Quiet Tides: The Financial Forces Steering Today’s Emerging Commodity Traders
By: Jack Bardajian 1st December 2025 The world of physical commodity trading feels tactile and concrete — grain stacked in silos, oil pumped into tankers, copper piled in yards — but the fate of emerging, unlisted trading houses such as Gapuma Group is written as much in the price of credit and the mood of public markets as in harvests and shipping schedules. Medium-sized traders sit at an awkward intersection: big enough to need vast working capital, small enough that their access to capital markets is conditional and often second-best. For them, movements in bond and gilt markets, and the broader temper of equities, are far more than distant background noise; they are the lever that raises or lowers the cost of doing business. Debt is the bloodstream Unlike large, listed peers with easy recourse to equity issuance, private and medium-sized traders typically rely on a mix of bank lines, commercial paper, trade finance and securitisations. That structure makes them acutely sensitive to swings in interest rates and credit spreads. When rates rise and gilts and sovereign bond yields drift higher, the immediate effect is a heavier financing bill on inventories — the so-called cost of carry — and tighter covenant headroom on working capital facilities. That squeezes margins in an industry where single-percentage points can decide profitability. The largest houses can partly offset those pressures through diversified funding programmes and scale-economies in repo or commercial-paper markets. Louis Dreyfus, for example, highlights the importance of diversified short-term funding and committed facilities in its financial statements — a cushion that medium-sized firms often lack when markets tighten. Turning inventory into risk Higher rates change behaviour. Where once it made commercial sense to carry larger inventories — capturing seasonal arbitrage or timing sales to market windows — an elevated cost of money forces more rapid turnover. That reduces optionality for merchants like Gapuma: less inventory means fewer opportunities to capture basis moves or to provide the market-making liquidity that buyers and sellers depend on. Those constraints are not hypothetical. Industry executives have repeatedly signalled a retrenchment in capacity and capital intensity as the economic backdrop shifts. “From a capital allocation perspective, we continue to focus on aligning our capital to productivity efforts or cost reductions efforts or internal innovation.” That emphasis on capital discipline among the big houses echoes down the supply chain and changes competitive dynamics for smaller players. A two-tiered funding world Bank and institutional appetite for trade credit has become more discriminating. Analyses from major banks and rating agencies show lenders reallocating scarce liquidity toward the largest, most credit-worthy counterparties in stressed markets. The result is a bifurcated landscape in which scale and credit standing command cheaper funding; medium-sized houses face higher spreads, shorter tenors, or the need to use more complex, asset-backed structures to fund their operations. For an ambitious firm such as Gapuma, that means financing strategy becomes a strategic capability: strong relationships with regional banks, creative use of receivables financing, and disciplined working-capital management are competitive imperatives. Cargill’s internal communications from recent years underline this push to optimise capital and reduce costs — a reminder that even the giants are recalibrating their capital footprints. That recalibration tightens the window for midsized firms to compete on margin or to carry large seasonal positions. Financial markets as a macro barometer Stock markets do more than set valuations for listed firms. They provide a real-time barometer of investor sentiment, growth expectations and risk appetite. A buoyant equity market often presages strong industrial demand — a boon for commodity volumes — whereas sustained market weakness can presage slower manufacturing and reduced commodity flows. The “financialisation” of commodities — the growth of ETFs, index allocations and institutional positioning — has further linked commodity prices to the ebb and flow of capital. This linkage amplifies volatility and can create price moves that are driven more by portfolio flows than by immediate physical fundamentals. Bunge’s leadership has also warned that policy uncertainty and trade dynamics dampen the willingness of counterparties to commit beyond the near term: “Policy decisions, including biofuels and trade, remain in flux as we look ahead to 2026.” For Gapuma, that translates into a commercial landscape in which hedging, counterparty risk assessment and flexible contracting are non-negotiable. The operational response: risk, capital and governance So what practical measures should Gapuma and its peers take? First, capital efficiency must be baked into commercial strategy. That means sophisticated cash-management, faster receivables cycles, and disciplined, data-driven inventory models that balance opportunity with financing cost. Second, diversified funding is essential: establishing committed facilities, bilateral lines with regional banks, and, where feasible, access to short-term commercial-paper programmes or asset-backed financing can blunt liquidity squeezes. As Louis Dreyfus’ disclosures show, a well-structured funding mix and contingent facilities materially reduce exposure to short-term dislocation. Third, governance and risk capability matter. Oliver Wyman-type industry guidance and direct executive commentary from large houses alike emphasise the need for professionalised risk management — from VaR and stress testing to counterparty credit frameworks and scenario planning. Medium-sized traders that professionalise these functions faster than peers will not only survive stress cycles — they will capitalise on them. Opportunity in turbulence Volatility has always been the oxygen of commodity trading. For emerging houses such as Gapuma, higher rates and more volatile public markets are both a threat and an opportunity. Those that refine their capital structures, deepen lender relationships, and sharpen trading and hedging playbooks stand to grow into the next generation of major merchants. The pathway demands operational rigour and financial sophistication — not big-ticket equity raises, but smarter use of debt, better working capital management, and a governance framework that institutional investors and banks find comfortable. As the giants adjust their capital allocation and operational footprints, medium-sized houses that combine commercial agility with a professional funding strategy can move from the periphery to the core of global commodity flows. The markets that set the price of capital — gilts, bonds and equities — will not merely be the […]
London: The New Crossroads of Trade
A Frozen Bridge for U.S.-China Relations A Welcoming Embrace for India 24th July 2025 As two tectonic shifts in global trade diplomacy unfold in London, the city once again finds itself a crucible for competing visions of globalisation. On one side, a faltering relationship between the United States and China teeters on the edge of renewed hostility, even as both parties prepare for a new round of negotiations. On the other, the arrival of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi marks the culmination of an ambitious UK-India trade pact, one being hailed as a milestone for post-Brexit Britain. These developments — playing out simultaneously in the same city — offer a revealing snapshot of the state of international trade, diplomacy, and strategic alignment in 2025. A Frozen Bridge for U.S.-China Relations Tensions between the U.S. and China remain acute. Despite a cordial front and public statements calling for “mutual respect” and “win-win cooperation”, trade between the two economic giants has stalled in key sectors. U.S. exports of crude oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and coal to China hit zero last month — a stark indicator of deepening friction. According to Chinese customs data, energy imports from the U.S. began collapsing in March when Beijing imposed retaliatory tariffs of 10–15% in response to American pressure. Washington’s rhetoric has veered between conciliation and brinkmanship. Treasury officials have suggested the relationship is “in a good place”, yet President Trump has issued an ultimatum: reach a deal by 12 August or face even steeper tariffs. With energy trade halted and broader economic trust eroded, negotiations now risk becoming performative rather than productive. Warm Welcome for India In stark contrast, Narendra Modi’s visit to London signals a rare bright spot in international trade. The UK-India trade deal, finalised this week, marks the most significant bilateral agreement for Britain since its departure from the European Union. It promises liberalised trade across goods, digital services, pharmaceuticals, and the movement of skilled labour. Symbolically and strategically, this partnership demonstrates both countries’ pivot away from traditional Atlantic alignments and towards a multipolar future. For India, this is part of a broader push to assert itself as a manufacturing and technological alternative to China. For the UK, the deal is a concrete step in delivering on the promise of “Global Britain” and diversifying supply chains beyond the EU and China. Diplomacy in a Fragmented World The juxtaposition of these two developments in London underscores the shifting tides in global diplomacy. Whereas Cold War-era alignments once dominated the international order, the 21st century is increasingly shaped by regional partnerships, transactional diplomacy, and contested norms of engagement. The China-U.S. standoff reflects a breakdown of trust between the two largest economies, with energy trade — a pillar of past cooperation — now weaponised. Meanwhile, India’s alignment with the UK symbolises a constructive alternative: partnerships built on shared democratic values, strategic interests, and mutual economic gain. Implications for Globalism and Security These contrasting stories also point to diverging models of globalisation. One is increasingly fragmented, shaped by tariffs, coercion, and rivalry. The other is cautiously optimistic, rooted in bilateralism and cooperation among emerging and middle powers. Yet the implications go beyond trade flows. A prolonged breakdown between China and the U.S. risks fuelling economic decoupling, reshaping energy markets, and accelerating the formation of parallel financial systems. Meanwhile, strengthened ties between countries like India and the UK could create new centres of influence, challenging traditional global institutions. London, long a symbol of open markets and internationalism, now hosts both a high-stakes power play and a hopeful handshake. The outcomes of these two engagements will reverberate well beyond the city — shaping not only trade balances, but the future of global diplomacy itself.
BRICS and the Future of Global Trade: Pragmatism in a Fragmented World
7th July 2025 As the United States turns inward—amplified by the resurgence of Donald Trump’s protectionist agenda—the BRICS alliance is stepping up to redefine the global economic landscape. This week, BRICS leaders convened at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Rio de Janeiro, not only as a strategic precursor to COP30 in Belém this November, but as a rebuke to the global North’s growing retreat into nationalism, militarisation, and selective multilateralism. While the Western-led global order has relied on the dollar, legacy institutions like the IMF and WTO, and an increasingly rigid rules-based system, many nations across the Global South are now questioning the relevance of that framework. In its place, BRICS—now comprising eleven members and dozens of aligned partners—is presenting a more pluralistic, decentralised, and pragmatic vision of global engagement. Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva captured the moment bluntly: “We have witnessed an unparalleled collapse of multilateralism… Hard-won advances, such as climate and trade regimes, are under threat.” Lula’s warning reflects a broader frustration. From energy access and food security to digital infrastructure and commodity flows, countries are seeking platforms that prioritise fairness over dominance, resilience over rigidity. BRICS initiatives like the New Development Bank, BRICS Pay, and plans for cross-border local currency settlements are not merely technical alternatives—they represent efforts to insulate member economies from external coercion and supply shocks. The Rio declaration touched on several themes: climate vulnerability, development finance, and global governance reform. Yet the language was calibrated—muted, even. Brazil, with COP30 on the horizon, seems cautious about triggering trade retaliation or diplomatic fractures. Analysts observed that while the bloc’s ambition is growing, its internal cohesion remains fragile. Xi Jinping’s unexpected absence from the summit and the continuing diplomatic ambiguity around Russia and Iran underscore this. Nevertheless, the economic gravity of BRICS is undeniable. The bloc now represents 40% of the world’s population and GDP, and more than half of global emissions. It has overtaken the G7 on several structural indicators and is increasingly seen by emerging markets as a platform for voice, not just volume. From Gapuma’s vantage point—deeply engaged in commodities, infrastructure, and cross-border supply chains—the emergence of a multipolar trade environment has tangible consequences. The shift away from dollar dominance, the push for regional value chains, and the rise of Southern-led development finance initiatives are already reshaping trade routes, risk profiles, and investment flows. As one analyst in São Paulo put it: “The question isn’t whether BRICS is perfect—it’s whether staying on the sidelines of its emerging architecture carries greater risk.” Still, challenges persist. Internal divisions, dependency on fossil fuels, and muted transparency within BRICS structures remain unresolved. But in an era dominated by conflict, sanctions, and climate breakdown, emerging economies increasingly see the bloc as a necessary counterweight—not to replace the global order, but to rebalance it. COP30 in Brazil may be the true test. Whether BRICS can turn rhetorical solidarity into collective action on climate finance, infrastructure, and inclusive governance will determine whether this is a genuine pivot in world affairs—or just another summit communiqué filed and forgotten.
The Return of the Special Relationship…
– Or Just the Shape of Trade to Come? 18th June 2025 While all eyes at the G7 summit were trained on the West’s fractured response to the escalating crisis in the Middle East, a quieter but potentially more consequential event took place on the sidelines. The United Kingdom and the United States finalised a long‑anticipated bilateral trade agreement—a milestone that may signal not only a new phase in transatlantic relations, but also a broader reshaping of global trade norms in an era defined by protectionism, realpolitik, and shifting alliances. A Deal for the Times The trade deal, while modest in scope, is politically significant. It reaffirms the mutual recognition of standards in critical sectors such as pharmaceuticals, financial services, and data flows. It also streamlines customs procedures and seeks to reduce certain non‑tariff barriers that have emerged post‑Brexit. Importantly, it locks in preferential terms for select British exports—steel, whisky, and automotive parts among them. But the concessions haven’t all been one‑way. The UK has agreed to allow greater access for certain US agricultural products, and has aligned with Washington’s digital‑service standards—seen by many as a departure from the EU’s more stringent regulatory model. While the British government is touting the agreement as a “pragmatic and future‑facing pact”, some in Westminster are privately acknowledging it as a necessary compromise to maintain relevance in a world where multilateralism is faltering. A New Bilateral Era? This agreement may well be a harbinger of things to come. With the World Trade Organization increasingly sidelined and the multilateral order under strain, bilateral treaties are fast becoming the architecture of modern commerce. As the Trump administration doubles down on “America First” trade policies, countries like the UK find themselves negotiating from a weaker hand—but with greater flexibility. Bilateralism allows for bespoke agreements, faster turnarounds, and the potential for more innovative cooperation, particularly in tech and green‑energy sectors. Indeed, Washington is currently in informal talks with India, and has floated trialling sector‑specific pacts with select Indo‑Pacific nations. It’s no coincidence that a resurgent United States is choosing bilateral forums over multilateral platforms—the former provides leverage, while the latter demands compromise. For the UK, this means recalibrating its post‑Brexit trade strategy to favour agility over alignment. The US deal may soon be followed by refreshed terms with Canada, Japan, and perhaps even Australia. And although a comprehensive UK–EU trade upgrade remains unlikely under current circumstances, incremental sectoral add‑ons are not off the table. Starmer: Picking Up the Pieces or Stooping to Conquer London Ascendant The political subtext of the US–UK deal is just as noteworthy as its commercial implications. Keir Starmer’s government has made no secret of its ambition to rekindle the so‑called “Special Relationship”—but with a more grounded, less romanticised approach than past governments. Recent moves point to the UK becoming a go‑to diplomatic interlocutor for Washington. Earlier this year, when the US sought a neutral location to initiate talks with China on reopening commercial aviation routes and managing export controls, it didn’t choose Geneva, Brussels or Berlin. It chose London. That decision speaks volumes. As The Economist recently noted, “The UK is rapidly positioning itself as America’s most reliable European partner,” with one unnamed senior US official remarking, “We know where we stand with London—especially under Starmer.” Adding further weight, Chancellor Rachel Reeves described Britain as an “oasis of stability” for investors, citing the new US trade deal as reinforcing that confidence. Nevertheless, not everyone is convinced. Critics warn that “transactionalists cannot be trusted in dealmaking,” pointing out that by aligning too closely with a fiercely transactional Washington, “once we have agreed to Plan A… it will be very hard for us to resist a subsequent and more damaging Plan B.” In a sense, Britain is playing the long game: embedding itself as indispensable to both Washington’s economic ambitions and its broader geopolitical strategy. The Cost of Relevance Of course, such positioning comes with trade‑offs. Critics argue that the UK is playing junior partner to an increasingly transactional America—repeating concerns that echo decades of scepticism. Others contend that in a world trending towards regional blocs—the EU, ASEAN, Mercosur—Britain’s choice to pursue bilateralism might limit its influence in the long term. Still, for the moment, the strategy appears to be paying dividends. The US deal may not be the grand free‑trade agreement once promised during the Brexit campaign, but it represents a tangible pivot away from isolation and towards strategic engagement. It’s not perfect. It may not even be entirely fair. But in a fragmented global economy, it may be the best available option. More importantly, it signals that Britain is prepared to act—not just as an independent trader, but as a key geopolitical player in an increasingly uncertain world.
🌍 Crude Oil Instability Renews Debate on Energy Strategy
17th June 2025 Volatility in global oil markets has once again come into sharp focus as geopolitical tensions escalate in the Middle East. Crude prices have surged following recent Israeli strikes on Iranian facilities, pushing Brent close to the USD 80 mark—a level widely considered a threshold at which previously uneconomic sources of oil, such as shale and fracked reserves, start to re-enter the conversation. This development comes amid continued energy disruption caused by the war in Ukraine and increasingly fractured relations with Russia. As supply chains are tested and markets jitter, the conversation around energy resilience, security, and strategy is growing ever more urgent. At Gapuma, we remain mindful of the complex and often polarising nature of energy policy, particularly where fossil fuels such as fracked oil and gas are concerned. While fracking remains a subject of intense debate—on environmental, regulatory, and social grounds—what is undeniable is that rising oil prices tend to breathe new life into its economic case. At price points above USD 80 per barrel, advocates of fracking are likely to become more vocal, and investment interest could follow. However, it is essential to situate this debate within a broader strategic context. Short-term responses to supply shocks must not overshadow the longer-term imperative to create a more balanced and sustainable energy mix. Carbon-based fuels—while still an important part of global supply—must gradually yield to lower-emission alternatives that offer both environmental and geopolitical stability. Battery technologies, scalable renewables, green hydrogen, and smart grid infrastructure will all play increasingly pivotal roles in shaping the energy systems of tomorrow. These technologies reduce dependency on volatile imports, enhance domestic energy security, and contribute meaningfully to decarbonisation targets. As political analyst Marwan Bishara noted, “Energy has become the lifeblood of geopolitical power—a single disruption can reshape global alliances.” That reality has been laid bare in both Eastern Europe and the Gulf, and it continues to shape decision-making across boardrooms and governments alike. Reflecting on this moment, Jack Bardakjian, Gapuma’s Group Managing Director, said: “We need to be very judicious in the choices we make today to guarantee our energy security in the medium to longer term.” With the situation in Iran remaining fluid and the risk of further destabilisation high, the pressure on energy markets is likely to persist. Should a leadership vacuum emerge or regional conflict escalate, we could see further strain on oil flows and a renewed push by certain sectors for domestic energy sources, including shale and fracked hydrocarbons. Nonetheless, the long-term trajectory must point toward a healthier, more diversified global energy portfolio—one in which carbon-based fuels represent a smaller share and sustainability plays a greater role in both energy policy and investment decisions. Gapuma remains committed to providing insight and clarity at this critical junction, as markets, policymakers, and partners navigate the path ahead.
📊 UK Spending Review 2025: Cautious Progress, but a Missed Opportunity for Business Confidence
11th June 2025 The recent spending review by Chancellor Rachel Reeves marks a significant moment in the evolution of the UK’s fiscal and investment strategy. Framed as a pivot toward long-term resilience and sustainable growth, the review sets out day-to-day and capital spending plans that seek to stabilise public services, unlock infrastructure development, and distinguish Labour’s economic stance from that of previous governments. From the vantage point of a business such as Gapuma, working across international trade, sustainable fuels, and alternative energy solutions, the review presents both encouraging signals and persistent concerns. While there is much to welcome in the renewed attention to capital investment and decarbonised infrastructure, several underlying issues—most notably the continuing burden of elevated employer National Insurance—remain unresolved. Strategic Infrastructure: Welcome Commitments, Uneven Benefits The headline figure of £113bn in additional capital investment over the next four years is perhaps the most striking element of the review. It includes support for flagship infrastructure projects, such as £14.2bn for the Sizewell C nuclear development, and £15bn for improvements to public transport outside London. For a company like Gapuma, whose activities touch on low-emission logistics, biofuel trading, and cross-border sustainable energy supply, such investment is welcome. Modernising regional infrastructure and transport networks could catalyse demand for cleaner fuels, more transparent supply chains, and decarbonisation services aligned with Net Zero targets. However, it’s important to note that this capital boost is front-loaded—meaning much of the new spending is concentrated in the early years of this parliament. With borrowing costs rising and fiscal headroom narrowing, there is reasonable uncertainty about how much of this investment pipeline will be sustained, particularly for emerging sectors that do not yet have the institutional weight of legacy industries. A Balanced Approach, but Policy Volatility Remains a Risk The Chancellor was careful to frame this review as a departure from austerity without crossing into fiscal recklessness. Real-terms departmental spending will rise by 1.2% annually, and capital spending by 1.3%, modest increases that reflect a constrained environment shaped by weak economic growth and elevated public debt. That said, businesses are still contending with the effects of frequent and abrupt policy reversals in recent years. From energy pricing frameworks to regulatory treatment of alternative fuels, the policy landscape has often shifted faster than business planning cycles can accommodate. For companies operating across borders and across sectors, stability and predictability are as valuable as funding. A clearer, more dependable framework for industrial decarbonisation, cross-border energy trade, and green investment remains a high priority—particularly in the absence of significant new policy instruments in this review. National Insurance: The Missing Reversal Perhaps the most conspicuous omission in this otherwise comprehensive review is any move to reverse the unprecedented hike in employer National Insurance contributions. For many businesses, this remains a major obstacle to growth, workforce expansion, and strategic investment in skills. In a post-pandemic, low-growth economy, where talent acquisition and labour market participation are key to resilience, the continuation of this higher rate undermines confidence. It directly disincentivises hiring at the very moment when investment in people should complement investment in infrastructure. Jack Bardakjian, CEO of Gapuma Group, commented: “Gapuma remains committed to the shared enterprise of making the British economy prosperous and forward-thinking—but it needs government to share in the heavy lifting, instead of always seeing business as a backstop and fiscal fail safe. This cycle of raiding corporate coffers has to end, or else confidence will ebb still further and mitigate against the growth Reeves’s plans require.” Conclusion: Strategic Direction Set, Delivery Now Critical Reeves’s spending review does not lack ambition. It provides a roadmap for critical investment in infrastructure, seeks to safeguard key public services, and attempts to restore economic credibility through consistent messaging. But for the private sector to fully engage and invest alongside government, a stronger emphasis on long-term policy coherence, hiring incentives, and stable taxation will be essential. Gapuma remains committed to working at the forefront of sustainable trade, alternative fuels, and the energy transition. We will continue to advocate for the policy clarity and investment conditions required to drive meaningful, market-led progress in these areas.
The Bilateral Turn: Brexit and the Unravelling of the Global Order
By: Jack Bardakjian June 2025 When the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, the world debated what it meant for Britain. Would its economy tank? Would trade shrink? Would London lose its crown as a global financial capital? Years on, the answers to these questions remain contested. But the far more profound and less examined consequence of Brexit may lie elsewhere: it marked a defining fracture in the multilateral, globalist order that had dominated the post-Cold War world. Brexit, in hindsight, was not an aberration but a harbinger. It exposed—and accelerated—a tectonic shift towards a world order rooted not in supranational cooperation but in bilateral, self-interested deal-making. This is not merely a British story. Across the world, multilateralism is being quietly but systematically dismantled. From the United States’ retreat under Donald Trump from the Paris Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to the questioning of NATO’s relevance, to China’s increasingly bilateral approach to Africa and Central Asia via the Belt and Road Initiative—this is a world where regional and global institutions are no longer seen as indispensable. As Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the WTO, warned in 2023, “We are moving dangerously close to a world where power, not principles, decides outcomes.” Supranational bodies—be they the EU, NAFTA (now USMCA), ASEAN, or even the United Nations—are increasingly constrained by nationalism, internal dysfunction, or outright rejection. António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, has spoken of a “breakdown in trust between the global North and South” that is corroding collective action. Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, has acknowledged that we are now in a “polycrisis” world, where cooperation is in short supply and crises are entangled. The Shifting Ground in Africa Nowhere is this breakdown in multilateral confidence felt more poignantly than in Africa. The continent is witnessing a sharp reduction in traditional development assistance, most notably from the United States. Humanitarian aid cuts—raised publicly by Bill Gates—threaten food security, health initiatives, and infrastructure development. As Western retreat creates vacuums, they are being rapidly filled by China and Russia, who offer financial support, but often with implicit expectations: natural resource access, military alignments, or political loyalties. This pivot risks creating long-term dependencies that undermine sovereign economic development. Rather than becoming suppliers of unprocessed raw materials in return for external support, African nations must prioritise internal value addition. Manufacturing: Africa’s Hidden Lever A critical step forward lies in manufacturing. Africa cannot afford to remain a dumping ground for low-cost imports from Asia. Building domestic manufacturing capacity—especially in sectors like textiles, agribusiness, and light engineering—not only generates employment but also creates taxable economic activity and fosters skills transfer. Indigenous industries empower local populations, deepen economic resilience, and reduce reliance on volatile global supply chains. With abundant cotton production across countries like Mali, Egypt, and Tanzania, Africa is uniquely positioned to become a global hub for finished garments. Amid global tariff wars and reshoring trends, this may be a rare window of strategic opportunity. A coordinated effort—combining industrial policy, infrastructure investment, and export promotion—could see Africa emerge as a credible alternative to traditional manufacturing centres in Asia. Contested Influence and New Risks Paradoxically, even as Western nations scale down traditional aid, they are extending diplomatic invitations to sanctioned regimes—seeking strategic partnerships that blur the lines of ethical engagement. For Africa, this creates a messy diplomatic terrain: engagement brings investment, but at the risk of entanglement in foreign policy chessboards. But progress is possible. The example of Aliko Dangote’s 650,000-barrel-per-day oil refinery in Nigeria—a continent-shifting investment that positions Nigeria as an exporter of refined petroleum products to Europe and the US—proves that African enterprise can build world-class infrastructure, compete globally, and rewrite the narrative. Winners and Losers in a Fragmented World In this new order, nimble states and corporations that can navigate a thicket of bilateral arrangements stand to gain. Countries like India, Turkey, and Vietnam—each pursuing assertive trade diplomacy while resisting bloc allegiances—are early beneficiaries. Meanwhile, smaller nations lacking leverage may find themselves bypassed or beholden to unequal deals. For multinational corporations, particularly those with heavy exposure to regulated, integrated markets, this world poses challenges. Standards may diverge, supply chains could become more brittle, and legal protections more uneven. “The cost of doing business in a fractured world is rising,” observed Sean Doherty, Head of International Trade at the World Economic Forum. Impact on the Commodities Business Nowhere is this more acutely felt than in the physical commodities sector. Every link in the chain—from sourcing and procurement, to shipping and logistics, warehousing, distribution, and payment—is being reshaped. Sourcing and Purchasing: Commodity traders are already grappling with shifting rules of origin and the politicisation of supply sources. Sanctions regimes are proliferating. In a bilateral world, access to resources becomes a function of diplomacy, not just price. Shipping and Logistics: The re-routing of goods due to conflict (e.g., Red Sea disruptions), trade realignments, or regulatory divergence increases costs and complexity. Fragmented maritime standards and port regulations introduce new bottlenecks. Warehousing and Distribution: Cross-border movement of goods increasingly requires duplicative compliance and diversified infrastructure. Regional hubs may supplant global distribution centres. Payment Systems: The rise of alternative payment architectures—such as China’s CIPS, Russia’s SPFS, or blockchain-based systems—reflects a move away from SWIFT and the USD-dominated order. In a bilateral world, currency risk and payment friction increase. As Yanis Varoufakis has noted, “In the absence of a global monetary anchor, transactional trust becomes a geopolitical instrument.” Banking in the Bilateral Age Traditional banking systems—designed for a globalised, rules-based framework—are straining. Compliance burdens are rising, correspondent banking relationships are being severed, and KYC/AML enforcement is becoming both more politicised and decentralised. Financing trade in a bilateral world demands agility, robust risk management, and increasingly, localised financial infrastructure. “The global economy is decoupling into spheres of influence,” said Barack Obama in a 2024 interview. “If institutions don’t adapt, they will become irrelevant.” The Road Ahead: Timeline and Turbulence This shift is not a flick of a switch but a process—likely to […]
Chemicals with a Conscience: Shaping a Sustainable Future
By: Jack Bardakjian – Group Managing Director May 2025 Tackling the Environmental Pressures of the Chemical Industry The chemical industry plays a vital role in the global economy, supplying essential materials to a diverse range of sectors, from agriculture to manufacturing. Yet, this criticality is accompanied by substantial environmental challenges within the supply chain. Issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous waste generation, and resource depletion have long been prevalent, creating an urgent need for a shift towards more sustainable practices. Gapuma, a leading provider of chemicals and other commodities, is committed to tackling these challenges head-on. Through its operations, the company integrates sustainability into its core values, advocating for a broader industry-wide transformation that embraces the future of responsible production and distribution. The Ecological Footprint of Chemical Production The chemical supply chain is complex, spanning everything from raw material extraction to production processes, transportation, and waste disposal. Each stage of this chain has unique environmental consequences. Resource extraction often leads to habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity. As environmental scientist Dr. Jane Goodall has highlighted, “The degradation of our natural environments cannot be separated from the industries that exploit them.” Furthermore, processing these materials is energy-intensive and often results in significant emissions. Chemical production remains one of the largest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions. The chemical industry accounts for around 5% of global CO₂ emissions, as outlined by the International Energy Agency (IEA). This underscores the urgency of adopting emission-reduction strategies across the sector. The logistics of distributing chemicals globally often relies heavily on fossil fuels, exacerbating the industry’s carbon footprint. Efforts to reduce this reliance and embrace cleaner transport solutions are key to advancing sustainability in the chemical supply chain. Improper disposal of chemical products can lead to severe environmental contamination, threatening both ecosystems and human health. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has long called for the adoption of sustainable waste management practices, stressing the importance of minimising toxic releases into the environment. How Gapuma Is Leading the Way in Sustainable Practices Gapuma recognises the gravity of these environmental challenges and has taken proactive steps to integrate sustainability into its operations. This commitment manifests in several key areas. Gapuma is pioneering the provision of high-performance chemicals designed to optimise energy production processes while reducing environmental impact. By embracing green chemistry principles, the company helps its clients achieve cleaner, more efficient production methods. As noted by Professor Tim Jackson of the Centre for Understanding Sustainable Prosperity, “Green chemistry not only reduces environmental harm but also drives innovation and new business opportunities.” Beyond the operational sphere, Gapuma places a strong emphasis on supporting the communities in which it operates. This reflects the company’s holistic approach to sustainability, recognising that a truly sustainable business must consider the well-being of its people and the wider community. Shaping the Future: Industry Trends and Innovations Gapuma’s initiatives resonate with broader industry trends that seek to reduce the environmental footprint of the chemical sector. Leading practices include Green Supply Chain Management (GSCM), a strategic approach that integrates environmental considerations into supply chain management. By focusing on reducing waste and emissions, GSCM supports the chemical industry’s transition towards more sustainable practices. As a recent report by the World Economic Forum indicates, “The future of supply chains lies in their ability to adapt to both environmental imperatives and evolving market demands.” Many chemical companies are adopting ISO 14001, an internationally recognised standard for environmental management. By doing so, they establish frameworks for systematically reducing their environmental impact, which is becoming increasingly essential in a world that demands accountability. Another promising innovation is the chemical leasing model, which focuses on selling the function of chemicals rather than the quantity. By encouraging more efficient use and reducing waste, chemical leasing represents a path toward greater sustainability. According to a study by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), this model not only reduces environmental impact but also offers significant cost savings for businesses. Turning Challenges into Opportunities: What’s Next for the Chemical Industry? While the journey towards sustainability in the chemical supply chain is challenging, it also presents significant opportunities for innovation and leadership. The chemical industry operates within a highly regulated environment, due to concerns around safety and environmental impact. Companies must stay vigilant to evolving regulations, which requires both flexibility and foresight. As Dr. Michael E. Porter, a renowned expert on business strategy, has said, “Regulations, when embraced correctly, can drive innovation and competitive advantage.” Developing and implementing new, sustainable technologies can be resource-intensive. However, as the shift towards sustainability accelerates, businesses that invest in these technologies stand to benefit from increased operational efficiency and long-term cost savings. Striking a balance between sustainability and profitability remains a critical challenge. However, as many companies are discovering, integrating sustainable practices not only helps protect the planet but can also be a powerful driver of business growth and consumer trust. These challenges present opportunities for businesses to lead the way in shaping the future of the chemical industry. By adopting sustainable practices, companies can gain a competitive edge, meet regulatory requirements, and contribute positively to global environmental stewardship. Charting a Path Forward: Sustainability as a Strategic Advantage The environmental challenges within the chemical supply chain are vast and varied. However, companies like Gapuma are demonstrating that it is possible to integrate sustainability into core business operations while driving meaningful change across the sector. By embracing industry-wide best practices, focusing on innovation, and addressing the environmental challenges head-on, Gapuma is not only advancing sustainability within the chemical supply chain but is also contributing to a more responsible and prosperous future for the entire industry.