KLRI outlines four pillars of battery circularity system in Korea

A researcher from the Korea Legislation Research Institute (KLRI), Im Dan-bi, has outlined four foundational pillars of the battery circularity system implemented in Korea, which could serve as a reference for Indonesia in building a sustainable battery industry. Dan-bi noted that the circularity chain of battery production is currently a focus for battery manufacturing industries in various countries to reduce external dependence on the battery value chain and secure industrial competitiveness. In Korea, four pillars with supporting systems and instruments underpin battery circularity. The first is a collection system that forms a battery recycling industry, which must be operated under Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). “The main point here is clarity regarding who bears that responsibility. If the responsible party is unclear, the collection system will struggle to operate stably, and it will be difficult to secure the volume supply and investment signals needed for the recycling industry,” Dan-bi said at the Korea-Indonesia Economic Partnership Forum in Jakarta on Wednesday. EPR, or the system of producer responsibility in recycling, is a regulatory instrument that guarantees this collection process. EPR is not merely a regulation for producers but an instrument to internalise external costs by charging the costs of collecting and managing end-of-life batteries to producers, while simultaneously bringing those batteries into the circularity system. When designing EPR, it is necessary to determine who bears the responsibility—whether vehicle manufacturers, battery producers, or importers—and to define its scope, covering electric vehicle batteries, energy storage systems, and other products. The second pillar is safety regulation, as electric vehicle batteries are economically valuable assets but carry risks of high voltage and fire. If the collection of used batteries is mandated without considering these characteristics, businesses may face unpredictable safety and legal liabilities. “Safety standards must cover the entire process, from the state of charge and damage inspection during transport to safety requirements in the dismantling process,” she added. Dan-bi explained that the third pillar requires an evaluation system for the proper management of end-of-life batteries, diagnosing their current condition—such as capacity, internal resistance, and thermal stability—contained within a battery passport. By combining this information, batteries can be allocated to the most suitable pathway, for example, reuse, remanufacturing, or material recycling. The fourth pillar involves policy instruments to expand the use of recycled raw materials in battery production. The choice of policy instrument depends on the maturity of the market. “In the early stages, incentives and public procurement can drive private investment, while a recycled material certification system can help build market-based demand before mandatory regulations are applied,” she said. Dan-bi stated that these four pillars demonstrate a paradigm shift in battery policy, where batteries are no longer viewed merely as waste but as strategic material assets. However, a battery circularity system cannot be realised through technology or markets alone; it must be built together with a legal and policy framework that drives the system organically. The development of battery circularity will ultimately guarantee resource security and cost savings through the recovery of critical minerals from urban mining, increase industrial added value by integrating recycled materials into production, and serve as a means to respond to global regulations concerning carbon footprints and recycled content requirements.