Why aggregate figures mislead
A process can claim that a high percentage of battery mass is recycled simply because steel casings, aluminium and copper are heavy and easy to recover. Meanwhile lithium or graphite may be lost to slag, effluent or residue without affecting the headline much at all. An aggregate figure hides that difference, which is why per-metal recovery gives a far more honest picture of how well a process performs where it matters most.
The EU Battery Regulation reflects this by setting both overall recycling efficiency targets and specific material recovery targets for lithium, cobalt, nickel and copper. Buyers, producers and investors should expect recyclers to report in the same structured way, rather than relying on a single impressive number that cannot be traced back to what was actually recovered for reuse in new products.
| Reporting choice | Effect on the headline figure |
|---|---|
| Aggregate mass instead of per metal | Inflated by heavy, easy streams |
| Boundary starting at black mass | Excludes pretreatment losses |
| Counting product not yet refined | Overstates final recovery |
| Ignoring moisture in inputs | Distorts the denominator |
Defining the boundary and the denominator
The denominator should be the quantity of each metal contained in the input, established by assay or credible composition data. The boundary must be stated clearly: a figure measured from black mass to refined salt excludes everything lost during dismantling, shredding and separation, while a figure measured from pack intake captures the whole chain and is usually noticeably lower. Both can be legitimate, but they are not interchangeable.
Outputs should only count as recovered when metal leaves the process in a form that can genuinely be used again, such as battery-grade salts or intermediates sold for further refining. Material sent for disposal, stockpiled indefinitely or trapped in residues has not been recovered, however it is described in a brochure. Precision on these points is what makes recovery claims comparable between facilities and credible to auditors.
Field note
Evidence that supports a claim
Credible recovery figures rest on assays of inputs and outputs, a reconciled mass balance and documented process losses. Independent verification or certification adds further confidence. Figures should be reported over a meaningful period, such as a quarter or a full year, rather than selected from the best-performing batch, because batch-to-batch variation in feed chemistry can move results considerably. Annual figures smooth that variation and are harder to cherry-pick.
When comparing recyclers, ask for the method, boundary, period and evidence behind every figure. A slightly lower number supported by transparent reporting is far more useful than an impressive claim that cannot be traced. Producers who repeat recovery figures in their own sustainability disclosures carry the reputational risk if those figures prove to be wrong, so diligence at this stage is time well spent.
- Input and output assays for each reporting period
- Reconciled mass balance with stated losses
- A clear boundary and definition of recovered output
- Independent verification where available