As demand for lithium, nickel and other critical minerals surges, there is a nascent but growing appetite from industry to better understand where these materials come from. A new OECD report assesses how the private sector is implementing traceability and equips policymakers to identify where traceability is necessary and how to apply it to establish more resilient critical mineral supply chains.
Progress promising but faces obstacles
In practice, companies and governments are able to build a partial picture of the critical minerals supply chain using a combination of supply chain mapping, mass balance accounting and auditing, often as part of their existing due diligence efforts. Promising models are emerging too: Indonesia's government-led SIMBARA platform sits alongside a growing web of industry and multi-stakeholder responsible sourcing systems. They offer a solid foundation to build on.
Nearly all companies along the supply chain collect country of origin data but data on physical transformation, tax payments and ownership structures is considerably less consistent. Practice also varies sharply by segment. Uptake is strongest among traders who report the highest implementation rates, and weakest among miners.1
Despite this uptake, there are substantial barriers to the uptake of traceability. More than half of survey respondents identify costs and lack of interoperability as barriers to setting up traceability systems. The operation of such systems is further constrained by confidentiality concerns, supplier leverage and data quality concerns. Half of survey respondents rank regulatory consistency as the top priority for scaling traceability, with a similar share citing shared data infrastructure.
Ownership opacity is a significant blind spot. Complex and layered corporate structures obscure who ultimately controls key mineral assets, particularly along nickel supply chains. This matters for both responsible sourcing and economic security.
Market pressure is a key driver of traceability
More than 60% of companies surveyed identify brand reputation or customer demand as their main reason for establishing traceability systems. With regulatory compliance following at around 40%, this survey suggests that private-sector adoption is being led by commercial incentives rather than compliance obligations. This is especially important considering that more than 70% of respondents observe no price differentiation for material from certified mines.
Nonetheless, nearly three quarters plan to increase traceability investment over the next three years. This provides a clear window of opportunity for policy makers to engage with this issue and develop effective traceability architecture accompanied by incentives oriented around access to market and investment.
The case for risk-based traceability
Full traceability from mine to finished product is virtually non-existent and unfeasible in most circumstances. Costs, limited interoperability between systems and confidentiality concerns are all cited by companies as barriers. At the same time, complex ownership structures, particularly in nickel supply chains, can make it hard to see who ultimately controls an asset.
A hybrid approach is more consistent with a risk-based standard and more cost-effective. Supply chain mapping, mass balance accounting and due diligence auditing can operate in combination, with identity preservation reserved for the most sensitive materials and highest-risk segments. These instruments are already in use.
The OECD traceability roadmap
The report provides policymakers with a roadmap for identifying when traceability is needed and how to apply it effectively, following a targeted approach calibrated to the risk profile and strategic sensitivity of each material.
In the near term, governments can leverage what is already in place: trade data and supplier mapping to monitor processing dependencies, audit programmes to strengthen country-of-origin disclosure at smelters and refiners, and bilateral agreements and development finance to embed RBC standards.
In the medium term, the priority is closing data gaps. That means deeper engagement with traders, exchanges and smelters, stronger beneficial ownership transparency for complex joint structures, independent mineral testing and tracking of recycled content.
In the longer term, the measures requiring international cooperation: interoperable data platforms, identity preservation for the most sensitive materials, and digital product passports for batteries and other high-impact products, aligned with international standards.
Traceability in action – lithium and nickel
This work is closely aligned with the direction set by G7 leaders. In their June 2026 declaration on securing supply chains for critical minerals, leaders committed to working towards harmonised, interoperable mechanisms that promote traceability without undermining competitiveness or imposing excessive cost burdens.
The OECD will continue to work with governments, industry and civil society to operationalise these recommendations and facilitate more transparent, resilient and responsible critical mineral supply chains.
Discover more in the OECD report Enhancing Resilience Through Traceability: Insights from Lithium and Nickel Supply Chains in Latin America and Southeast Asia.
1 Responses to the OECD-IEA survey of over 90 companies showed highest uptake of traceability measures among traders (92%), followed by smelters and refiners (70%), manufacturers (70%) and miners (55%).