ReviewEES batteries2026
Towards a courageous EU policy for recycling spent lithium-ion batteries: rethinking dismantling, standardization, and responsibility.
Review in EES batteries, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid expansion of electric mobility across Europe is generating, and is expected to generate, unprecedented volumes of end-of-life lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), exposing structural weaknesses in the European Union's regulatory and industrial framework for battery recycling. We have crossed the point at which electric vehicles, for the first time, have out-sold petrol vehicles in Europe. Recent EU initiatives, including the Batteries Regulation, introduce significant advances, including carbon footprint reporting, mandatory recycled content, digital battery passports, sustainability and circularity requirements, and stronger extended producer responsibility. The heterogeneity of battery designs is widely recognized as a key constraint affecting dismantling efficiency, automation feasibility, and material recovery outcomes. These design issues directly impede automation, depress material recovery yields, and undermine the EU's circular economy and industrial sovereignty objectives. Drawing on assertive industrial policies, this paper argues that the EU should adopt a bolder stance. It proposes the introduction of harmonised design-for-disassembly requirements for all batteries placed on the EU internal market, alongside a reform of Extended Producer Responsibility and waste classification to recognise spent batteries as strategic secondary raw materials. It also calls for the development of publicly supported robotised dismantling hubs. The paper argues that the main limitation of current EU battery policy lies not only in downstream recycling performance, but more fundamentally in the absence of binding upstream design requirements that determine whether dismantling, and therefore high-quality recycling, can be technically and economically achieved.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.