Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 700–704

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Procedia CIRP
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/procir

Decentralized Planning of Lithium-Ion Battery Production and

Recycling
Christian Scheller a,∗, Kerstin Schmidt a, Christoph Herrmann b, Thomas S. Spengler a
a
Institute of Automotive Management and Industrial Production, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig 38106, Germany
b
Institute of Machine Tools and Production Technology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig 38106, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Recycling of lithium-ion batteries enables the recovery of scarce raw materials with lower economic,
Production planning ecological, and social impacts compared to the primary production. However, the full potential of the re-
Recycling planning
cycling can only be reached through cooperation between forward and reverse supply chain. Due to the
Closed-loop supply chain
autonomy of the different companies, the decision-making process in such cooperation is decentralized.
Lithium-ion batteries
In practice, this leads to inefficiencies. Therefore, this contribution aims develop models for the decentral-
ized planning of production and recycling, which are suitable for the application of lithium-ion batteries,
and use them to analyze inefficiencies based on a case study.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

1. Introduction current industry’s practice, the original equipment manufacturer

The electrification of vehicles leads to increasing demand and
hence, increasing return of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). These bat-
teries contain a large variety of scarce raw materials like lithium,
cobalt, nickel, and graphite (Diekmann et al., 2017). The mining
and further processing of these raw materials are related to eco-
logic and social impacts, such as child labor and terrestrial acidi-
fication (Thies et al., 2019, Kwade and Dieckmann, 2018). Further-
more, these raw materials come with a high price, resulting in high
material cost, which makes up to 65% of the combined produc-
tion cost of a battery pack (Berckmans et al., 2017). Hence, recy-
cling, remanufacturing, reuse, and 2nd -life applications have a sig-
nificant opportunity to recover the materials with lower economic,
ecologic, and social impacts compared to primary production.
To ensure a sustainable treatment of spent batteries, different
legal regulations have been enforced over the last decades. For
example, the European Union passed the Directive 2006/66/EC,
which regulates the responsibilities and requirements for the re-
turn and treatment process. It obliges producers of batteries to
take back spent batteries and secure an adequate treatment. In par-
ticular, the treatment of LIB for electric vehicles (EV) is restricted
by minimal recycling efficiency and disposal prohibition. In the
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: christian.scheller@tu-braunschweig.de (C. Scheller).
(OEM) of an EV is responsible for ensuring the legal requirements,
but it usually transfers the take-back and treatment to companies
of the reverse supply chain. Therefore, production and recycling
are widely uncoupled. Due to rising material prices and potential
supply shortages, OEMs are currently intensifying their efforts re-
garding the end-of-life (EOL) of LIB. This results in increasing inter-
dependencies between the production of EVs and the recycling of
LIBs. Besides, companies of the forward and reverse supply chain
face further challenges due to uncertainties regarding the return of
spent LIBs. These uncertainties exist regarding the amount, type,
and quality of the spent LIBs.
The increasing interdependencies between forward and reverse
supply chain and the new challenges necessitate a coordinated ap-
proach over all companies. Especially, the decision on executed
EOL-options is affected because the decision is made by the re-
verse supply chain, but the demand arises from the forward supply
chain. This decision is part of the short-term production and recy-
cling planning. However, current practice in short-term planning
is local optimization without coordination between the companies.
Such approaches usually lead to inefficiencies in the supply chain
(Voigt and Inderfurth, 2011).
Therefore, this contribution aims to present a model for decen-
tralized production and recycling planning and analyze the effect
of decentralized decision-making under consideration of the chal-
lenges in the short-term planning based on this model.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.01.075
2212-8271/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
 C. Scheller, K. Schmidt and C. Herrmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 700–704
The remainder of this paper is structured, as follows: in chap-
ter 2, approaches for the production and recycling planning are
analyzed. In chapter 3, we formulate a new approach for decen-
tralized production and recycling planning. In chapter 4, economic
challenges and the impact on ecologic aspects of the EOL-options
for LIBs are analyzed in a given case study. The paper closes with
a conclusion and an outlook in chapter 5.
2. Production and recycling planning
Production planning is a key problem for research since the
mid-20th century. It aims to balance the available capacity with
the demand under consideration of cost minimization or con-
tribution margin maximization (Stadtler et al., 2015). Therefore,
the decisions on executed production activities and stock lev-
els need to be made. Furthermore, the decision on procure-
ment quantities is often integrated into planning. In order to
ensure long-term profitability, ecologic and social goals are de-
fined by companies. These non-economic goals can be consid-
ered in two ways in the short-term planning. First, falling be-
low the target value is possible/permitted. In this case, penalty
costs, which are part of the objective, arise corresponding to the
underperformance. Second, falling below the target value is not
allowed. In this case, restrictions need to be considered accord-
ing to the minimum level of a goal, such as a maximum of CO2
emissions.
Due to the increasing importance of the EOL, production plan-
ning approaches were adopted in the form of recycling planning.
According to production planning, recycling planning aims to bal-
ance the available capacity with demand. Nevertheless, the plan-
ning problems differ due to different considered activities and
challenges. However, interdependencies between recycling plan-
ning and production planning are neglected. Therefore, integrated
production and recycling planning aims to consider both planning
problems simultaneously. Hence, it must be decided whether new
parts or (remanufactured) spent parts are used. In the following,
we will give an overview of optimization models with a focus on
integrated production and recycling planning.
A variety of approaches investigates manufacturing-
remanufacturing systems (Chang et al., 2015, Hilger et al., 2016).
The integration of recycling as an output stream of the model is
given in Steinborn (2019). Explicit integration of recycling as a
plannable process is integrated into a few optimization models
for integrated planning (Kwak and Kim, 2017). Although, many
approaches for non-integrated recycling planning consider the
recycling explicit, e.g., (Spengler and Rentz, 1996, Meyer et al.,
2016, Walther et al., 2009). Regardless of the considered activity,
the way returned products enter the system affects the planning.
In this context, return can be either deterministic (Chen and
Abrishami, 2014, Sun et al., 2017) or stochastic (Han et al., 2016,
Liu et al., 2019). The return often varies according to the quantity,
but it can also vary according to the quality, which affects the
activities and sales. Two different approaches to the integration of
qualities can be observed. First, the quality only differs between
new and spent/remanufactured as in Liu et al. (2019) and Wang
et al. (2017). Second, quality can be within a range of discrete
levels. Han et al. use discrete quality levels to decide whether a
returned product is assigned to the recycling or remanufacturing
(Han et al., 2016). However, they do not consider discrete quality
levels in sales. Steinborn gives this extension and considers the
discrete amount of different quality levels from the return until
the sales (Steinborn, 2019). However, the consideration of recycling
efficiency into integrated planning is still missing. Nevertheless,
examples can be found in the recycling planning for the waste of
electrical and electronic equipment (Walther et al., 2009).
701
3. Model formulation
3.1. Setting
We consider a closed-loop supply chain consisting of a pro-
ducer and a recycler of LIBs (see Fig. 1). Our approach is based
on the integrated production and recycling planning by Steinborn
(Steinborn, 2019) and extends it by recycling processes, recycling
efficiencies, and decentralization of the decision making process.
In this case, recycling efficiency and disposal prohibition need to
be considered in order to ensure economic profitability as it is the
current state of the art. If further ecologic or social goals are de-
fined by a company, the models can be extended easily. In the fol-
lowing, we present the general structure of the model, including
decisions and restrictions.
The producer can perform two activities. First, they are able
to produce objects. Second, they can substitute objects to lower
quality in order to meet low-quality demand with high-quality
objects. The different available activities are assigned to at least
one segment. Hence, not every activity can be performed in ev-
ery segment. Furthermore, they are capable of storing objects in
the segments. These activities are bounded by technical and in-
ventory capacity. Under consideration of available activities and ca-
pacities, the producer decides on production amounts, substitution
amounts, transportation between segments, procurement from pri-
mary supplier, and sales. The least is bounded by demand.
After the use of the LIB, the recycler takes back the spent bat-
teries. Using the returned LIBs, they are capable of performing
disassembly, recycling, remanufacturing, and substitution activities.
According to the production, each activity is assigned to at least
one segment. Furthermore, they are capable of storing objects in
the segments. Besides technical and inventory capacity, the recy-
cling system is bounded by recycling efficiency and disposal pro-
hibition. Under consideration of the boundaries, the recycler de-
cides on disassembly amounts, recycling amounts, remanufacturing
amounts, substitution amounts, transportation between segments,
procurement, sales of recycling residues, and disposal amounts.
In addition to the individual decisions, producer and recycler
together need to decide on the traded objects between both com-
panies (procurement from secondary supplier/ producer).
3.2. Assumptions
To ensure the recycling efficiency, we consider four assump-
tions.
First, we subdivide the qualities into two quality classes: return
quality q ∈ QQG and sales quality q ∈ QQV . Second, only objects in
return qualities q ∈ QQG can be recycled. Third, the input and the
output of a disassembly activity is always within the same quality
class as the input. Fourth, an object in sales quality cannot reach
return quality by any activity.
3.3. Optimization model
In order to enable decentralized planning, we formulate two in-
dividual deterministic linear programming models for the producer
and the recycler. Therefore, we develop different objective func-
tions, starting with production planning.
 
Max DBProd = aet pq · ytPpq + ktZpq · ytZpq
t p q t p q
 
+ kt2pq · yt2pq + kLit pq · yLit pq
t p q i t p q

+ H
ktn · βtqn (1)
t q n
702 C. Scheller, K. Schmidt and C. Herrmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 700–704
The objective function of the production (1) aims at maximiz-
ing the contribution margin consisting of five elements. First, rev-
enues arise from the sold objects ytPpq evaluated with the time-,
product-, and quality-specific revenues. Second, material costs from
primary suppliers arise from the procured objects ytZpq evaluated by
the time-, product-, and quality-specific price ktZpq . Third, material
costs from secondary suppliers arise from the procured objects yt2pq
evaluated by the time-, product-, and quality-specific price kt2pq .
Fourth, inventory holding costs arise from the stock level yLit pq at
the end of a period evaluated by segment-, time- product-, and
quality-specific holding cost factor kLit pq . Fifth, variable production
costs arising from the number of executions per production activity
β tqn evaluated by the time- and activity-specific production cost
H.
factor ktn
In the following, the objective function for the recycling is for-
mulated.
 
Max DBRec = aet pq · ytPpq +
t p q t p q
 
+ kLit pq · yLit pq +
t p q t
i
 
+ ktDj · λt j + ktlA · δtl +
t j t l
According to the production, the objective function of the recy-
cling (2) aims at maximizing the contribution margin consisting of
seven elements. First, revenues arise from the sold objects ytPpq eval-
uated with the time-, product-, and quality-specific revenues. Sec-
ond, material costs from primary suppliers arise from the procured
objects ytZpq evaluated by the time-, product-, and quality-specific
price ktZpq . Third, inventory holding costs arise from stock level yLit pq
at the end of a period evaluated by segment-, time- product-, and
quality-specific holding cost factor kLit pq . Fourth, disposal costs arise
from the disposed objects ytEpq evaluated by the time- and product-
Fig. 1. General structure of the setting.
specific disposal cost factor ktEp .Fifth, variable disassembly costs arise
from the number of executions per disassembly activity λtj evalu-
ated by the time- and activity-specific disassembly cost factor ktDj .
Sixth, variable remanufacturing costs arise from the number of exe-
cutions per remanufacturing activity δ tl evaluated by the time- and
activity-specific remanufacturing cost factor ktl A . Seventh, variable
recycling costs arise from the number of executions per recycling
activity α tu evaluated by the time- and activity-specific recycling
R .
cost factor ktu
The model for production planning contains 12 constraints,
and the model for the recycling planning model contains 13 con-
straints. The constraints can be divided into eight categories, which
we formulate verbally. First, one constraint ensures stock balance
considering previous stock, procured objects, sold objects, and the
transformation of objects by the activities. In the case of recycling,
disposal and return are added to the constraint.
Second, two constraints ensure only new components and raw
ktZpq · ytZpq materials can be procured from the primary supplier. Another con-
straint ensures each procured object is assigned to one segment.
Third, two constraints ensure the sales to be equal or smaller
ktEp · ytEpq
p q
than demand and each sold object is allocated from exactly one
 segment into sales.
R
ktu · αtu Fourth, two constraints ensure activities to be consistent with
t u
the technical and inventory capacity. Each segment has a technical
(2) capacity, which represents the bottleneck resource of the segment,
e.g., workers in the disassembly. Each activity loads on the capac-
ity and the total amount of load on the capacity may not exceed
the capacity. In the case of production planning, only production
activities load on the recycling. In the case of recycling planning,
disassembly, recycling, and remanufacturing load on the capacity.
The inventory capacity is segment-specific and regenerates each
period. Each object stored in the segment individually loads on the
inventory capacity depending on its weight. The total load may not
exceed inventory capacity.
Fifth, one constraint ensures all decision variables to be non-
negative.
 C. Scheller, K. Schmidt and C. Herrmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 700–704 703

Sixth, two constraints are added to the production planning Table 1

Production activity vector.
model. One to ensure products to be procured from the secondary
supplier in sales qualities unequal new and one to ensure that the Production activity n ∈ N
maximal quantity, which the secondary supplier is capable to pro- Object n=1 n=2 n=3 n=4
vide, is not exceeded. Another constraint ensures each procured LIB (large) 1
object is assigned to exactly one segment. LIB (small) 1
Seventh, two constraints are added to the recycling planning Housing (large) -1
Housing (small) -1
model to ensure each return is either assigned to disposal or a
Cable set (large) -1
segment and the total amount of disposed objects equals the di- Cable set (small) -1
rect disposed and from a segment disposed objects. BMS (large) -1
Eighth, two constraints are added to the recycling planning BMS (small) -1
Cover (large) -1
model to ensure recycling plans to follow the legal requirements
Cover (small) -1
of recycling efficiency and disposal prohibition. For the recycling Battery pack -45 -30 1
efficiency, a given share of the input must be recovered by recy- Pack junctions -1
cling. Because one recycler usually cannot recycle all objects, sold Pack periphery -1
recycling residues also contribute to the recycling efficiency by a Battery cell -10 1
Electrolyte -0.083
given factor.
Plastics -0.038
Graphite -0.082
4. Case study Copper -0.092
Manganese -0.028
Lithium -0.010
4.1. Considered setup
Cobalt -0.031
Nickel -0.031
In the following, we present a case study on the production and Aluminum -0.113
recycling of LIB. The case study is based on different findings in
the literature. The aim is to analyze problems caused by the de-
centralized planning of production and recycling of LIBs for EV. the production of new LIBs. However, manganese, aluminum, and
Therefore, two LIBs, differing in size (large and small), are consid- copper do not meet the quality standards and are sold to other
ered containing the same nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) battery companies.
packs with a distribution of 1-1-1. Besides the battery packs, the Besides recycling, LIBs of the quality “refurbished” can be re-
system periphery, e.g., housing and battery-management-system manufactured and further used, e.g., as a spare part. Therefore, bat-
(BMS), differ between the batteries. The system composition fol- tery packs are replaced, which are not of the quality “remanufac-
lows the generic NMC-LIB of Diekmann et al. (2017). tured”, with “new” or “remanufactured” battery packs. The amount
In the following, we give an overview of the considered activi- of battery packs, which need to be replaced, follows the share ap-
ties of the producer as well as the recycler. The production of the plied to the disassembly.
batteries is divided into three stages. First, battery cells are pro- In order to calculate the contribution margins, cost structures
duced with raw material (n = 4). In this stage, we consider a sim- and sales revenues need to be defined. The material costs for
plified process in which the production of the coating and the cell cobalt, nickel, aluminum, and copper correspond to the price at
production are integrated. Second, the battery cells, together with the London Metal Exchange on 1st August 2019 (LME 2019). In ad-
housing and electronics, are assembled into a battery pack (n = 3). dition, for other materials, such as lithium carbonate, prices are
After the pack assembly, the final battery assembly differs between taken from DERA, BGR (2019). Furthermore, we use cost structures
the two LIBs regarding the number of battery packs and the system and recycling yields from the project LithoRec (Kwade and Dieck-
periphery (large LIB n = 1; small LIB n = 2). The inputs and outputs mann, 2018, Hoyer et al., 2015). Prices for new and remanufactured
of each activity are included in the production activity vector (see LIBs were published by Nissan, 2018.
Table 1). In the following, decentralized and a centralized decision-
After the production, the LIBs are sold, and it is assumed that making are considered. The decentralized decision-making repre-
they return into the system after an average lifetime of eight years. sents the current practice in the industry. In contrast, the cen-
Then different EOL-options can be used. First, LIBs can be disas- tralized decision-making illustrates the supply chain-wide optimal
sembled in order to recover components or perpetrate them for decision by simultaneously planning production and recycling and
recycling. According to the return quality, the share of “remanufac- serves as a benchmark.
tured”, “refurbished”, and “recyclable” battery packs, which can be The models are implemented in AIMMS and solved with
recovered, differs. Furthermore, recycling residues are recovered, GUROBI 8.1 using a 4.00 GHz CPU and 16 GB RAM. In addition to
like aluminum scrape and electronic waste. decentralized decision-making, we considered a model with cen-
For recycling, the LithoRec process is considered (Kwade and tralized decision-making as a benchmark. The model of the pro-
Dieckmann, 2018). It consists of three stages. First, the LIB is disas- ducer contains 37,729 variables and 40,573 constraints, the model
sembled as described before. Second, the battery packs are pro- of the recycler contains 62,761 variables and 64,909 constraints,
cessed in a mechanical treatment. Therefore, the battery packs and the model with centralized decision-making containts 106,729
are shredded and the materials are separated. Different recycling variables and 104,089 constraints. Each model is solved in less than
residues, like copper and aluminum scrape, and the black mass, one second.
are recovered. The black mass consists of the anode and cath-
ode coating, which contain most of the critical raw materials of 4.2. Results
the LIB. Third, in order to recover these critical raw materials, the
black mass is treated in hydrometallurgy. In practice, the materials As shown in Table 2, both companies can achieve positive con-
are recovered as an intermediate, e.g., cobalt recovered as cobalt- tribution margins. Hence, producer and recycler have an incen-
sulfate-heptahydrate. The recovery quantities are defined according tive to perform the planned activities. Nevertheless, centralized
to Hoyer et al. (2015). In the case study, cobalt, lithium, nickel, and decision-making outperforms the decentralized decision-making
graphite are recovered in high quality and hence, are suitable for regarding the supply chain-wide contribution margin by 1,276,229
704 C. Scheller, K. Schmidt and C. Herrmann et al. / Procedia CIRP 90 (2020) 700–704
Table 2
Results of the case study
Key Decentralized
number Production
Contribution margin [€] 22,960,775
Share Recycling [%] - 100%
Share Remanufacturing [%] - 0%
Share Reuse [%] - 0%
€, which makes up to 5.0% of the achievable contribution margin.
The lower performance of decentralized decision-making has two
reasons. First, both companies optimize locally according to their
optimum. However, local optimums usually do not correspond to
global optimums. Second, information asymmetries impede the
consideration of global interdependences. In the case study, miss-
ing information about the cost structure of the manufacturer leads
to non-optimal pricing of the remanufactured products.
The non-optimal decisions influence the assigned EOL-option.
In the centralized decision-making, high-quality returns are reused
in order to achieve the maximal contribution margin. However,
the high prices for remanufactured and refurbished LIBs prevent
the producer from buying those products. Instead, it decides to
buy recycled materials and use them to produce new LIBs. Since
reuse and remanufacturing are considered to be ecologic profitable
EOL-solutions, it is shown that decentralized decision-making does
have not only negative effects on the economic but also ecologic
impacts of the EOL of LIBs.
5. Conclusion and outlook
In this contribution, a new formulation for the decentralized
production and recycling planning under consideration of recycling
efficiency is presented. The new formulation enables decision-
makers to create feasible production and recycling plans according
to the current law in Europe. Therefore, the model extends current
approaches for the application of LIBs.
In the case study, it is shown that inefficiencies make up to 5%
of the supply chain-wide achievable contribution margin. Hence,
uncoordinated decentralized decision-making has a significant eco-
nomic impact on the supply chain. The inefficiencies result from
two main reasons. First, each company optimizes locally. Sec-
ond, information asymmetries prevent companies from integrating
global interdependences into planning.
In the future, further research needs consist of two aspects.
First, uncertainties are a major problem in the planning of LIB.
Therefore, the formulated models should be extended regarding re-
turn uncertainties. This will likely lead to increasing inefficiencies.
Second, the inefficiencies necessitate a closed-loop supply chain
management in order to reduce negative economic and ecologic
effects caused by decentralized decision-making. Especially coordi-
nation mechanism needs to be developed, which enables the com-
panies to achieve an economically efficient decentralized planning.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Christian Scheller: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - re-
view & editing. Kerstin Schmidt: Conceptualization, Validation, Su-
pervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Christoph
Herrmann: Supervision, Funding acquisition. Thomas S. Spengler:
Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition.
Centralized
Recycling Combined Supply chain wide
1,284,965 24,245,741 25,521,970
100% 74,8%
0% 0,0%
0% 25,2%
Acknowledgments
This work is part of the research project Recycling 4.0 (EFRE
| ZW 6-85018080), which is funded by the European Regional De-
velopment Fund and the development bank for the German federal
state of Lower Saxony (NBank). The authors would like to thank for
the support.
References
Diekmann, J., Hanisch, C., Froboese, L., Schaelicke, G. et al., 2017. Ecological Recy-
cling of Lithium-Ion Batteries from Electric Vehicles with Focus on Mechanical
Processes.
Thies, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Spengler, T.S., Sodhi, M., 2019. Assessment of social sustain-
ability hotspots in the supply chain of lithium-ion batteries 80, p. 229.
Kwade, A., Dieckmann, J., Editors, 2018. The recycling of lithium-ion batteries: The
LithoRec Way.
Berckmans, G., Messagie, M., Smekens, J., Omar, N. et al., 2017. Cost Projection of
State of the Art Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles Up to 2030 10, p.
1314.
Voigt, G., Inderfurth, K., 2011. Supply chain coordination and setup cost reduction
in case of asymmetric information 33, p. 99.
Stadtler, H., Kilger, C., Meyr, H., 2015. Supply chain management and Advanced Plan-
ning: Concepts, Models, Software, and Case Studies, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin
Heidelberg.
Chang, X., Xia, H., Zhu, H., Fan, T. et al., 2015. Production decisions in a hybrid
manufacturing-remanufacturing system with carbon cap and trade mechanism
162, p. 160.
Hilger, T., Sahling, F., Tempelmeier, H., 2016. Capacitated dynamic production and
remanufacturing planning under demand and return uncertainty 38, p. 849.
Steinborn, J., 2019. Integrierte Produktions- und Produktrecyclingprogrammplanung
in der Elektronikindustrie, Berlin.
Kwak, M., Kim, H., 2017. Green profit maximization through integrated pricing and
production planning for a line of new and remanufactured products 142, p.
3454.
Spengler, T.S., Rentz, O., 1996. Betriebswirtschaftliche Planungsmodelle zur Demon-
tage und zum Recycling komplexer zusammengesetzter Produkte 96.
Meyer, C., Wichmann, M.G., Spengler, T.S., 2016. Management of recycling operations
for iron and steel making slags 86, p. 773.
Walther, G., Schmid, E., Spengler, T.S., 2009. Dezentrale Koordination von Stoffströ-
men in Recyclingnetzwerken 79, p. 717.
Chen, M., Abrishami, P., 2014. A mathematical model for production planning in
hybrid manufacturing- remanufacturing systems 71, p. 1187.
Sun, H., Chen, W., Ren, Z., Liu, B., 2017. Optimal policy in a hybrid manufactur-
ing/remanufacturing system with financial hedging 55, p. 5728.
Han, S., Ma, W., Zhao, L., Zhang, X. et al., 2016. A robust optimisation model for hy-
brid remanufacturing and manufacturing systems under uncertain return qual-
ity and market demand 54, p. 5056.
Liu, W., Ma, W., Hu, Y., Jin, M. et al., 2019. Production planning for stochastic manu-
facturing/remanufacturing system with demand substitution using a hybrid ant
colony system algorithm 213, p. 999.
Wang, Y., Chen, W., Liu, B., 2017. Manufacturing/remanufacturing decisions for a
capital-constrained manufacturer considering carbon emission cap and trade
140, p. 1118.
Hoyer, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Spengler, T.S., 2015. Technology and capacity planning for
the recycling of lithium-ion electric vehicle batteries in Germany 85, p. 505.
LME. Reports by metal: London Metal Exchange. https://www.lme.com/
Market-Data/Reports-and-data/Reports-by-metal. Accessed 1 August 2019.
DERA, BGR, 2019. Preismonitor Juni 2019: Deutsche Rohstoffagentur und Bunde-
sanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe.
Nissan, 2018. Zweites Leben: Nissan recycelt Lithium-Ionen-Batterien in neuem
Werk. <https://germany.nissannews.com/de-DE/releases/release-426224580-
zweites- leben- nissan- recycelt- lithium- ionen- batterien- in- neuem- werk>