Pressure to decarbonise copper supply chains is rising – driven by policy, disclosure requirements and customer procurement expectations. Yet ‘low‑emissions copper’ still lacks a widely accepted definition. In our latest analysis, we set out why that definition matters, what ‘good’ could look like in practice and why aligning the industry with climate targets requires a step change rather than incremental improvement.
A common definition is becoming unavoidable
Refined copper production accounts for ~0.2% of total global anthropogenic emissions – non‑negligible in absolute terms and increasingly important as copper demand rises with electrification and the wider energy transition. Buyers are also asking for more than a headline number – they want comparable emissions data, credible mitigation plans and product claims that stand up to scrutiny.
Without a shared, credible definition, ‘low‑carbon’ risks becoming a marketing label rather than a procurement standard. We hope our work can contribute to that debate.
A practical boundary: Cradle‑to‑gate, with clear scope coverage
A workable standard needs a consistent system boundary. In our analysis, cradle‑to‑gate covers emissions from upstream production through to refined copper at the facility gate, including Scope 1, Scope 2 and selected Scope 3 sources (e.g. such as transport and downstream smelting/refining).
This matters because different boundaries, or allocation choices at multi‑metal sites, can meaningfully change the reported intensity of individual supply chains – even when underlying operations are unchanged.
Our base case: Copper is not decarbonising fast enough
Our base case forecast indicates the global copper industry is on a >+3.0°C temperature pathway out to 2050 and beyond. We see cradle‑to‑gate emissions intensity remaining relatively stable through to mid‑century, while demand grows (n.b. forecast at ~1% per year from 2024 to 2050), meaning absolute emissions pressure persists despite some progress on Scope 2 mitigation.
The structural headwinds are well understood – declining ore grades increase the amount of material that must be mined and processed per tonne of refined copper. Some haulage routes cannot readily adopt trolley assist, and pyrometallurgical processes require high temperatures and reducing conditions (n.b. often reliant on coke and natural gas) that are not always straightforward to fully electrify.
What ‘Paris‑aligned’ could mean in numbers
Using an approach that allocates all site emissions to copper as the main product, we estimate industry‑average cradle‑to‑gate intensity at ~4.3 tCO2e/t copper in 2024. To align with a <+2.0°C pathway, our analysis suggests an industry‑wide target of ~1.2 tCO2/t copper by 2040—a reduction of over 70% in intensity.
Critically, this is not a standard that only a small group of leading assets can meet. Any meaningful pathway requires deep reductions across a large share of global capacity, not just best‑in‑class operations.
What this means for producers and buyers
For producers, a clear benchmark helps prioritise investment across power sourcing, electrification, fuel switching and process changes, while acknowledging the ‘hard‑to‑abate’ realities of parts of the value chain. For buyers, it creates a clearer basis for supplier engagement, tender requirements and product claims rooted in transparent boundaries and trajectories.
The next step for the industry is less about debating whether low‑carbon copper matters and more about agreeing how it is defined, measured and governed.
If you are interested in exploring more of CRU’s commodity insights, request a demo here.
