Recycling helps recover valuable materials, cut waste, and support clean energy. With stricter sustainability rules, governments are pushing for greener solutions. EV companies are also focusing on battery recycling. This helps lower supply chain emissions and cut their carbon footprint.
Thus, battery recycling has become essential for a greener future. We have studied the Lithium-ion battery recycling report by the Chemical Abstracts Service aka CAS (a division of the American Chemical Society) and Deloitte. It provides insights into key growth drivers, emissions impact, and the current and future outlook of the market. Let’s dive in!
What’s Driving the EV Battery Recycling Market?
EV batteries have valuable metals, such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel. However, getting rid of them is difficult and this is where recycling comes in use. Thus, the rising need for these energy metals is the key driver for the EV battery recycling market.
This approach reduces waste, conserves resources, and supports a more sustainable supply chain. As demand for EVs grows, so does the need for efficient battery recycling to lessen reliance on mining.
Notably, strict environmental rules are also driving manufacturers to adopt greener practices. Advancements in recycling technology are helping recover more metal. This makes the process cheaper and better for businesses. On a global scale, many countries are promoting a circular economy.
Supply and demand gap for critical minerals
Asia-Pacific Leads in Battery Recycling
In 2023, Asia-Pacific led the battery recycling market. High EV adoption in China, Japan, and South Korea increased demand for recycling. The region produces many end-of-life batteries as a major EV and battery manufacturer.
Strong government support, incentives, and environmental awareness are driving growth. Investments in recycling technology and infrastructure further strengthen the region’s lead. This is evident from more patents than research papers.
Geographical distribution of publications in the field of lithium-ion battery (LIB) recycling
The Top Player: Brunp Recycling Technology
China’s Brunp Recycling Technology, a subsidiary of CATL, is a top player in battery recycling. The company focuses on four major areas of battery material development:
-
Ultra-High Nickel: Increases nickel content while reducing cobalt to boost battery capacity.
-
High Voltage: Raises the charging voltage limit while maintaining safety and performance.
-
Intelligent Management: Uses digital tools and smart systems for efficient operations.
-
Emerging Materials: Develop new materials for various applications, continuously improving energy density.
These advancements help improve battery performance, efficiency, and sustainability. Notably, Japan’s Sumitomo Metal Mining follows as another key company in this field.
Global Regulations Powering Battery Recycling
Governments are tightening laws to improve battery recycling. Policies like Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) require manufacturers to handle waste management. EPR makes producers responsible for collecting and recycling their lithium-ion batteries. This encourages sustainable manufacturing and proper disposal.
New rules in the EU, U.S., and Asia are shaping the industry:
China’s Leadership
China introduced key recycling laws as early as 2016. In 2018, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) set strict rules for battery handling, recycling traceability, and technical standards. The 2020 Solid Waste Pollution Law stopped waste imports and boosted recycling. Also, the Circular Economy Development Plan (2021-2025) prioritizes battery reuse. In 2024, MIIT suggested new standards for recycling waste batteries. They are now being reviewed.
EU Regulations
In 2023, the EU launched New Battery Regulations. These rules address the whole lifecycle of batteries, from design to end-of-life. By 2027, manufacturers must recover 50% of lithium from old batteries and 80% by 2031. Companies need to track their batteries’ carbon footprint and meet recycling content targets by 2025. Additionally, by 2027, a digital battery passport will improve transparency and traceability.
U.S. Policies
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates lithium-ion battery (LIB) recycling under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In 2023, the U.S. issued federal guidelines clarifying how hazardous waste laws apply to LIBs. The EPA plans to introduce a dedicated LIB recycling policy by mid-2025.
India and South Korea are working on policies to support LIB recycling.
Making EVs Greener: Decarbonizing the Battery Supply Chains
The report has highlighted the most critical information on EVs. EVs have no tailpipe emissions. However, making their batteries does create a lot of carbon emissions.
- Lithium-ion battery production accounts for 40-60% of an EV’s total emissions.
Top automakers are now focusing on sustainable sourcing and recycling. As EV demand rises, battery recycling will be crucial for cutting carbon footprints and securing raw materials. And this is why regulators and investors are also pushing for cleaner supply chains.
Slashing Emissions and Saving Resources
Recycling lithium-ion batteries is much better for the environment than mining new metals. A study from Stanford University, published in Nature Communications, found that recycling creates less than half the emissions of traditional mining. It also uses only one-fourth of the water and energy.
The benefits are even bigger when recycling scrap from manufacturing. Scrap-based recycling created just 19% of the emissions, used 12% of the water, and needed only 11% of the energy compared to mining. Using less energy also means fewer air pollutants. So, battery recycling is a cleaner and smarter choice.
- The study concluded that recycling reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 58–81% and cuts water use by 72–88%.
The CAS report also published a 2023 study by Fraunhofer IWKS that evaluated the life-cycle environmental impact of three major battery recycling methods- Pyrometallurgy, Hydrometallurgy, and Direct recycling. The two significant deductions are:
- Recycling 1 kg of lithium batteries can reduce carbon emissions by 2.7 to 4.6 kg CO₂ equivalent.
- Direct recycling is the most effective method for the environment.
Life-cycle environmental impacts of different recycling routes of LIBs
Making Battery Recycling Profitable
Battery recycling has three phases: high-cost investment, break-even, and strong profits. Initially, recyclers invest heavily to set up facilities and meet regulations.
They can start making money by cutting costs, recovering valuable metals, and reducing waste. Costs depend on transport, labor, battery design, and recycling methods. Recyclers can stay profitable by automating tasks, lowering transport costs, and using advanced technology.
Batteries with valuable metals like cobalt and copper, such as NMC and NCA, offer quick returns. In contrast, LFP batteries provide better long-term benefits when reused before recycling.
Choosing the right recycling method—pyrometallurgy, hydrometallurgy, or direct recycling—can boost efficiency. Studies show recycling offers environmental benefits worth $3 to $11 per kWh. However, this also depends on carbon pricing and market trends.
Net recycling profit comparison
Subsequently, recyclers should focus on improving their processes. They also need to form partnerships to strengthen their business.
The Future of Battery Recycling: Turning Challenges into Opportunities
Battery recycling faces hurdles like high costs, complex processes, and inefficient collection. Various battery designs and hazardous materials add further challenges. New technology, digital tools, and teamwork in the industry are making recycling cheaper and easier.
Polaris Market Research reports the EV battery recycling market was $8.89 billion in 2023. It is set to grow from $11.09 billion in 2024 to $65.71 billion by 2032, with a 24.9% annual growth rate.
Digital Tools Improve Efficiency
Traditional recycling relies on slow, expensive, and unsafe manual processes. Digital tools are transforming this by tracking materials, automating sorting, and improving disassembly. These innovations enhance efficiency and help companies comply with strict regulations, reducing legal risks.
For example, digital twins optimize processes, blockchain ensures traceability and cloud platforms enable real-time tracking. Umicore uses AI and cloud solutions. CATL, on the other hand, uses blockchain to track materials.
Similarly, companies like Redwood Materials, BYD, and Toyota use AI to predict optimal recycling timelines.
The Power of Industry Collaboration
The disrupted supply chain remains a major challenge. In China, only 25% of retired EV batteries go through formal recycling channels. Companies are making batteries easier to recycle. They are also working together in the supply chain to solve this issue.
In October 2023, Stellantis and Orano teamed up to recycle EV batteries and factory scrap in Europe and North America. Such collaborations are driving a more sustainable and scalable battery recycling industry.
Similarly, last December Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. resumed its collaboration with Glencore International AG, (a subsidiary of Glencore plc). Both companies will evaluate the feasibility of building a new Hub facility in Portovesme, Italy that could potentially produce critical battery materials such as lithium, nickel, and cobalt from recycled battery content.
The post Are EVs Truly Green? How Battery Recycling is Powering a Cleaner Future appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits