How can clean energy supply chains evolve sustainably?    

The unignorable urgency of the energy transition, the subsequent availability and affordability of clean energy technologies, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and data centres, and renewed interest in defence manufacturing all contribute to a newfound demand for certain metals and minerals. 

This rise in demand inevitably influences the supply chains that sustain it, rewiring the focus of energy and commodity traders and placing increased emphasis on financing mechanisms. 

Trade Finance Global’s (TFG) Doğa Usanmaz recently spoke with Deia Markova, Executive Director of Finance, ESG & Strategy at BGN. Markova dissected how metals and minerals supply chains are evolving alongside the energy transition, unpacking the key obstacles to financing and the changing nature of supply. 

Doğa Usanmaz (DU): What are the key metals and minerals needed for the energy transition?

Deia Markova (DM): When discussing the energy transition, we are primarily referring to the metals required for electrification, battery production, and energy storage systems. Copper, for example, which is absolutely key to the energy transition, is traded in large, well-established markets with strong liquidity, transparent pricing, and developed risk-management tools.

At the same time, the energy transition also relies on a range of more specialised metals and minerals that are traded in smaller, less mature markets. These markets often have limited liquidity, fragmented supply chains, and fewer financing options. As a result, some critical materials remain considerably more challenging to trade and finance despite their growing strategic importance.

DU: Which of these critical metals and minerals face the greatest financing obstacles?

DM: The greatest financing challenges are generally found in the less liquid and less established markets rather than in mainstream metals such as copper, aluminium, or nickel. Materials such as lithium, cobalt, graphite, vanadium, tantalite, rare earths, and certain speciality battery materials often face greater obstacles because their markets are smaller, less transparent, and supported by fewer participants.

Many of these markets have historically attracted limited investment and therefore lack the liquidity, pricing transparency, and hedging tools that exist in more mature commodity markets. This creates additional challenges for producers, traders, and financiers.

However, this could also present an opportunity for traders who, rather than competing purely on scale, focus on areas where market knowledge, relationships, and structuring expertise can create differentiated value. 

DU: What role do partnerships play in the metals value chain?           

DM: Strategic partnerships are essential at all levels of the metals value chain. The lifecycle of a metal product involves multiple, complex processes, all the way from exploration and raw extraction through manufacturing and recycling. While international, geopolitically driven coalitions – deemed critical raw materials clubs – are increasingly making headlines, the end-to-end journey of a metal product requires long-term agreements between stakeholders at all phases of the value chain. 

This need for cooperation is increasing and changing in nature alongside the growing demand for certain metals. For example, in 2025, electric vehicle (EV) sales exceeded 20 million, accounting for one in four cars sold and reflecting a 20% year-on-year increase. A single EV requires around 30 to 40 kilograms of nickel, and the nickel mining market size, which sat at $56.6 billion in 2024, is anticipated to climb to $87.8 billion over the next six years. This dramatic surge highlights the growing need for partnerships. 

An end-to-end partnership between a nickel supplier and EV manufacturer bridges the gap between a mine and a car factory. EV manufacturers don’t use raw nickel ore: they need battery-grade nickel, chemically converted at a refinery. 

Moreover, alongside the 2025 European Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) proposal, European policymakers are championing major recycling targets – up to 95% for certain metals like nickel. Hence, the lifecycle of a nickel product is increasingly shifting towards a closed-     loop system, where the battery-grade nickel is recycled to then be incorporated back into the supply chain. Unlike linear supply chains, where participants have traditional buyer-seller relations, stakeholders increasingly operate as partners working towards a common goal.

DU: To what extent are environmental, social, and governance (ESG) requirements helping versus hindering the development of new metals and minerals supply?

DM: I think it is important to view this within the broader context of the energy transition. What we are really seeing is a global shift towards electrification and cleaner energy systems that is fundamentally reshaping metals markets.

Technological innovation continues to influence which materials are required and in what quantities. A good example is battery technology. The market’s initial focus was on nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) batteries, which drove demand for nickel and cobalt. More recently, lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries have gained market share as manufacturers optimise for different performance and cost requirements.

The key point is that the energy transition is not a single pathway driven by one technology or one group of metals. It is a dynamic process in which technologies evolve, demand patterns shift, and new supply chains emerge. 

It’s also crucial to take into account the environmental impact of clean energy technology supply chains. They remain a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, and production and manufacturing stages account for approximately 90% of emissions generated by these value chains. However, more stringent ESG requirements mean that the last phase of a metal’s lifecycle is increasingly moving towards recycling, gradually decreasing the need for fresh mining projects. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), recycled critical minerals cause around 80% less greenhouse gas emissions than materials produced from mining do. 

Moreover, trading firms are increasingly integrating carbon management into their key operations, leveraging their expertise on climate regulation such as the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and overseeing compliance.      

DU: Why are traditional energy traders that focus on liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and hydrocarbons increasingly entering the metals and critical minerals space?

DM: While hydrocarbons will remain an essential part of the global energy mix for many years to come, the energy landscape is becoming increasingly diversified. Alongside conventional fuels, we are seeing growing demand for electrification and other clean-energy technologies, all of which depend on secure supplies of critical metals and minerals. The progressively more visible impacts of climate change alongside subsequently stringent ESG regulation and ambitious net-zero targets are driving this demand.

Expansion into metals is therefore a natural extension of many energy traders’ businesses. Facilitating the movement of energy commodities around the world, there is an apparent opportunity to play a role in the supply chains that support electrification and the broader energy transition.

For many, the strategy is not about moving away from traditional energy markets; it is about broadening participation across the full spectrum of the evolving energy ecosystem.     

Additionally, this growing demand for metals and minerals is amplified through the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), data centres, and defence capability. Ultimately, in recent years, there have been multiple forces simultaneously boosting the need for resilient and abundant metals and minerals supply chains, leading to many energy traders shifting focus.