Understanding the impact of exposure to critical raw materials (CRMs) on firms’ innovation strategies requires bridging insights from resource dependence theory and the economics and management of innovation. From a resource dependence perspective, CRM exposure introduces new forms of environmental uncertainty that shape firms’ strategic behaviour. From a Schumpeterian perspective, this exposure constitutes an exogenous shock that may trigger a creative response (Schumpeter, 1947) — a deliberate and strategic reconfiguration of innovation rather than a passive adaptation. Accordingly, innovation arises not as a routine or passive process but as a deliberate, strategic reaction to unexpected changes in the firm’s environment. CRM exposure—through its link to resource volatility, price shocks, or geopolitical tension—constitutes precisely such a disruptive shift. The creative response is particularly salient in an era of globalised, interdependent production systems, where firms operate under increasing technological and institutional complexity. Firms embedded in these systems are exposed to systemic shocks, such as trade disruptions or input scarcity, which trigger out-of-equilibrium conditions. Under such conditions, firms are not merely optimizing given constraints; instead, they actively restructure their innovation strategies to ensure resilience.

These dynamics also resonate with the induced innovation and directed technological change literatures (Hicks, 1963; Acemoglu, 2002), suggesting that firms respond to input constraints by redirecting R&D investments toward less CRM-intensive technologies, material substitution, or circular economy solutions. When CRMs become relatively more expensive, uncertain, or politically constrained, firms are incentivized to reallocate R&D investments toward less CRM-intensive technologies, substitute materials, or circular economy innovations. This perspective aligns with the induced innovation hypothesis, where firms internalize external input shocks by shifting innovation toward alternative processes. These transitions, however, are not unconstrained. Firms face technological and organizational inertia due to path dependency (David, 1985; Arthur, 1989). Long-term specialization and accumulated capabilities in CRM-dependent technologies may limit flexibility. Yet under sustained CRM exposure, firms are expected to engage in incremental diversification, modifying their innovation portfolios to reduce material risk without abandoning core competencies. From the lens of strategic management, this process can be interpreted as dynamic capability building (Teece et al., 1997). Firms reconfigure internal and external knowledge assets to navigate input uncertainty, especially when input-related innovation aligns with emerging regulatory and market demands.

We welcome both theoretical and empirical contributions—quantitative or qualitative—that address the interplay between CRM scarcity and firms’ R&D and innovation strategies. Relevant topics include, but are not limited to:

• Quantitative analyses of firms’ adaptive strategies, including collaboration networks and technological reorientation
• Case studies on organizational or strategic responses to CRM supply disruptions
• The role of dynamic capabilities and diversification in mitigating material risks
• Innovation in material substitution, recycling, and circular economy approaches
• Policy and institutional influences on CRM-related innovation trajectories