymium and yttrium were critical in the short term. DOE issued a later assessment in July 2023. |
| EU criticality assessment | European Commission, 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020 and 2023 | Economic importance and supply risk, each built from sector data, concentration, governance, trade, recycling, substitution and import reliance. | Critical raw materials: 14 in 2011 and 34 in 2023, with 17 strategic raw materials added in the Act. |
| 2025 U.S. List of Critical Minerals method | USGS, 2025 (Open-File Report 2025-1047) | Probability-weighted GDP loss from over 1,200 foreign trade disruption scenarios, plus a single domestic producer check. | A list of 60 minerals. |
| Australian and Canadian list tests | Australian Department of Industry, Science and Resources, 2023 and 2024; Natural Resources Canada, 2021 and 2024 | Qualitative tests: vulnerability and partner demand, plus potential for domestic production. | Lists of 31 critical minerals plus five strategic materials, and 34 minerals. |
Sources: National Academies, DOE 2011 summary, EU 2023 study, USGS OFR 2025-1047 and the Australian and Canadian pages linked from the lists section.
Which dimensions do the frameworks measure?
Most frameworks combine six dimensions, and each has its own page on this site. They are the building blocks of the EU's formulas and of the factors USGS and DOE report.
| Dimension | The question it answers | Where it appears |
|---|---|---|
| Supply risk | How concentrated is supply, and how reliable are the suppliers and trade rules? | EU supply risk index; DOE supply risk axis; USGS scenarios. |
| Economic importance | How much economic activity depends on the mineral? | EU economic importance index; USGS GDP model; DOE importance to clean energy. |
| Demand growth | How fast is demand expected to rise against supply? | EU strategic list criteria; DOE medium-term matrix. |
| Substitutability | Can another material do the same job? | EU substitution index, used in both indices. |
| Recycling potential | How much supply comes from scrap? | EU end-of-life recycling input rate. |
| Byproduct risk | Is the mineral produced only as a by-product of another metal? | The 2025 USGS notice includes a table of byproduct and host-commodity information. |
Sources: Regulation (EU) 2024/1252, Annexes I and II, USGS 2025 notice and DOE 2011 summary.
Why do the frameworks give different answers?
The frameworks reach different lists because they measure different things. Indium shows it: it is critical on the U.S., Australian and Canadian lists but dropped below the EU's thresholds in 2023, because EU production exceeds EU consumption and the allocation of its end uses was revised. DOE's 2011 matrix, built for clean energy technologies, flagged rare earths used in magnets and lighting, while the 2025 USGS model recommended potash, silicon, copper, silver, rhenium and lead. A method built for one question, such as clean energy exposure or U.S. GDP loss, will rank minerals differently from one built for EU supply risk.
Frequently asked questions
What is a criticality framework?
A criticality framework is a method for rating minerals on how important they are and how exposed their supply is. The EU scores economic importance and supply risk against thresholds, while USGS models the GDP loss from supply disruptions. Frameworks feed the official critical minerals lists.
Which criticality framework came first?
The European Commission published its first assessment in 2011, with 14 critical raw materials. In the United States, a 2008 National Research Council study developed a methodology for identifying potentially critical minerals, and the Department of Energy applied a clean energy version in 2010.
Do all criticality frameworks use the same factors?
No. They share economic importance and supply risk, but the EU adds substitution, recycling and import reliance to its formulas, USGS adds a single-producer check, and Australia and Canada add a test of domestic production potential.
How often are criticality assessments updated?
The EU has repeated its assessment about every three years since 2011, and its Act requires a review by 24 May 2027. U.S. lists appeared in 2018, 2022 and 2025. DOE published strategies in 2010 and 2011 and a later assessment in July 2023.
Sources
Read on October 12, 2026. Figures on this page come from these documents; where a number is an estimate, the source says so.
- National Academies: Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy (2008). Catalog page read; the full report was not
- U.S. Department of Energy: 2011 Critical Materials Strategy, summary. PDF read
- U.S. Department of Energy: Critical Materials Assessment (July 2023). Listed as a later assessment; not read for this page
- European Commission: Study on the Critical Raw Materials for the EU 2023
- USGS Open-File Report 2025-1047
- Federal Register: Final 2025 List of Critical Minerals
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1252, Annexes I and II
