Albemarle Corporation, one of the world’s largest lithium producers, has closed its Kemerton lithium hydroxide processing plant in Western Australia. The company made the decision due to rising costs and competitive pressures in hard-rock lithium processing. The closure affects more than 250 jobs and dozens of contractors.
The Kemerton plant processed lithium from the Greenbushes mine and was intended to supply battery-grade lithium chemicals. Albemarle invested over US$4 billion in the site, but the facility never reached its target performance. The company cited structural challenges and higher operating costs compared with plants in China.
The shutdown highlights difficulties in building competitive lithium processing outside China. China currently dominates lithium refining and battery supply chains. Many Western firms have struggled to build profitable chemical conversion capacity, even with recent lithium price improvements.
Solid Earnings, Shaky Investor Sentiment
Albemarle reported its fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 earnings in mid-February 2026. The company posted net sales of US$1.4 billion, up about 16% year-on-year, driven by growth in energy storage volumes and pricing. Adjusted earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) rose about 7% compared with 2024.
Despite these positive metrics, Albemarle’s stock fell sharply after the earnings release. Morningstar reported that on February 12, 2026, shares fell about 7%. This drop happened during a wider market sell-off. Still, the company’s profit outlook was better than what analysts expected.
Investors reacted to a mixed message from the earnings data. The company had sales growth and strong cash flow. However, the closure of the Kemerton plant and ongoing cost pressures affected sentiment. Some investors were cautious about near-term guidance amid global market volatility.
But Management Bets on a 2026 Demand Rebound
Despite short-term pressures, Albemarle’s management outlined a strong demand outlook for lithium in 2026. In a recent earnings call, company leaders projected that global lithium demand could grow by 15% to 40% in 2026.
This growth is driven in part by a sharp rise in stationary energy storage demand and continued EV adoption. Stationary storage includes large battery systems used for grid balancing, renewable energy smoothing, and data centers. These systems are becoming major new consumers of lithium-ion batteries.
Industry reports say global energy storage installations more than doubled in 2025. This rise shows growing demand, extending beyond just electric vehicles.
Albemarle also reported that its free cash flow in 2025 was about US$692 million after cost controls and capital discipline. The company plans to keep capital expenditures steady in 2026. It will focus on boosting productivity and developing resources instead of expensive expansion projects.
EVs and Grid Storage Keep the Battery Boom Alive
Lithium is a key metal for lithium-ion batteries. These batteries power electric vehicles (EVs), grid storage systems, portable electronics, and more.
Electric vehicle adoption continues to grow globally. The International Energy Agency says EV sales hit around 20 million units in 2025. This makes up nearly 25% of all car sales globally. EVs alone account for about 75% of total lithium demand in 2025 in battery markets.
In addition, stationary energy storage systems are becoming more common. Battery storage helps balance renewable energy like wind and solar on the grid. Storage growth is part of broader climate and energy policies in many countries.
- Demand growth is also supported by new battery applications, such as data centers and backup power systems.
Some market analysts expect global lithium demand to more than double by the decade’s end. This will depend on EV adoption rates, renewable energy growth, and storage needs.
- MUST READ: How BESS and Lithium Demand Are Shaping Energy Storage: Global Shipments to Surge 50% in 2025
Processing Bottlenecks and Price Swings Complicate Supply
While demand is rising, the supply side of lithium faces challenges.
Mining output increased sharply between 2021 and 2025. Australia, Chile, and China expanded production during that period. However, processing capacity, especially outside China, has lagged.
The closure of Albemarle’s Kemerton plant underscores these supply constraints. Western plants face higher labor, energy, and infrastructure costs compared with counterparts in China. These factors make lithium hydroxide production less profitable in some regions.
China dominates downstream lithium processing and battery cell production. The country holds 60–70% of the world’s lithium chemical processing capacity. It also makes around 75% of lithium-ion batteries, based on data from the International Energy Agency.
- RELATED: China’s One Month Lithium Battery Energy Storage Installations Beat America’s One Whole Year
At the same time, some supply projects have delayed expansion, held back by financing costs, permitting hurdles, and fluctuating prices.
Price volatility has been a feature of the lithium market over the past few years. After reaching multiyear highs in 2022, lithium carbonate prices plunged through 2023 and 2024 due to oversupply. Prices bounced back in late 2025 and further skyrocketed in early 2026.
Cost Cuts and Capital Discipline Take Center Stage
Albemarle’s recent actions illustrate how lithium producers respond to shifting conditions.
The company cut costs, lowered capital spending, and sold non-core assets to boost its balance sheet. These moves helped Albemarle generate strong free cash flow even with price swings.
Management noted cost and productivity gains of US$100–150 million aimed for 2026. This will help boost profit margins, particularly in energy storage segments.
Albemarle’s strategy focuses on maintaining stable operations while positioning for long-term demand growth. This includes optimizing asset portfolios, managing supply chains, and shifting production toward lower-cost channels.
Other companies in the lithium sector are also adapting. Some are concentrating on mining expansions, processing partnerships, and technology improvements. Others are exploring recycling and alternative battery chemistries to reduce reliance on lithium.
Miners like Pilbara Minerals, SQM, and Sigma Lithium are expanding and optimizing supply. They do this to stay competitive during price cycles. Refiners like Ganfeng Lithium and Tianqi Lithium are expanding their conversion capacity. They are also integrating their supply chains.
Moreover, firms like Standard Lithium and EnergyX are developing direct lithium extraction methods. These aim to boost recovery and lower water impacts. Recycling companies like Redwood Materials, Li-Cycle, and Umicore are expanding systems. They recover lithium and other metals from used batteries.
Battery makers such as CATL are also investing in sodium-ion technology, which can reduce lithium demand in some market segments.
A Tightening Market in the Making?
The lithium market continues to evolve. There are signs of a structural shift as demand grows faster than supply in some scenarios.
Analysts expect that demand from EVs and energy storage will keep pushing lithium consumption up for the rest of the decade. Albemarle’s plant closure shows that supply issues and processing challenges might tighten the market. This could happen if new capacity isn’t ready soon.
Long-term forecasts suggest many countries and companies will need secure lithium sources. They will also need more downstream processing capacity to meet climate and clean energy goals.
For Albemarle, the mix of cost discipline, demand growth forecasts, and strategic positioning could help the company navigate a market that is both dynamic and competitive.
- READ MORE: How BESS and Lithium Demand Are Shaping Energy Storage: Global Shipments to Surge 50% in 2025
The post Albemarle Shuts Lithium Plant But Bets Big on Strong Demand Outlook for 2026 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits