August 18, 2026 • 6 min read
Battery materials: Why battery materials projects succeed or stall
North America and Europe aren’t short of ambition, capital announcements or policy intent. What’s missing is the translation of this ambition into fully integrated, executable battery materials projects.
The window to build a competitive battery supply chain across North America and Europe is shrinking. But not because of time. It’s narrowing because there are only so many projects, customers and market positions still available.
Battery materials aren’t commodities like traditional minerals or bulk chemicals. A cathode or anode plant’s revenue depends entirely on meeting specific, often unwritten, needs of a few key customers’ cell designs. If the plant can’t meet those requirements; revenue can fall to zero regardless of capacity.
This means battery materials projects will only succeed if owners align product requirements, technology readiness, project execution, commissioning and customer qualification from the start.
For business leaders, the implication is clear: to unlock capital, the next wave of investment must move from fragmented project execution to the full integrated delivery of an asset that produces qualified product.1
Winners will integrate customers early, secure technology and equipment pathways, invest in front-end definition, design for constructability and commissioning, build local skills and use government support to unlock – not replace – private capital.
Moving from ambition to bankability: What leaders must do differently
The challenge for battery materials business leaders is no longer deciding what to build. It’s determining how to build it successfully.
In a recent Volta Foundation webinar, our experts spoke with key players across the battery materials supply chain, providing practical advice on how to build assets that are technically qualified, commercially competitive, constructable, financeable and operable in Western markets.
In a recent article we discussed how North America and Europe have an opportunity to build a competitive battery materials supply chain, especially in the missing midstream. The webinar moved this discussion from ‘what’s missing?’ to ‘what must leaders do differently?’.
The answer is uncomfortable but useful:
many projects are failing to achieve their business case objectives of competitive, qualified product not because the strategy is wrong, but because the execution model is incomplete.
So, what can business leaders do to ensure execution certainty?
1. Focus on quality, not just execution timelines
Capital is still available and battery materials projects continue to be announced. The challenge is delivering qualified product at scale and in line with customer requirements. Battery materials aren’t commodities, but performance materials precisely engineered for specific customers.
Speed alone can amplify risk.
Any project that advances before the product is qualified, the technology basis is stable, or constructability is understood can destroy value quickly.
Business leaders should use the narrowing window to develop battery materials projects as an execution-quality window. A project that is behind schedule but qualified may still have value. A project that is early but produces the ‘wrong’, unqualified product may not.
2. Build the business case around the path to a qualified product
Product acceptability for battery materials depends on chemistry, cell design, processing behavior, quality systems and customer-specific qualification protocols.
A plant can’t assume that ‘on-spec’ material will automatically find a buyer. Customers also care about consistency, contamination control, batch stability, manufacturing performance and qualification history. The business case must therefore be built around the path to qualified production, not simply tonnes per annum.
Capacity without qualification doesn’t create a revenue-generating asset. This might be obvious to people in the industry, but not always fully appreciated by execution teams from adjacent industries.
3. Start with the end in mind – or redesign later
Aligning an asset to the end-customers’ requirements is one of the most critical success factors as they often evolve and can extend beyond formal specifications. This can affect process design, equipment selection, quality systems and execution and commissioning strategies.
Too often, these requirements aren’t fully defined at the beginning of a project and are discovered too late, resulting in redesign, delays and cost overruns.
End-customers, technology providers, delivery partners, suppliers and operators need to work together to influence the design early.
As such, offtake should be treated as part of an integrated technical-development model, not just a commercial document.
4. Make owner-customer-delivery partner integration the delivery model
Battery materials projects are integrated systems, which means technology development, engineering, customer qualification and construction shouldn’t be separated into isolated workstreams.
Delivery partners must move beyond traditional roles to help align technology with execution and end-customer requirements. Similarly, owners must adopt more collaborative delivery models rather than relying solely on transactional contracting approaches.
Business leaders should prioritize partners who are experienced in managing interdependencies and delivering integrated solutions across the full value chain.
5. Ensure technology can be translated into local conditions
Technology risk isn’t just about novelty.
Even proven or licensed processes must be translated into North American or European standards, safety practices, labour conditions, equipment supply chains, permitting regimes, commissioning requirements and end-customer expectations.
Decision makers shouldn’t assume that a process proven elsewhere is automatically buildable or operable locally.
Plant concepts need rigorous hazard and operability study (HAZOP), layout, segregation, modularization and constructability reviews before Western deployment can be considered.
Due diligence shouldn’t just focus on ‘does the process work?’, but also, ‘can this process be built, permitted, commissioned, maintained and operated competitively here?’.
6. Invest time in front-end loading to reduce risk
Owners are under pressure to move fast because schedules affect incentives, funding milestones and market windows. But the webinar panel stressed that front-end definition shouldn’t be viewed as a time-delay – it’s a value protection exercise.
Business leaders should use front-end loading to reduce the risks that destroy value: unstable design, unclear customer requirements, critical equipment gaps, unrealistic schedules, weak construction planning and incomplete commissioning strategies.
Good execution starts with the end in mind.
Qualification, commissioning, construction and operability must be considered and thought out during the concept to feasibility stage, well before Final Investment Decision.
7. Elevate procurement and construction strategy to executive level
Critical equipment qualification, supplier readiness, spare parts availability, vendor competitiveness and supply-chain maturity can determine whether a project is deliverable and must be understood early.
Constructability is equally decisive. Western projects bring additional constraints such as high labor costs, skilled labor availability and complex construction environments.
Construction expertise should sit alongside engineering to ensure constructability is considered early and mitigate schedule delays.
Procurement and construction strategy risk discussions should be elevated to the executive decision makers of the delivery partnership, because they determine if the capital estimate, schedule and operating model are credible.
8. Standardize where possible, customize where it creates value
The strongest answer on standardization was nuanced: pursue ‘design one, build many’ where possible, while recognizing that product and customer requirements may need targeted customization.
Full standardization may be unrealistic in product-critical areas, but utilities, infrastructure, layouts, control philosophies, non-core systems and modular fabrication can often be repeated.
Customization should be intentional, not accidental.
If a design change doesn’t improve qualification, operability, cost, safety or customer value, it should be challenged.
9. Government support should unlock private capital, not substitute for bankability
Government support should help viable projects unlock private capital through offtake support, direct funding, trade measures, infrastructure and permitting efficiency.
Public funding can’t turn an uneconomic project into a sustainable one. It can bridge early-stage gaps only where the project is technically credible, strategically important and capable of becoming profitable.
Business leaders should avoid building the investment case around subsidy capture alone.
Incentives should strengthen a sound project, not compensate for unresolved technology, qualification or cost risks.
What strategically minded leaders should do next
The webinar points to a practical executive agenda:
1. Define the qualified product before defining the plant.
Capacity has little value without customer qualification.
2. Integrate customers, technology providers, engineering partners, constructors and operators early.
Battery materials projects can’t be optimized through sequential handoffs.
3. Invest in front-end engineering that targets the real risk drivers.
Focus on technology stability, customer requirements, equipment availability, constructability, commissioning and operability
4. Translate technology into the local execution environment.
Don’t assume that a process proven elsewhere is buildable or operable in North America or Europe.
5. Use standardization and modularization intelligently.
Standardize utilities and repeatable systems, customize only where product requirements justify it.
6. Develop local talent before operations readiness.
Build capability with universities, technical institutions and global partners from the start.
7. Treat government support as a catalyst, not a crutch.
The project must still be financeable, profitable and executable.
The strongest message from the webinar is:
The next phase of battery materials execution must be less transactional and more integrated.
Traditional contracting models, fragmented workstreams and guarded customer relationships are poorly suited to an industry where technical qualification, project execution and market access are inseparable.
This requires collaboration by all players including end-customers, owners, equipment vendors and, of course, delivery partners like Worley.
We’re working with key players across the battery materials supply chain, ultimately moving battery materials projects across Europe and North America from ambition to successful operation.
1 Product qualification is the process of demonstrating that a battery material can be manufactured consistently at commercial scale and delivers the required electrochemical performance, safety, quality, reliability, and compliance throughout the automotive battery value chain.
