Critical Minerals and the Clean Energy Transition

Demand for lithium, cobalt, nickel, and copper will triple by 2030, yet announced mining projects cover only 50–70% of projected needs. The combined market for energy transition minerals hit $325 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach $770 billion by 2040. Building supply chains that are fast enough, resilient enough, and ethical enough is the defining industrial challenge of the clean energy era.

Executive Summary

The clean energy revolution runs on minerals. A typical EV requires six times more mineral inputs than a conventional car; an onshore wind plant needs nine times more mineral resources than a gas-fired plant. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, rare earths, copper, and graphite are the physical foundation of batteries, motors, turbines, and power grids. Under the IEA's Net Zero scenario, overall mineral demand nearly triples by 2030 and reaches 3.5 times current levels by 2050, approaching 40 million tonnes annually.

Supply chains are extraordinarily concentrated and getting more so. China controls 60–75% of lithium and cobalt refining, over 90% of rare earth and battery-grade graphite processing, and 78% of global EV battery cell manufacturing. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 76% of the world's cobalt, much of it involving child labor. Indonesia accounts for 52% of global nickel mining. In December 2024, China imposed export bans on gallium, germanium, and antimony to the U.S., followed in early 2025 by restrictions on tungsten, tellurium, and seven heavy rare earth elements. These supply chains are now active instruments of geopolitical competition.

For Georgia Tech MBA students, the opportunity is immediate. Georgia leads all U.S. states in post-IRA clean energy factory investment with over $17 billion committed, anchored by SK On, Hyundai's $12.6 billion Metaplant, and Rivian's $5 billion facility. Ascend Elements operates a recycling facility in Covington, Georgia, processing scrap from SK Battery America. The challenge: building sustainable, resilient supply chains that fuel this growth without replicating the environmental and social harms of the fossil fuel era.

The Problem — What's at Stake

The IEA runs an "N-1 vulnerability test" for each mineral: remove the top supplier and see what's left. The results are sobering. Without the leading producer, remaining supplies cover only 35–40% of demand for graphite and rare earths, under 55% for nickel, and roughly 65% for lithium and cobalt. BloombergNEF projects a structural copper deficit of 19 million metric tons by 2050. UNCTAD estimates the world needs about 80 new copper mines, 70 new lithium mines, 70 new nickel mines, and 30 new cobalt mines by 2030, at a total cost of $360–450 billion.

Mineral Supply Overview

Environmental Costs

Lithium brine extraction in Chile's Salar de Atacama consumes 1.9–2.2 million liters of water per metric ton of lithium produced. Sixteen percent of critical mineral mines sit in water-stressed areas. Cobalt mining generates roughly 1.5 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent annually, a fraction of fossil fuel extraction's 34 billion tonnes, but the local damage to water, land, and communities is concentrated and severe. Declining ore grades compound the problem: BHP's Escondida copper mine in Chile started at 2.5–3% grade in the 1990s and now operates at roughly 1.03%, meaning more rock must be moved to produce the same output.

Social Costs

Of an estimated 255,000 Congolese mining cobalt, about 40,000 are children, some as young as six. Global Witness documented 334 incidents of violence or protest linked to copper, cobalt, lithium, and nickel mining between 2021 and 2023, averaging 111 per year. A 2024 Science Advances study (Junker et al.) mapped mining concessions against great ape habitats and found that roughly one-third of Africa's great ape populations face mining-related risk. Indonesia's nickel boom tells a more ambiguous story: nickel export value surged from $3 billion to $19.2 billion, but poverty in the main mining district of Southeast Sulawesi rose from 12.6% to 13%.

Copper Bottleneck — The Overlooked Crisis

The Supply Deficit

While lithium and cobalt dominate headlines, copper faces an acute supply crisis largely overlooked in public discourse. The IEA projects a 30% copper supply deficit by 2035, with S&P Global estimating a staggering 10 million metric ton shortfall by 2040, when demand reaches 42 million metric tons. This represents the single largest mineral supply gap for the clean energy transition.

Copper is indispensable for wind turbines (3–4 tonnes per MW), EV motors (60–100 kg per vehicle), grid infrastructure, and solar installations. Unlike lithium or cobalt, there is no technology substitute; every renewable energy and EV deployment path requires copper. Demand growth under the IEA Net Zero scenario reaches 55 million tonnes by 2050, more than double current production.

Discovery Pipeline Collapse

The mining discovery pipeline has effectively collapsed. Only 14 new copper deposits were discovered in the past decade, versus 225 in the preceding 23 years (S&P Global, 2026). Average mine development timelines now exceed 17 years, with some flagship projects (Resolution Copper, Arizona) blocked after decades of development. Among those that do progress, ore grades have declined precipitously: down 40% since 1991, meaning exponentially more rock must be moved per unit of copper produced. BHP's Escondida copper mine in Chile started at 2.5–3% grade in the 1990s and now operates at roughly 1.03%, requiring triple the processing for the same output.

Water, Energy, and Recycling Paradox

Declining ore grades drive higher water consumption, energy intensity, and capital requirements. Climate and water risks compound the shortage: an estimated 7% of global copper supply (~2 million metric tons) faces climate-related risk by 2030 from water shortages and flooding in key mining regions (Peru, Chile, Indonesia). Simultaneously, secondary (recycled) copper's share has paradoxically fallen from 37% to 33% since 2015, despite recycling policy push. Unaccounted end-of-life copper waste exceeds 9 million tonnes annually—worth over $110 billion at projected 2035 prices—yet remains locked in buildings, electrical infrastructure, and landfills. Mobilizing this urban mining opportunity could offset the supply deficit, but collection infrastructure barely exists.

Path Forward

The copper deficit cannot be solved by substitution (there is none) or recycling alone (insufficient feedstock until 2035+). Solutions require: (1) accelerated permitting for major greenfield projects in economically viable but geopolitically stable jurisdictions (Australia, Peru, Chile); (2) secondary copper collection infrastructure and policy support for urban mining; (3) investment in mine productivity and automation to offset declining ore grades; and (4) strategic stockpiling by governments to buffer against supply shocks. Unlike other minerals, copper's criticality is universally acknowledged—the gap is execution and geopolitical coordination to mobilize capital at required scale.

The Science — What We Know

Why Substitution Is Hard

Lithium's combination of being the lightest metal, smallest ionic radius (0.76 Ångström), and highest electrochemical potential makes it uniquely effective for batteries. NdFeB magnets store approximately 18 times more magnetic energy per volume than conventional iron magnets. Copper's electrical conductivity (5.96 × 10⁷ S/m) is matched only by silver at 100 times the cost.

Geological Constraints

S&P Global found the average mine development timeline stretched to 17.8 years for mines that began production between 2020 and 2024, with U.S. mines averaging 29 years. Chile's copper ore grades have fallen roughly 30% over 15 years. These declining grades mean more energy, water, and capital per unit of metal produced. Meanwhile, the first major wave of EV batteries won't reach end-of-life until the mid-2030s, so recycling cannot close the gap in the near term. The IEA projects recycling will offset only 5–30% of primary mineral demand by 2040.

SDG Mapping

Alignment and Trade-offs

Key Trade-offs

History and Current Landscape

Recent Geopolitical Escalation (2024–2025)

The pace of supply chain weaponization accelerated sharply:

• December 2024: China imposed export bans on gallium, germanium, and antimony to the U.S.
• Early 2025: China expanded restrictions to tungsten, tellurium, bismuth, indium, molybdenum, and seven heavy rare earth elements.
• February 2025: The DRC suspended cobalt exports for four months to prop up prices.
• Price impact: Chinese gallium exports fell 66% after controls; European prices rose 365%. Antimony prices spiked 437%.

U.S. Policy Response

IRA Section 30D clean vehicle credit ($7,500 max: $3,750 critical minerals + $3,750 battery components). FEOC exclusions from 2024 (components) and 2025 (minerals). Section 45X: 10% tax credit on domestic mineral processing. Trump administration expanded with Defense Production Act invocation, expanded USGS list to 60 minerals, and "Project Vault"—a $12 billion strategic reserve announced February 2026. DOD equity stakes in private mining/refining companies represent industrial policy shift.

EU Critical Raw Materials Act

CRMA adopted March 2024: binding targets of 10% extraction, 40% processing, 25% recycling by 2030; maximum 65% supply from single third country. Streamlined 27-month permitting for extraction, 15 months for processing. 47 strategic projects with €22.5 billion investment committed. Battery Regulation mandates digital passports from February 2027, carbon footprint declarations, and recycled content requirements beginning 2031.

Industry Governance

IRMA (International Responsible Mining Assurance) remains the most rigorous multi-stakeholder standard; Mercedes-Benz uses it as procurement precondition since 2021, and 40% of world lithium is now assessed. RMI (Responsible Minerals Initiative) with 500+ members and RMAP (Responsible Minerals Assurance Process) covers most conflict minerals. Global Battery Alliance Battery Passport (piloted 2024) covers 80% of EV battery manufacturing and enables full supply chain traceability.

Why This Is So Hard

Indigenous Rights & Free, Prior & Informed Consent (FPIC)

The Crisis

The minerals that power the clean energy transition are overwhelmingly extracted from lands with Indigenous populations, yet FPIC (Free, Prior, and Informed Consent) remains systematically violated. In Chile's Salar de Atacama, lithium mining has caused a 30% reduction in water levels, with the industry consuming 65% of available freshwater, devastating over 400 Indigenous communities dependent on limited water sources (NRDC; FIDH). In the Philippines, Amnesty International (2025) documented FPIC processes invalidated by single-meeting consultations and bribery of Indigenous representatives. Amnesty's 2023 DRC report documented forced evictions and human rights abuses in cobalt mining regions where the DRC holds 70% of global cobalt reserves. Climate Rights International found Indigenous communities in Indonesia received zero information about nickel mining before companies acquired their lands.

Geographic Overlap: U.S. Case Study

The United States does not recognize FPIC in domestic law, yet the geopolitical reality is stark: 79% of U.S. lithium reserves, 97% of nickel reserves, and 89% of copper reserves lie within 35 miles of Native American reservations. Domestic mining policy treats this as a logistical challenge, not a governance crisis. Resolution Copper (Arizona) was blocked after decades of development due to sacred cultural significance. Thacker Pass (Nevada lithium) proceeded despite sustained opposition from the Western Shoshone. The question is not whether Indigenous lands hold minerals—they do—but whether the U.S. and other nations will implement genuine consent-based governance or continue extractive models that violate international norms and perpetuate cycles of dispossession.

Legal Frameworks & Compliance Gaps

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ILO Convention 169 both enshrine FPIC, yet corporate compliance varies wildly. IRMA (International Responsible Mining Assurance) and RMI (Responsible Minerals Initiative) standards include FPIC requirements and audit Indigenous consultation processes. However, audit findings reveal systemic gaps:

• Consultation is often conducted in colonial languages rather than Indigenous languages
• Communities lack access to independent legal counsel or technical experts to evaluate mining impacts
• Consultations occur after land concessions are already granted, negating the "prior" in FPIC
• Indigenous representatives are sometimes co-opted through payments or selective engagement
• No binding veto power—even where FPIC exists, communities cannot refuse mining unilaterally in most jurisdictions

Policy Opportunity

Unlike substitution or mining timelines, FPIC compliance is achievable within 3–5 years through regulatory reform. The EU Critical Raw Materials Act includes FPIC-aligned requirements. Australia's proposed Closing the Gap framework aims for co-management of mining on Indigenous lands. Investor pressure is growing: BlackRock, CalPERS, and other institutional investors now screen for FPIC compliance in mining portfolios. The business case exists: mining projects with genuine Indigenous partnership have lower regulatory risk, fewer project delays, and stronger social license. The gap is political will, not technical feasibility.

Technology — Challenges & Opportunities

Graphite — The Battery Bottleneck Nobody Talks About

Market Dominance & Supply Concentration

China's stranglehold on graphite processing represents one of the most severe yet underappreciated supply chain risks for the EV transition. China produced 79% of global natural graphite in 2024 and, critically, processes 90%+ of all graphite globally and controls 100% of spherical graphite production (USGS, 2024). Spherical graphite is the refined, battery-grade form essential for high-performance anodes. There is no substitute technology; every lithium-ion battery requires graphite anode material. Unlike lithium or cobalt, where substitutes exist (LFP eliminates cobalt, for instance), graphite remains irreplaceable for NMC/NCA chemistries that dominate long-range EVs.

Demand Explosion & Supply Gap

Natural graphite demand is forecast to increase 140% by 2030, requiring the development of ~31 new mines and 12 synthetic graphite plants globally (IEA Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025). Currently, roughly 20 major graphite mines operate worldwide. The timeline for mine development (10–15 years) means projects must begin immediately to meet 2030 demand. In December 2023, China announced export restrictions on graphite, effectively creating supply leverage. U.S. imports fell 20% in the first 8 months of 2024. European graphite producers struggled to expand capacity without Chinese processing capacity.

Quality vs. Carbon Trade-off

Natural graphite is ~55% less carbon-intensive than synthetic graphite over full lifecycle, but yields lower battery performance (slightly lower conductivity, higher impurity rates without advanced purification). Synthetic graphite is energy-intensive (produced at 2,200°C) but achieves higher purity and performance specs. The optimal strategy combines both: natural graphite for cost and environmental benefit, synthetic as premium upgrade for high-performance applications. This split creates complexity in supply planning that most automakers and battery makers are only now recognizing.

Recycled Graphite Opportunity

Recycled graphite reduces environmental impact by ~70% versus virgin sources and can achieve battery-grade purity through purification. However, recycled graphite represents <3% of current supply due to limited EV battery end-of-life feedstock and immaturity of recovery techniques. As recycling scales post-2030, recycled graphite could offset 15–25% of primary demand by 2040. Meanwhile, the supply gap must be filled by new mining and synthetic production, both competing for capital and development timelines.

Manganese — Battery Chemistry Evolution & Deep-Sea Risk

LMFP Chemistry: The Next Generation

Lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) batteries represent the next evolution in mainstream EV chemistry and signal a growing role for manganese in the energy transition. LMFP offers a higher redox potential (4.0V vs LFP's 3.4V), improving energy density while remaining cheaper than NMC (nickel-manganese-cobalt) chemistries. This higher voltage enables longer range without added weight, addressing LFP's primary limitation. CATL began LMFP commercialization in 2023, with BYD and other Chinese OEMs rapidly scaling production. Western OEMs (Volkswagen, BMW) are now integrating LMFP into roadmaps for 2025–2026. Unlike cobalt or nickel, manganese is more widely distributed geographically, but the battery-grade processing bottleneck is acute: China produces 95% of global battery-grade manganese sulfate, and projected supply covers only 55% of 2035 demand (IEA, 2025).

Deep-Sea Mining: Speculative but Accelerating

Polymetallic nodules on the ocean floor contain manganese, nickel, cobalt, and copper in concentrations that can exceed land-based ore grades. The International Seabed Authority has granted 31 exploration licenses for polymetallic nodules in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (between Hawaii and Mexico). However, regulatory and environmental opposition is mounting. 22 countries support a deep-sea mining moratorium, citing irreversible risks to deep-sea carbon sequestration (the ocean floor sequesters more carbon than all terrestrial forests combined) and microbial ecosystems that remain virtually unmapped. Most major automakers (Tesla, Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes-Benz) have committed to not sourcing from deep-sea mining, effectively making it commercially unviable near-term despite geological abundance.

Supply Risk & Policy Context

Manganese supply is less politically concentrated than rare earths or graphite (major producers: South Africa, Indonesia, Brazil, Australia), reducing geopolitical risk. However, the battery-grade processing bottleneck in China creates a functional chokepoint. Scaling LMFP production without corresponding increases in Chinese battery-grade manganese sulfate capacity would require either (a) new processing capacity in Western nations (capital-intensive, 5–10 year development), or (b) technology licensing from Chinese manufacturers, which would require significant technology transfer. The deep-sea option remains speculative and faces insurmountable environmental and reputational barriers under current geopolitical and market conditions.

Consumer Behavior — Challenges & Opportunities

Awareness Is Low, But Interest Is Latent

A 2023 Cirba Solutions survey found that only 53% of consumers know how to recycle lithium batteries, 37% are unaware batteries can be recycled at all, and 59% of EV owners have no idea how to recycle their vehicle's battery. The average person owns nine lithium battery-powered devices. A 2024 Nature Communications study (Fikru et al.) found that just 38% of U.S. respondents are familiar with the term "critical minerals," though over 80% recognize the importance of minerals for the energy transition once informed.

Willingness to pay for sustainability shows a familiar gap between stated and revealed preferences. A 2024 study (Gehlmann et al.) found 31.9% of Norwegian participants willing to pay a premium for sustainably produced EV batteries, with a median premium of 10%. Interestingly, the study found no statistically significant difference across sustainability label types, suggesting the label itself matters less than its presence. PwC's 2024 Voice of the Consumer survey found 80% of respondents say they'd pay more for sustainable goods (average stated premium: 9.7%), though 31% cited inflation as their top spending concern. For comparison, fair trade coffee captures 20–30% retail premiums and organic coffee holds 38.5% segment revenue share.

The Urban Mine Opportunity

The world generated 62 million tonnes of e-waste in 2022 (projected 74 million by 2030), yet only 22% was formally collected (ITU/UNITAR Global E-waste Monitor 2024). Some 5.3 billion phones fall out of use annually. A ton of discarded phones contains 800 times more gold than a ton of gold ore. The raw materials sitting in annual global e-waste are worth an estimated $57–65 billion. Yet 45% of Americans hold on to old phones indefinitely, and 55% don't know where to recycle batteries. Lithium battery fires in waste streams add a safety barrier that discourages municipal recycling programs.

Barriers and Solutions

The main consumer-side barriers are privacy and data concerns (especially for phones), inconvenience of drop-off, and simple lack of knowledge. Some companies are experimenting with solutions: Audi partnered with Redwood Materials to offer battery collection at dealerships, and Samsung recycles 100 million pounds of electronics per year through its takeback program. EU weight-based collection targets have begun to show results, with collection growth rates outpacing e-waste generation in several member states.

The largest untapped opportunity may be mineral transparency as a brand differentiator. No major EV manufacturer has launched a consumer-facing "ethically sourced minerals" brand. EU battery passports (mandatory from Feb 2027) combined with IRMA certification could provide the infrastructure for premium pricing, similar to fair trade in coffee. Fairphone has proven the concept but remains a niche player. A mainstream brand that cracks this has significant first-mover advantage.

Policy — Challenges & Opportunities

Jurisdictional Comparison

Key Policy Tensions

• Speed vs responsibility: Accelerating mining without social consent triggers conflict and delays (Resolution Copper, Thacker Pass)
• Protectionism vs affordability: Tariffs raise EV costs, potentially slowing adoption
• Domestic production limits: A Carnegie Endowment analysis (Oct 2025) found that even under optimal conditions, U.S. domestic mines could only satisfy demand for zinc and molybdenum by 2035
• Friend-shoring as pragmatic middle: IRA deepens ties with Canada, Mexico, Australia, Norway; EU coordinates with like-minded nations

Circular Economy Policy

The EU Battery Regulation is the most comprehensive circular economy framework for minerals anywhere in the world. It combines extended producer responsibility with mandatory recycled content requirements (beginning 2031) to create demand floors for secondary materials. A joint WEF/RMI analysis found that accounting for avoided primary mining, carbon reduction, and water savings, battery recycling could unlock $11.3–40.3 billion in value globally. The regulation also mandates digital battery passports from February 2027, which will enable supply chain traceability from mine to recycler for the first time at scale.

Business Models — Challenges & Opportunities

Emerging Business Models

Georgia & Southeast Opportunity Hub

Georgia leads all U.S. states in post-IRA clean energy manufacturing investment, with over $17 billion committed. The Southeast now hosts 86 plants spanning the full battery and EV value chain, and 10 of the top 11 global automakers will have EV assembly in the region.

White Spaces for MBA Innovation

• Battery diagnostics and state-of-health grading for second-life deployment
• Mineral passport middleware connecting upstream traceability to downstream ESG reporting
• Localized collection and pre-processing infrastructure (reverse logistics with data wipe assurance)
• Insurance/financial products for mineral price volatility and battery degradation
• Workforce development platforms for battery/recycling industries
• IRA/FEOC compliance traceability-as-a-service
• Community-benefit and social-license models for procurement

Investment Trends

VC investment in critical minerals topped $1.4 billion in 2023, up 160% year-over-year (though still only 4% of clean energy VC). Major rounds include Redwood Materials ($1 billion Series D, Aug 2023; $350M Series E, Oct 2025), Ascend Elements ($542M, Aug 2023), KoBold Metals ($537M Series C, Jan 2025), and Form Energy ($405M, Oct 2024). Investment growth slowed to 5% in 2024, down from 14%, reflecting commodity price weakness and caution after Li-Cycle's bankruptcy and Natron Energy's failure. The broader picture: BloombergNEF estimates $2.1 trillion in new mining investment is needed by 2050 to meet clean energy demand. The gap between what's needed and what's being deployed remains wide.

Key Data Dashboard

Market & Investment

Supply & Demand

Geographic Concentration

Environmental & Social Impact

Technology & Recycling

Georgia & Regional Investment

Policy Targets

Sources & Further Reading

Must-Read Sources

• IEA, Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2025 (May 2025) — Most authoritative annual assessment of global mineral supply, demand projections, geopolitical risks, and policy frameworks.
• S&P Global Market Intelligence, Mine Development Timelines (July 2024) — Definitive analysis showing 17.8-year average discovery-to-production timeline, regulatory bottlenecks.
• EU Critical Raw Materials Act (Regulation 2024/1252) — Binding extraction, processing, recycling targets and streamlined permitting framework.
• UNCTAD, Trade in Critical Minerals: SDG Pulse (2025) — Supply chain mapping, trade flow analysis, and development impact assessment.
• USGS, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2025 (Jan 2025) — Comprehensive production, reserves, and trade data for all critical minerals.
• Carnegie Endowment, "Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply" (Oct 2025) — Policy analysis showing U.S. can only meet domestic demand for zinc and molybdenum by 2035; case for friend-shoring.
• Junker et al., "Threat of Mining to African Great Apes" (Science Advances, 2024) — Geospatial analysis showing 33% of ape populations face mining-related risk.

Academic & Research

• Llamas-Orozco et al., "Estimating Environmental Impacts of Global Lithium-Ion Battery Supply Chain" (PNAS Nexus, 2023) — Water, land, carbon footprint accounting across mining, refining, cell production.
• Fikru et al., "Public Perceptions of Mineral Criticality" (Nature Communications Earth & Environment, 2024) — Consumer awareness and willingness-to-pay for sustainably sourced minerals.
• Gehlmann et al., "Willingness to Pay Extra for Electric Cars with Sustainably Produced Batteries" (Transportation Research Part D, 2024) — Nordic study on sustainability label effectiveness and price premiums.
• BloombergNEF, Transition Metals Outlook (2024) — Supply-demand projections, price modeling, technology transition scenarios. (Subscription required.)
• BloombergNEF, Lithium-Ion Battery Price Survey (2025) — Pack and cell cost trends across chemistries (NMC, LFP, sodium-ion). (Subscription required.)

Industry & Government Reports

• UN Secretary-General's Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals (Sept 2024) — Seven Guiding Principles for governance and responsible mineral supply chains.
• OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals — Five-step framework integrated into EU Battery Regulation.
• Global Battery Alliance, Battery Passport Framework (2024) — Traceability platform covering 80% of EV battery manufacturing, mandatory EU Feb 2027.
• IRMA (International Responsible Mining Assurance) Standard — Most rigorous multi-stakeholder mining certification; 40% of world lithium now assessed.
• U.S. Treasury, Final Rules on Section 30D Clean Vehicle Credit (2024) — FEOC (Foreign Entity of Concern) exclusions and mineral content requirements.
• McKinsey, Battery 2030 (2023–2024) — Mining workforce demand, skills gaps, circular economy potential.
• EU Battery Regulation 2023/1542 — Digital passports, recycled content mandates, due diligence requirements.

Data & Statistics

• ITU/UNITAR, Global E-waste Monitor 2024 — E-waste generation, collection rates, recovery potential by mineral.
• World Bank, Minerals for Climate Action — Mineral-specific demand under climate scenarios.
• IEA, Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2024 (May 2024) — First edition; updated 2025 version available.
• Carnegie Endowment, "Friendshoring Critical Minerals" (May 2023) — Analysis of what the U.S. and its partners could produce under friend-shoring scenarios.