The global rise of electric mobility is increasingly bringing the recycling of drive batteries into the focus of industrial, environmental and raw materials policy debates. As the number of end-of-life batteries grows, not only is the need for functioning recycling structures increasing, but so is the strategic importance of secondary raw materials such as lithium, nickel, cobalt and manganese. Particularly in East Asia – a key region for battery production and electric mobility – a wide variety of policy approaches can be observed.

This article compares the governance and policy landscape regarding the recycling of end-of-life electric vehicle batteries in China, South Korea and Japan. It focuses on the stakeholders involved, the regulatory framework, the policy instruments employed and the overarching strategic objectives. Figure 1 provides a comparative overview of the different policy approaches in the three countries.

China: Systemic governance across the entire value chain

China occupies a unique position in global battery recycling. As the world’s largest market for electric vehicles (EVs) and a leading battery producer, the country was confronted with significant volumes of end-of-life batteries at an early stage. The regulatory framework is correspondingly comprehensive.

A central component is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which obliges Chinese battery and vehicle manufacturers to take back, track and recycle end-of-life batteries. This is supplemented by a national traceability system, technical standards and a state-controlled whitelist system for approved recycling companies. China is thus pursuing a strong top-down approach that regulates the entire life cycle of batteries.

Also striking is the close interlinking of industrial, environmental and raw materials policy. In China, recycling is not primarily viewed as waste management, but as a strategic tool for securing material supplies, promoting industrial value creation , and supporting national climate targets. Financial incentives, tax relief and targeted demonstration projects complement the regulatory requirements.

At the same time, challenges remain: a significant proportion of used batteries still ends up in informal recycling networks, and regional differences in the implementation of the regulations make uniform enforcement difficult. Nevertheless, China demonstrates how an integrated policy mix can enable the rapid development of large-scale recycling capacities.

South Korea: Recycling as a cornerstone of industrial competitiveness

South Korea is pursuing a markedly different approach. Although the domestic market for electric vehicles is still comparatively small, South Korea ranks among the world’s leading battery producers. Accordingly, battery recycling here is primarily driven by the need to secure raw materials and safeguard global market positions through industrial policy.

The political focus is on establishing clearly regulated, transparent life-cycle management for batteries. In recent years, South Korea has implemented extensive legislative changes to gradually reclassify end-of-life batteries not as waste, but as a circular resource. Key elements include mandatory performance assessments of batteries, state certification systems for recycled materials, and digital tracking and data platforms.

Unlike China, South Korea places greater emphasis on clearly defined responsibilities, regulatory standards and measurable targets. The government sets ambitious quantitative targets – such as the recycling volume of critical raw materials or the full recyclability of secondary batteries by 2030 – and supports these with targeted funding and demonstration programmes. Demonstration programmes are state-supported, practical pilot projects designed to test and further develop technical and organisational innovations in battery recycling and, above all, to present them to the public and raise their profile. What is striking here is that the state plays a strong role as as coordinator and regulator, whilst market-oriented instruments play a subordinate role.

Japan: Strategic ambitions, limited regulation

Japan occupies a special position in comparison. Despite a high-performing battery and automotive industry, the uptake of electric vehicles in Japan has so far been low. Consequently, the policy measures for recycling EV batteries are also less concrete.

Although battery recycling is mentioned in various strategy documents and support programmes – particularly in the context of decarbonisation and raw material security – there are hardly any binding requirements or specific collection and recycling obligations for end-of-life EV batteries in Japan. The focus is instead on research and development, technological innovation and international cooperation.

Industry initiatives and voluntary programmes play an important role, but a consistent regulatory framework is still lacking. At the same time, Japan is increasingly preparing for international requirements, such as those relating to carbon footprinting, transparency obligations and potential battery passport systems, which are particularly relevant for access to European markets.

The Japanese approach is thus strongly long-term in nature, but remains comparatively vague in terms of operational implementation.

Three countries, three policy logics

Figure 2 illustrates how different policy instruments are deployed across the battery life cycle in the three countries.

The comparison shows that the recycling of electric vehicle batteries is anchored in policy in very different ways:

• China relies on comprehensive state control, scaling and industrial integration.
• South Korea uses recycling specifically to safeguard technological and industrial competitiveness.
• Japan is pursuing a cautious, research- and future-oriented approach with limited regulation to date.

These differences reflect not only differing market and industrial positions but also diverging political priorities. For Europe and other regions, the comparison offers valuable insights into how battery recycling can be shaped as a strategic policy area – and what conflicting objectives arise in the process.

Implications for Germany and the European Union

With the EU Battery Regulation, the European Union also has a legal framework that is far-reaching by international standards, covering the entire battery life cycle and combining obligations on collection, recycling, material recovery, use of recycled materials and transparency tools. The Critical Raw Materials Act complements this with an explicit raw materials and resilience perspective and sets out, among other things, a 2030 target whereby 25 per cent of the EU’s strategic raw material consumption use should be sourced from recycling.

The actual lessons to be learnt from China, South Korea and Japan therefore lie less in ‘stricter’ recycling targets rather than in the concrete design of enforcement, market facilitation and industrial policy support. China demonstrates how state-controlled traceability with digital identity for traction batteries can strengthen enforcement across collection, use and recycling. South Korea is particularly interesting in that used vehicle batteries are treated more leniently under regulation as ‘circular resources’ and are thus to be removed more quickly from the traditional waste regime for reuse, second life and recycling. Japan, on the other hand, places greater emphasis on data infrastructures, traceability and the international interoperability of battery passport and LCA systems.

For Europe, the implication is that it is not the fundamental direction of regulation that needs to be reinvented, but rather its operational implementation. Particularly relevant would be clearer and more investment-friendly regulations governing the transition of end-of-life batteries or battery fractions from waste status to usable secondary raw materials, a more enforcement-oriented digital traceability system, and closer integration of recycling regulations, second-life markets and industrial policy. Europe’s strength today lies primarily in the normative setting of binding obligations. The East Asian examples, by contrast, show how regulation can be translated more quickly into functioning circular markets, industrial scaling and actual raw material recovery.

The data used comes from the research project BETSY (funding 03XP0540B) funded by the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space.