Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are a cornerstone technology for decarbonizing transport and stationary energy storage, and the EU Battery Regulation (2023/1542) now makes quantifying their product carbon footprint (PCF) a legal obligation. Yet the environmental and economic performance of LIB cells is not intrinsic to the technology: it depends on cell chemistry and format, component quality, raw material and production locations, and regulatory context. While the technical evolution of cells is documented dynamically, life cycle assessment (LCA/PCF) and life cycle costing (LCC) studies largely treat these determinants as static snapshots, risking biased, backward-looking results that may mislead investment and policy decisions. This paper addresses that gap through a State-of-the-Art-review of the key determinants of LIB cell PCF and LCC along four dimensions: technology, supply-chain geography, regulation, and foresight. The boundaries were defined as cradle-to-gate, with a functional unit of 1 kWh of produced cell capacity. Using a documented Boolean search in Web of Science and Scopus, 13 peer-reviewed studies (2017–2026) were identified and appraised against a structured evaluation matrix. No study jointly integrates both indicators (PCF/LCA and LCC) with all four determinants coherently; production geography, technological trajectories, and regulatory instruments are typically invoked descriptively rather than modeled quantitatively. The publication defines the methodological frontier and outlines an agenda for dynamic, reproducible, and integrated PCF–LCC-technology-quality assessment of battery supply chains.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mussehl et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: