Skip to main content

Author: Nils Bågenholm

Why Europe’s ITO Supply Chain Needs a Fundamental Rethink

Written by Nils Bågenholm on . Posted in Supply Chain. No Comments on Why Europe’s ITO Supply Chain Needs a Fundamental Rethink

Indium tin oxide is everywhere — and almost none of it is produced in Europe.

Every touchscreen, every solar panel, every smart glass surface contains a thin layer of ITO. It is the invisible conductor that makes interactive glass possible. And yet, over 80% of global ITO production is concentrated in China, South Korea, and Japan. For Europe’s rapidly growing solar and electronics industries, that geographic concentration is evolving from a commercial inconvenience into a genuine strategic liability.

The exposure became undeniable in 2021, when a global indium supply disruption caused ITO spot prices to spike by more than 40% within a single quarter. European manufacturers — dependent on imports at every stage — had no alternative. More recently, Chinese export controls on gallium and germanium have signalled that critical material supply is increasingly used as geopolitical leverage. Indium, classified as a critical raw material by the European Commission, is widely considered next.

The structural problem

Europe’s ITO dependency is not simply a matter of geology. Indium is primarily recovered as a by-product of zinc smelting, and Europe has sufficient zinc refining capacity to source meaningful quantities. The problem is process economics: conventional ITO manufacturing is expensive, ammonia-intensive, and produces significant hazardous waste. No European producer has been able to compete on cost with Asian producers at larger scale with lower labour and energy costs.

Why a process breakthrough changes the equation

The only durable solution is to make European ITO production economically viable. M4GT’s circular, ammonia-free process reduces production costs by more than 30% and carbon emissions by approximately 80% versus conventional methods. Validated at industrial scale with LT Metal — the world’s second-largest ITO producer — this is not a long-term aspiration. It is an operational possibility, available now.

Europe has a window to act before the supply chain disruption it fears becomes the supply chain crisis it cannot afford.

The Hidden Cost of Conventional ITO Production

Written by Nils Bågenholm on . Posted in Technology. No Comments on The Hidden Cost of Conventional ITO Production

When ITO producers calculate their production cost, they typically count raw materials, energy, and labour. They rarely count what they throw away.

The conventional ITO production process — unchanged for decades — involves dissolving high-purity indium and tin in acid, precipitating an intermediate compound using ammonia, and calcining to produce the final oxide powder. It works. It produces ITO that meets commercial specifications. And it wastes a staggering amount of material at every step.

The material loss problem

Conventional ITO manufacturing loses 30–40% of indium and tin through the combined production and recycling cycle. This represents hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost material value per production line per year. In an industry where indium spot prices are volatile and supply is geographically concentrated, this loss rate is a structural competitive disadvantage that grows more damaging with every market disruption.

The recycling problem compounds it. Conventional producers recycle spent sputtering targets as a separate process from primary production — two independent material flows, two sets of process losses, two sets of energy inputs. The closed-loop integration that would recover material at source simply does not exist in conventional architectures.

The ammonia burden

Ammonia precipitation generates ammonium by-products requiring treatment and disposal. The process runs at elevated temperatures — increasing energy costs and CO₂. Ammonia handling creates occupational safety requirements, environmental reporting obligations, and regulatory exposure that producers have simply absorbed as unavoidable costs. They are not unavoidable. They are a consequence of process architecture, not chemistry.

What a circular process eliminates

M4GT’s closed-loop architecture integrates virgin and recycled material streams into a single production flow. Near-complete material recovery replaces 30–40% loss with near-zero waste. Operating without ammonia at lower temperatures cuts energy consumption and CO₂ by approximately 80%. These are not marginal improvements — they are a structural rethink of what ITO production costs need to be.

From ITO to Batteries: One Process Architecture, Multiple Verticals

Written by Nils Bågenholm on . Posted in Innovation. No Comments on From ITO to Batteries: One Process Architecture, Multiple Verticals

When people ask what M4GT does, the short answer is: we make ITO production sustainable and cost-competitive. The longer answer is more interesting.

M4GT’s technology is not simply an ITO process. It is a modular closed-loop powder production platform — one that solves ITO’s fundamental cost and sustainability problems first, because ITO is where the market validation opportunity was clearest and the licensing pathway most direct. But the same core process architecture — leaching and recovery, proprietary atomisation, dual-zone powder collection — applies directly to a range of other critical materials whose production faces the same structural problems as ITO.

Why CAM is the obvious second vertical

Cathode Active Material production for lithium-ion batteries faces a structurally similar problem set. Conventional CAM generates large sodium sulfate waste streams — growing more acute as EU battery regulations tighten. It relies on multi-step batch processes that are energy-intensive and difficult to automate. And it produces hazardous wastewater requiring expensive treatment infrastructure.

M4GT’s CAM architecture addresses each problem using the same closed-loop principles as the ITO process: eliminate waste formation at source, enable continuous automated production, and integrate material recovery directly into the production flow. Currently at TRL 5 — lab-validated, ready for industrial co-development.

The broader platform

Beyond ITO and CAM, M4GT’s platform addresses six material verticals — gallium oxide, high-purity alumina, lanthanum oxide, and advanced display oxides including IZO and IGZO. Combined addressable market exceeds $50 billion. Each vertical builds on the same validated process architecture. ITO is the proof of concept. The platform is the business.

How the EU Battery Regulation Is Reshaping Critical Materials Manufacturing

Written by Nils Bågenholm on . Posted in Policy. No Comments on How the EU Battery Regulation Is Reshaping Critical Materials Manufacturing

Europe’s Battery Regulation is not a future compliance challenge — it is already reshaping the economics of critical materials manufacturing today.

The EU Battery Regulation, which came into force in 2023 with phased implementation through 2027 and beyond, introduces mandatory requirements for recycled content, carbon footprint declarations, supply chain due diligence, and end-of-life collection and treatment. For lithium-ion battery manufacturers and their material suppliers, these requirements define the terms under which products can be sold in the European market.

What the regulation actually requires

From 2025, industrial and EV batteries sold in the EU must carry a carbon footprint declaration across the full lifecycle. From 2027, those carbon footprints must meet defined maximum thresholds. Producers who cannot demonstrate compliance face market exclusion, not just regulatory fines.

For Cathode Active Material producers, this creates an immediate and structural challenge. Conventional CAM production generates large sodium sulfate waste streams, requires heavy chemical inputs, and operates at high temperatures — resulting in a carbon footprint that is difficult to reduce without fundamentally rethinking the process.

Why waste-free production becomes a regulatory requirement

M4GT’s closed-loop CAM architecture was designed before the Battery Regulation passed — but it is precisely aligned with where the regulation is pushing the industry. Eliminating sodium sulfate formation at source, enabling continuous automated production, and integrating acid recovery all reduce the carbon intensity of CAM production in ways that conventional producers cannot easily replicate.

The producers who start that transition now will have validated, compliant supply chains in place before the deadlines. The producers who wait will find themselves in a race they cannot win without fundamental process change — which takes years, not months.

Why Licensing Beats Building: The Case for Capital-Light Technology Transfer

Written by Nils Bågenholm on . Posted in Strategy. 1 Comment on Why Licensing Beats Building: The Case for Capital-Light Technology Transfer

When we made the decision to take M4GT’s ITO technology to market through licensing rather than building our own production facilities, it was not the obvious choice. It was the right one.

The conventional instinct for a deep-tech company with a proven process advantage is to build. Control the production. Capture the full margin. Own the output. It is an understandable instinct — but it is also the instinct that turns promising technology companies into capital-intensive manufacturers with eight-year timelines to profitability and permanently distracted management teams.

The math of licensing

M4GT’s licensing model allows existing ITO producers — companies that already have the facilities, the customer relationships, the logistics infrastructure, and the production expertise — to adopt our circular process at approximately $0.8M CAPEX per machine. They capture the cost advantage, the carbon advantage, and the margin uplift. We capture a royalty on every tonne they produce. Both parties win, and the technology reaches global scale years faster than any build strategy could deliver.

The strategic validation of this model came with the signing of a term sheet with LT Metal, the world’s second-largest ITO producer. LT Metal brings scale, credibility, and a global reference implementation. M4GT brings the process. The combination is more powerful than either could achieve independently.

Speed and risk reduction

Capital-light licensing also dramatically reduces execution risk. Licensees are not betting on unproven technology — they are integrating a validated process into existing infrastructure with M4GT’s engineering team alongside them at every step. The payback timeline is measured in months rather than years.

As M4GT expands beyond ITO into CAM, gallium oxide, and other critical materials verticals, the licensing model scales naturally. The same approach, applied to the same industrial partners across multiple material categories, creates a compounding royalty base that no single-product manufacturer can match. That is the case for licensing. That is the M4GT strategy.