Nickel is an essential metal for the clean energy transition, powering battery chemistries for electric vehicles. While overall nickel demand is forecast to grow more than eight per cent annually through 2030, the specific push for “green nickel” comes from a different set of pressures entirely.
On one side, the market is awash with new supply from Indonesia[1] – often lower-cost but produced to lower environmental standards, raising concerns for buyers under ESG scrutiny.[2] On the other side, customers and policymakers, particularly in Australia, are pushing for value-added “green” supply chains that can command a premium responsibly sourced material.[3] Against this backdrop, the launch of dedicated green nickel pricing might have been expected to attract significant attention. Yet so far, it has been met with quiet.
This muted response should not be mistaken for indifference. Instead, it reflects the limitations of the first wave of sustainability definitions. By focusing almost exclusively on carbon intensity, early frameworks overlooked the broader environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors that investors and manufacturers increasingly expect.
Beyond Carbon: Towards a Holistic Standard
Carbon footprints are vital, but they are not the whole story. A tonne of nickel produced with low emissions may still be linked to weak labour standards, poor community engagement, tailings, or inadequate governance. Narrowing sustainability to carbon alone risks ignoring these issues and undermining trust.
This is where Nickel Mark becomes important. Designed as a more comprehensive framework, it integrates a range of ESG factors. While still in the early stages of adoption, Nickel Mark represents a stronger foundation for credible market signals. Its scope goes beyond emissions to capture the full definition of what “sustainable nickel” should mean.
Why Prices Haven’t Moved
Markets need clear and investable benchmarks. When thresholds are too narrow – for example, requiring only hydropower-based production – liquidity shrinks. Today, less than 15 per cent of global nickel production would meet such a standard. The result is a thin market with limited supply, making it difficult to establish meaningful prices.
Equally important is the question of governance. For sustainability definitions to translate into real market liquidity, they must be anchored in contracts, benchmarks, and infrastructure that producers, buyers, and investors already trust. This is precisely the role Nickel Mark can play. As a credible, industry-aligned standard, it offers the institutional backing that technically sound but fragmented initiatives often lack. By embedding ESG integrity into the core of nickel trading, Nickel Mark provides the common reference point needed to scale adoption, strengthen market confidence, and ultimately drive liquidity.
From Quiet Launch to Market Growth
The quiet launch of green nickel does not signal failure. It signals that the market needs more than narrow carbon accounting; it needs credible, comprehensive standards that are embedded in trusted platforms.
Nickel Mark provides the broader definition that the market has been missing. Exchanges like the LME offer the infrastructure to put that definition into practice. Together, they can create the virtuous circle that sustainable metals need: credible prices attract investment; investment drives stronger ESG performance; stronger performance validates the premium.
The tools and frameworks are now in place. The challenge – and opportunity – is to align them. If the industry can build trust through credible thresholds and practical implementation, green nickel will move beyond its quiet start and become a defining part of the energy transition.
