Hubbry Logo
CommodityCommodityMain
Open search
Commodity
Community hub
Commodity
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Commodity
Commodity
Commodity
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Yerba mate (left), coffee bean (middle) and tea (right), all used for caffeinated infusions, are commodity cash crops.
Business administration
Accounting
Business entity (list)
Corporate governance
Corporate law
Corporate title
Economics
Finance
Types of management
Organization
Trade

In economics, a commodity is an economic good, usually a resource, that specifically has full or substantial fungibility: that is, the market treats instances of the good as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them.[1][2][3]

The price of a commodity good is typically determined as a function of its market as a whole: well-established physical commodities have actively traded spot and derivative markets. The wide availability of commodities typically leads to smaller profit margins and diminishes the importance of factors (such as brand name) other than price.

Most commodities are raw materials, basic resources, agricultural, or mining products, such as iron ore, sugar, or grains like rice and wheat. Commodities can also be mass-produced unspecialized products such as chemicals and computer memory. Popular commodities include crude oil, corn, and gold.

Other definitions of commodity include something useful or valued[4] and an alternative term for an economic good or service available for purchase in the market.[5] In such standard works as Alfred Marshall's Principles of Economics (1920)[6] and Léon Walras's Elements of Pure Economics ([1926] 1954)[7] 'commodity' serves as general term for an economic good or service.

Etymology

[edit]

The word commodity came into use in English in the 15th century, from the French commodité, "amenity, convenience". Going further back, the French word derives from the Latin commoditas, meaning "suitability, convenience, advantage". The Latin word commodus (from which English gets other words including commodious and accommodate) meant variously "appropriate", "proper measure, time, or condition", and "advantage, benefit".

Description

[edit]

Characteristics

[edit]

In economics, the term commodity is used specifically for economic goods that have full or partial but substantial fungibility; that is, the market treats their instances as equivalent or nearly so with no regard to who produced them.[1] Karl Marx described this property as follows: "From the taste of wheat, it is not possible to tell who produced it, a Russian serf, a French peasant or an English capitalist."[8] Petroleum and copper are examples of commodity goods:[9] their supply and demand are a part of one universal market.

Non-commodity items such as stereo systems have many aspects of product differentiation, such as the brand, the user interface and the perceived quality. The demand for one type of stereo may be much larger than demand for another.

The price of a commodity good is typically determined as a function of its market as a whole. Well-established physical commodities have actively traded spot and derivative markets.

Six Major Characteristics of Commodities

[edit]

Source:[10]

  1. Massive Supply and Demand Scale — The Fundamental Fuel of the Industrial Economy
  2. Significant Price Volatility: Dynamic Balance Driven by Multiple Factors
  3. High Storage and Transportation Convenience
  4. Diverse Categories — The Material Foundation Covering the Entire Industry Chain
  5. High Degree of Quality Homogeneity
  6. Prominent Financial Attributes — A Dual Channel Connecting Real Economy and Capital Markets

Hard and soft commodities

[edit]
World exports of cereals by main commodities

Soft commodities are goods that are grown, such as wheat, or rice.

Hard commodities are mined. Examples include gold, silver, helium, oil.

Energy commodities include electricity, gas, coal and oil. Electricity has the particular characteristic that it is usually uneconomical to store, and must therefore be consumed as soon as it is produced.

Commoditization

[edit]
Main article: Commoditization

Commoditization occurs as a goods or services market loses differentiation across its supply base, often by the diffusion of the intellectual capital necessary to acquire or produce it efficiently. As such, goods that formerly carried premium margins for market participants have become commodities, such as generic pharmaceuticals and DRAM chips. An article in The New York Times cites multivitamin supplements as an example of commoditization; a 50 mg tablet of calcium is of equal value to a consumer no matter what company produces and markets it, and as such, multivitamins are now sold in bulk and are available at any supermarket with little brand differentiation.[11] Following this trend, nanomaterials are emerging from carrying premium profit margins for market participants to a status of commodification.[12]

There is a spectrum of commoditization, rather than a binary distinction of "commodity versus differentiable product". Few products have complete undifferentiability and hence fungibility; even electricity can be differentiated in the market based on its method of generation (e.g., fossil fuel, wind, solar), in markets where energy choice lets a buyer opt (and pay more) for renewable methods if desired. Many products' degree of commoditization depends on the buyer's mentality and means. For example, milk, eggs, and notebook paper are not differentiated by many customers; for them, the product is fungible and lowest price is the main decisive factor in the purchasing choice. Other customers take into consideration other factors besides price, such as environmental sustainability and animal welfare. To these customers, distinctions such as "organic versus not" or "cage free versus not" count toward differentiating brands of milk or eggs, and percentage of recycled content or Forest Stewardship Council certification count toward differentiating brands of notebook paper.

Global commodities trading company

[edit]

This is a list of companies trading globally in commodities, descending by size as of October 28, 2011.[13]

  1. Vitol
  2. Glencore
  3. Trafigura
  4. Cargill
  5. Salam Investment
  6. Archer Daniels Midland
  7. Gunvor (company)
  8. Mercuria Energy Group
  9. Noble Group
  10. Louis Dreyfus Group
  11. Bunge Limited
  12. Wilmar International
  13. Olam International

Commodity trade

[edit]
Main articles: Futures exchange and Commodity market

In the original and simplified sense, commodities were things of value, of uniform quality, that were produced in large quantities by many different producers; the items from each different producer were considered equivalent. On a commodity exchange, it is the underlying standard stated in the contract that defines the commodity, not any quality inherent in a specific producer's product.

Commodities exchanges include:

Markets for trading commodities can be very efficient, particularly if the division into pools matches demand segments. These markets will quickly respond to changes in supply and demand to find an equilibrium price and quantity. In addition, investors can gain passive exposure to the commodity markets through a commodity price index.

In order to diversify their investments and mitigate the risks associated with inflationary debasement of currencies, pension funds and sovereign wealth funds allocate capital to non-listed assets such as a commodities and commodity-related infrastructure.[14]

Inventory data

[edit]

The inventory of commodities, with low inventories typically leading to more volatile future prices and increasing the risk of a "stockout" (inventory exhaustion). According to economist theorists, companies receive a convenience yield by holding inventories of certain commodities. Data on inventories of commodities are not available from one common source, although data is available from various sources. Inventory data on 31 commodities was used in a 2006 study on the relationship between inventories and commodity futures risk premiums.[15]

Commodification of labour

[edit]
See also: Labour is not a commodity

In classical political economy and especially in Karl Marx's critique of political economy, a commodity is an object or a good or service ("product" or "activity"[16]) produced by human labour.[17] Objects are external to man.[18] However, some objects attain "use value" to persons in this world, when they are found to be "necessary, useful or pleasant in life".[19] "Use value" makes an object "an object of human wants",[20] or "a means of subsistence in the widest sense".[21]

As society developed, people found that they could trade goods and services for other goods and services. At this stage, these goods and services became "commodities". According to Marx, commodities are defined as objects which are offered for sale or are "exchanged in a market".[22] In the marketplace, where commodities are sold, "use value" is not helpful in facilitating the sale of commodities. Accordingly, in addition to having use value, commodities must have an "exchange value"—a value that could be expressed in the market.[23]

Prior to Marx, many economists debated as to what elements made up exchange value. Adam Smith maintained that exchange value was made up of rent, profit, labour and the costs of wear and tear on the instruments of husbandry.[24] David Ricardo, a follower of Adam Smith, modified Smith's approach on this point by alleging that labour alone is the content of the exchange value of any good or service.[25] While maintaining that all exchange value in commodities was derived directly from the hands of the people that made the commodity, Ricardo noted that only part of the exchange value of the commodity was paid to the worker who made the commodity. The other part of the value of this particular commodity was labour that was not paid to the worker—unpaid labour. This unpaid labour was retained by the owner of the means of production. In capitalist society, the capitalist owns the means of production and therefore the unpaid labour is retained by the capitalist as rent or as profit. The means of production means the site where the commodity is made, the raw products that are used in the production and the instruments or machines that are used for the production of the commodity.

However, not all commodities are reproducible nor were all commodities originally intended to be sold in the market. These priced goods are also treated as commodities, e.g. human labour-power, works of art and natural resources ("earth itself is an instrument of labour"),[26] even though they may not be produced specifically for the market, or be non-reproducible goods.

Marx's analysis of the commodity is intended to help solve the problem of what establishes the economic value of goods, using the labour theory of value. This problem was extensively debated by Adam Smith, David Ricardo[27] and Karl Rodbertus-Jagetzow among others.

All three of the above-mentioned economists rejected the theory that labour composed 100% of the exchange value of any commodity. In varying degrees, these economists turned to supply and demand to establish the price of commodities. Marx held that the "price" and the "value" of a commodity were not synonymous. Price of any commodity would vary according to the imbalance of supply to demand at any one period of time. The "value" of the same commodity would be consistent and would reflect the amount of labour value used to produce that commodity.

Prior to Marx, economists noted that the problem with using the "quantity of labour" to establish the value of commodities was that the time spent by an unskilled worker would be longer than the time spent on the same commodity by a skilled worker. Thus, under this analysis, the commodity produced by an unskilled worker would be more valuable than the same commodity produced by the skilled worker. Marx pointed out, however, that in society at large, an average amount of time that was necessary to produce the commodity would arise. This average time necessary to produce the commodity Marx called the "socially necessary labour time".[28] Socially necessary labour time was the proper basis on which to base the "exchange value" of a given commodity.

Commodity super cycle

[edit]

Commodity super cycles are periods of time, around a decade, where commodities as a whole trade at a price that is greater than their long term moving average.[29] A super cycle will usually occur when there is large industrial and commercial change in a country or world that requires more resources to support the change. As prices rise, goods and services that rely on commodities rise with them.

History of super cycles

[edit]

There have been four super cycles over the last 120 years worldwide.[30] The first commodity super cycle started in late 1890 and was accelerated on the back of widespread U.S. industrialization and World War 1. In 1917 commodity prices peaked and then entered a downtrend to the 1930s. As war erupted in Europe in the late 1930s and eventually including the U.S., the world saw a new cycle begin. Countries were not just preparing for war but also for the aftermath of World War II as large parts of Europe and Asia faced heavy rebuilding. This cycle eventually peaked in 1951 and faded away in the early 70s.[31] In the 1970s as world economies grew, they needed more materials and energy to support expansion leading to increases in prices across the board. This boom came to an end as foreign investments fled as extractive industries became nationalized.[31] The most recent of commodity super cycles began in 2000 as China joined the World Trade Organization.[31] China was also in the beginning of their boom as industry and expansion took off. Workers moved into cities as emerging industries took off and offered a lot of new jobs and opportunities. In 2008 when the Great Recession hit, it put a halt onto the supercycle as GDP's across the world tanked leaving many economies in recessions.

The next or the fifth super cycle could arrive as the world enters the final phases of the COVID-19 pandemic and starts to build massive clean energy infrastructure in view of the commodity price increase.[32]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Commodity

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

A commodity is a physical good derived from natural resources that is fungible, meaning units are interchangeable and indistinguishable regardless of producer, typically traded in standardized form on markets. Commodities encompass raw materials essential for manufacturing and consumption, categorized broadly into hard commodities—such as metals and energy products extracted through mining or drilling—and soft commodities, including agricultural products like grains, livestock, and beverages grown or raised. These goods are valued for their uniformity, allowing pricing based on quality grades rather than branding, which facilitates global trade via spot markets for immediate delivery and futures markets for hedging against price volatility. Commodity markets play a pivotal role in global economies by influencing inflation, industrial production, and export revenues for resource-dependent nations, though their prices exhibit cyclical patterns driven by supply disruptions, geopolitical events, and demand shifts.

Etymology and Definition

Etymology

The English word commodity derives from the Latin commoditas, meaning "," "fitness," or "suitability," formed from ("convenient" or "suitable"), a compound of the intensive prefix com- and modus ("measure" or "manner"). This Latin term entered as commodité, denoting "benefit," "profit," or "amenity," by the 15th century. In , commodity (or commoditee) first appeared around 1389, initially signifying "benefit," "welfare," or "a useful product," reflecting its roots in notions of and advantage. By the early , its meaning evolved to encompass "an article of merchandise" or "anything movable of value that can be bought or sold," marking a shift toward economic exchange and . This semantic development paralleled broader historical transitions from convenience-oriented concepts to standardized tradable items in medieval commerce.

Economic Definition

In , a commodity is defined as a basic physical good, typically a or primary agricultural product, that serves as an input in the production of other or for direct consumption, and is characterized by high degrees of and interchangeability among units produced by different suppliers. Such goods include metals like , energy resources like crude , and agricultural outputs like , where the market treats equivalent units as identical regardless of origin, enabling bulk trading on exchanges. A core attribute distinguishing commodities from differentiated products is , the property by which individual units are equivalent and substitutable, with pricing driven primarily by and demand rather than brand or producer-specific factors. This homogeneity—evident, for instance, in Number 2 corn where every meeting moisture and quality standards (e.g., 15.5% moisture maximum) is deemed identical—facilitates efficient but exposes prices to volatility from weather events, geopolitical disruptions, or shifts, as seen in oil price swings following production decisions. In classical economic thought, as articulated by , the value of such commodities derives from the labor embodied in their production, though modern analysis emphasizes and opportunity costs in exchange. Commodities underpin economic activity by forming the foundational layer of supply chains, with global trade volumes exceeding $19 trillion annually as of 2022, per UN data, influencing inflation, industrial output, and for resource-dependent nations. Their pricing, often quoted in standardized units (e.g., barrels for at $80.50 per barrel benchmark on October 25, 2025), reflects real-time marginal costs and inventories, contrasting with services or branded manufactures where preferences introduce variability. This structure promotes through competitive markets but can amplify systemic risks, as uniform substitutability reduces diversification incentives for producers.

Characteristics and Classification

Fundamental Characteristics

Commodities possess , whereby individual units of the same type are interchangeable and treated as equivalent by market participants, enabling efficient trading without regard to specific . This trait stems from the inherent uniformity of the goods, distinguishing them from differentiated products where branding or unique attributes influence value. A core attribute is , often codified through a "basis grade" that specifies minimum quality thresholds, such as purity levels for metals or protein content for grains, ensuring consistency across suppliers and facilitating bulk transactions. Without this, opportunities would diminish, as buyers could not reliably compare offerings from disparate sources. Commodities are predominantly physical raw materials or minimally processed primary products derived from natural resources, including agricultural outputs like or soybeans, energy sources such as , and metals like or , which serve as foundational inputs for and consumption rather than end-user items. This positions them as intermediate assets in supply chains, where their value derives from , extraction costs, and in further production, rather than from or customization. Homogeneity reinforces their market dynamics, as commodities lack significant differentiation, leading to primarily through global supply-demand imbalances influenced by factors like for soft commodities or geopolitical events for . For instance, a barrel of crude oil trades based on standardized specifications, irrespective of the producing field. Many are also storable, allowing inventory adjustments to buffer supply shocks, though perishable agricultural types introduce seasonality and spoilage risks. These properties underpin commodities' role as a distinct asset class, with prices exhibiting cyclical volatility tied to production cycles and exogenous shocks, rather than corporate or dividends seen in equities. Empirical data from commodity indices, such as the tracking over 20 futures contracts since 1991, illustrate returns averaging 4-6% annually from 1991 to 2023, often uncorrelated with stocks during inflationary periods.

Hard and Soft Commodities

Commodities are classified into hard and soft categories based on their production methods and inherent characteristics. Hard commodities consist of natural resources that are mined or extracted from the , such as metals including , silver, and , as well as energy products like crude oil and . In contrast, soft commodities encompass agricultural products and that are grown or raised, including crops like , corn, soybeans, , cocoa, sugar, and , along with animal products such as live and hogs. The primary distinction arises from their origins: hard commodities derive from finite geological deposits, enabling relatively consistent extraction rates independent of annual cycles, which contributes to lower price volatility compared to soft commodities. Soft commodities, however, are subject to biological growth processes, making their supply vulnerable to seasonal patterns, events, pests, and outbreaks, often resulting in higher volatility and shorter shelf lives due to perishability. For instance, in 2022, in major producing regions led to a 20% spike in global prices, exemplifying the susceptibility of soft commodities to exogenous shocks. This classification influences trading dynamics in commodity markets, where both types are primarily exchanged via futures contracts to against price fluctuations. Hard commodities typically support longer-term storage and global supply chains with less degradation, facilitating industrial applications in and sectors. Soft commodities, being more perishable, often involve contracts with nearer-term expirations and are traded on exchanges like the (ICE) for products such as and . Despite these differences, both categories share and , allowing for efficient through organized markets.

Standardization and Fungibility

Standardization in commodity markets involves establishing uniform specifications for , , purity, and delivery terms to ensure that traded units meet predefined criteria, thereby minimizing disputes and enabling seamless exchange. This defines a "basis grade" or par grade as the minimum acceptable standard for deliverable commodities under futures contracts, such as specific moisture content, protein levels, or impurity thresholds. For instance, corn futures contracts on the specify delivery of No. 2 Yellow Corn in quantities of 5,000 bushels, conforming to U.S. Grade No. 2 standards set by the USDA, which include limits on damage, foreign material, and test weight. Similarly, futures require Grade 1 electrolytic cathodes meeting ASTM B115-00 standards for cathode thickness and blister purity. These standards, often developed by industry bodies or regulators like the USDA for agricultural products, allow buyers and sellers to transact without individual inspections, reducing transaction costs and supporting high-volume trading. Fungibility refers to the interchangeability of commodity units of the same grade and type, where one unit is equivalent to another in value and , treating them as identical for trading purposes. This property stems directly from , as uniform specifications eliminate variations that would otherwise render units non-substitutable. Examples include barrels of (WTI) crude oil, which must meet API gravity and sulfur content benchmarks to be fungible under NYMEX contracts, or bushels of graded by protein content and hardness under USDA classes like Hard Red No. 2. In non-fungible contrasts, unique items like specific artworks or custom machinery lack this substitutability due to inherent differences. is essential for commodities like , where standardized 99.5% purity bars (London Good Delivery) can be exchanged globally without premium adjustments for minor variances. The interplay of and underpins the efficiency of organized exchanges, where futures contracts specify not only the commodity grade but also contract size, delivery location, and timing, fostering and . Without these features, markets would devolve into negotiations requiring quality assays for each , elevating costs and fragmenting , as seen historically in pre-exchange spot markets reliant on personal trust. Standardized fungible contracts enable hedging by allowing producers to offset risks with distant counterparties, independent of specific unit origins, while speculators can enter positions knowing deliverables meet uniform criteria. This mechanism has been critical since the 19th-century emergence of exchanges like the in 1848, which first codified grades to mitigate disputes over quality. Empirical evidence from futures markets shows that correlates with higher trading volumes and tighter bid-ask spreads compared to over-the-counter trades lacking such uniformity. However, deviations from basis grades necessitate discounts or premiums, as in contracts where off-grade lots trade at adjusted prices reflecting impurities. Overall, these principles ensure commodities function as economic primitives, interchangeable inputs in production and , rather than idiosyncratic goods.

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Industrial Trade

Commodity trade in ancient emerged during the around 6500–4000 BCE with local exchanges of agricultural goods and raw materials, evolving into long-distance networks by the circa 4000–3100 BCE. served as a primary staple and , with administrative records equating one of silver to 300 sila (liters) of , facilitating and early pricing mechanisms for bulk goods like grains and textiles. , produced in palace-managed flocks, formed a foundational commodity, processed into cloth for alongside and foodstuffs, while imports included , timber, and precious stones sourced from regions like and the Indus Valley. In ancient Egypt, grain—primarily emmer wheat and barley—dominated trade along the Nile River, where seasonal floods enabled surplus production stored in state granaries for distribution and exchange. Exports of grain, linen, and papyrus supported imports of timber from Lebanon, gold from Nubia, and incense from Punt, with riverine transport via reed boats enabling efficient bulk movement from Upper Egypt to the Delta and Mediterranean ports by the Old Kingdom (circa 2686–2181 BCE). This system underscored grain's role as a fungible staple, traded in standardized measures to sustain urban centers and pharaonic economies. Under the , Egypt became a critical supplier of after its in 30 BCE, providing up to one-third of Rome's (public dole) requirements, shipped via barges to and then Mediterranean fleets to Ostia. Provinces like and supplemented supplies, but Egypt's -irrigated yields—estimated at 2–3 tons per —ensured stability for Rome's million-plus population, with state-contracted merchants handling undifferentiated cargoes under imperial oversight to prevent diversion. Overland routes like the , active from the 2nd century BCE through the early medieval period, facilitated exchange of bulk commodities across , including silk, spices, and ceramics from ; horses and glassware from the West; and intermediary goods like wool, salt, and metals traded in caravans spanning thousands of kilometers. These networks connected Han to the , with Central Asian entrepôts handling fungible items like and dyes, though high transport costs limited volume for non-luxury staples compared to maritime alternatives. In medieval Europe, pre-industrial trade centered on regional fairs and overland-sea routes for commodities such as from , from Baltic ports, and spices—pepper, ginger, and —from via intermediaries, peaking in the 12th–14th centuries with annual gatherings like those in Champagne facilitating bulk exchanges without modern standardization. , shorn from millions of sheep, dominated 's exports to for cloth production, while spices, valued for preservation and , commanded premiums equivalent to months of laborer wages, driving Venetian and Genoese maritime ventures to bypass overland monopolies. persisted alongside silver coinage, with quality variations in goods like leading to rudimentary inspections at ports to mitigate in undifferentiated cargoes.

Emergence of Organized Exchanges

The earliest organized commodity exchange emerged in with the establishment of the Dojima Rice Exchange in in 1697, marking the world's first formalized futures market for trading contracts. This exchange facilitated trading in rice tickets—receipts for stored —allowing merchants to buy and sell future deliveries, which provided a mechanism to against price fluctuations in a staple commodity that served as a form of under the . By 1730, the shogunate officially authorized both spot and futures trading at Dojima, introducing standardized contracts, a clearing system to mitigate counterparty risk, and organized trading floors, which enabled efficient amid seasonal supply variations and samurai stipends paid in . The exchange's structure addressed real economic needs, such as stabilizing prices for producers and consumers in a -dependent , and it operated until its dissolution in 1939. In , organized commodity trading initially relied on informal forward contracts and merchant guilds rather than centralized exchanges, with roots in medieval fairs and 17th-century markets in cities like , where the traded spices and other through bills of exchange from the early 1600s. However, the first structured futures-like trading in agricultural commodities developed later in the , driven by expanding trade networks and the need for in markets. The (CBOT), founded on April 3, 1848, by merchants, became the pioneering Western organized exchange, initially focusing on spot trading of corn, wheat, and other Midwest grains before introducing standardized, enforceable futures contracts in 1865 to counter seasonal gluts and transport disruptions via emerging railroads and canals. This shift to formal rules, grading standards, and a central clearing process reduced default risks and speculation abuses, fostering in a market handling millions of bushels annually by the 1870s. The transition to organized exchanges reflected causal pressures from growing trade volumes, geographic specialization in production, and the limitations of bilateral forwards, which lacked transparency and ; Dojima's model demonstrated how institutional rules could align incentives for hedging producers against speculative buyers, a dynamic replicated in amid America's agricultural boom. Subsequent exchanges, such as the in , extended this to soft commodities, standardizing contracts for global . These early platforms prioritized empirical price signals over regulatory overreach, though periodic scandals, like corner attempts in the , underscored the tension between market and manipulative risks inherent in concentrated trading.

19th and 20th Century Expansion

The expansion of commodity trading in the was driven by innovations in transportation and communication that integrated distant markets and reduced volatility. Railroads, canals, and steamships lowered shipping costs and times, while the telegraph facilitated real-time information across regions, enabling specialization in agricultural production and larger-scale . In the United States, these developments positioned as a central grain-trading hub by linking the to the . The (CBOT), founded in 1848, became the world's first organized , initially serving as a cash market for grains before introducing standardized futures contracts in 1865 for , corn, and oats, backed by performance bonds to ensure contract fulfillment. This standardization addressed risks from seasonal gluts, shortages, and speculative abuses prevalent in earlier forward contracts. Other U.S. exchanges followed, including the in 1870, which formalized futures trading post-Civil War to handle growing Southern output destined for European textile mills. Internationally, the London Metal Exchange was established in 1877 to trade non-ferrous metals like , tin, and lead, capitalizing on Britain's industrial demand and imperial sourcing networks. In the early , commodity exchanges proliferated and diversified beyond grains to include , fats, oils, and metals, with mergers forming entities like the Commodity Exchange (COMEX) in 1933 from New York-based metal, rubber, and silk markets. Regulatory frameworks emerged to curb manipulations, such as the U.S. Grain Futures Act of 1922, which required exchange registration and contract approval, followed by the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 that extended oversight to additional commodities including , , , eggs, and potatoes. Amendments in 1940 added futures for soybeans, fats, and oils, reflecting rising industrial uses, while 1968 incorporated and meat products amid post-World War II agricultural mechanization. Global commodity consumption expanded markedly, particularly for and metals, as industrialization in and drove demand for raw materials extracted from colonies and emerging producers. World trade volumes grew substantially from 1870 onward, with exports rising from under 10% of global output to higher shares by mid-century, fueled by productivity gains that lowered real prices but increased traded quantities despite interruptions from the World Wars and . These developments solidified organized exchanges as mechanisms for and risk hedging, supporting through stabilized supply chains.

Post-1970s Globalization

The dismantling of the in 1971, culminating in the suspension of dollar convertibility to , ushered in an era of floating exchange rates that amplified volatility across commodity prices, prompting producers and consumers to rely more heavily on global futures markets for hedging currency and price risks. This transition coincided with the 1973 oil embargo by , which quadrupled crude oil prices from approximately $3 per barrel to over $12 by early 1974, exposing vulnerabilities in energy supply chains and accelerating the formation of international spot markets for petroleum. The subsequent 1979 further drove oil prices to nearly $40 per barrel, fostering benchmark contracts like and Brent, which standardized global pricing and trading. Deregulatory measures in the , including the U.S. Commodity Exchange Act amendments and the UK's "" reforms of , liberalized access to commodity , enabling financial institutions to speculate and alongside traditional producers. These changes facilitated the of commodities, where trading volumes in futures often exceeded physical delivery needs, with non-commercial participants like funds growing to represent over 30% of in major contracts by the late . Technological advancements, notably the widespread adoption of standardized shipping containers from the mid-1970s, slashed transport costs by up to 90% for many bulk goods, integrating distant producers—such as Australian exporters—with Asian manufacturers. Global commodity trade volumes surged amid these developments, with world merchandise trade expanding at an average annual rate of 6.2% from 1970 to 2000, outpacing GDP growth and reflecting deeper interconnections. Seaborne trade, critical for commodities like grains, ores, and fuels, ballooned from 2.6 billion tons in 1970 to over 10 billion tons by 2020, driven by investments in ports and fleets. The ascent of emerging markets further globalized demand; Asia's share of world commodity imports rose from under 20% in the to approximately 50% by the , propelled by industrialization in and , which accounted for over 40% of global metals consumption growth between 2000 and 2010. This shift not only commoditized production in resource-rich developing nations but also exposed markets to geopolitical risks, as seen in supply disruptions from Latin American debt crises in the .

Commodity Markets and Trading

Spot and Futures Markets

The spot market for commodities involves the immediate exchange of physical for , typically with delivery occurring within a short timeframe such as two business days, reflecting the current market price driven by at the point of transaction. This market operates primarily over-the-counter (OTC) or through physical trading venues, where buyers and sellers negotiate directly for commodities like crude oil at loading ports, at refineries, or agricultural products at harvest sites, without the of exchange-traded contracts. Spot prices serve as the benchmark for immediate value, influenced by real-time factors such as disruptions in yields or geopolitical events affecting oil exports, and they underpin pricing in related . In contrast, futures markets facilitate trading of standardized contracts obligating the buyer to purchase, or the seller to deliver, a specified and of a commodity at a predetermined on a future settlement date, often months ahead. These contracts, cleared through exchanges like the (CME), enable participants to hedge against volatility—such as a locking in prices before harvest—or speculate on directional moves without handling physical , with daily mark-to-market settlements adjusting positions based on price changes. Futures prices diverge from spot prices due to expectations of future supply-demand imbalances, storage costs, and interest rates, resulting in market states like (futures higher than spot, incentivizing storage) or backwardation (spot higher, signaling shortages). For instance, West Texas Intermediate crude oil futures contracts specify 1,000 barrels per contract, traded electronically on platforms accessible globally. While spot markets emphasize physical delivery and immediate liquidity for end-users like refiners or manufacturers, futures markets enhance by aggregating diverse participant views and provide leverage through margin requirements, typically 5-15% of value, amplifying both risks and efficiencies in commodity trading. The interplay between the two is evident in basis trading, where arbitrageurs exploit the spread between spot and nearby futures prices to converge them at expiration, ensuring overall market integrity despite occasional disruptions from illiquid spot segments in remote commodities. Empirical data from exchanges show futures volumes often exceed physical spot trades, as in 2023 when CME agricultural futures turnover reached billions of bushels equivalent, underscoring their role in global risk transfer beyond mere physical exchange.

Major Exchanges and Platforms

The CME Group, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, operates the world's largest derivatives exchange by trading volume, encompassing subsidiaries such as the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), and Commodity Exchange (COMEX). It lists futures and options on a wide array of commodities, including agricultural products like corn, soybeans, and wheat; energy contracts such as West Texas Intermediate crude oil and natural gas; and metals including gold, silver, and copper. Trading occurs primarily through the electronic Globex platform, which supports nearly 24-hour access and handled billions of contracts in 2024, with commodity segments contributing significantly to overall activity. The (ICE), based in , Georgia, ranks among the top global venues for commodity derivatives, particularly soft commodities and energy. ICE Futures U.S. facilitates trading in , , , and cocoa, while ICE Futures Europe dominates oil futures, a key benchmark for global oil pricing. In the first half of 2024, ICE reported record volumes exceeding 1.2 billion futures and options contracts across its exchanges, driven by volatility in energy and agricultural markets. For metals, the London Metal Exchange (LME) serves as the preeminent platform, specializing in non-ferrous metals like aluminum, , , and , alongside some precious metals. Established in , it combines traditional open-outcry ring trading with electronic systems and reported average daily volumes of around 200,000 lots in base metals during 2024, reflecting its role in for industrial users. Ownership by since 2012 has expanded its Asian reach. Asian exchanges play a critical role due to regional production and consumption dominance. The (DCE) in leads in agricultural and industrial commodities, with high volumes in , corn, and futures; it ranked among the top global exchanges by contract volume in recent years. The Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE) focuses on metals like and rubber, as well as , contributing to 's influence on worldwide through state-linked trading and physical delivery mechanisms. Other notable platforms include the (MCX) in , which trades gold, silver, and crude futures with growing volumes amid domestic demand, and the Commodity Exchange (TOCOM), now integrated with the Japan Exchange Group, for and precious metals. Spot trading in commodities often occurs over-the-counter (OTC) via interdealer platforms or bilateral agreements, but organized exchanges dominate futures for hedging and , with electronic systems like CME Globex and ICE Connect enabling high-frequency and algorithmic participation.

Trading Instruments and Participants

Commodity trading instruments primarily consist of such as futures contracts, options, forwards, and swaps, which facilitate price management and without immediate physical delivery. Futures contracts are standardized agreements obligating the buyer to purchase, and the seller to deliver, a specific and of a commodity at a predetermined price on a future date, traded on centralized exchanges to ensure transparency and reduce . Options on commodities or futures provide the holder the right, but not the , to buy (call) or sell (put) the underlying asset at a before or at expiration, offering asymmetric profiles for participants seeking protection against adverse price movements. Forwards are customized over-the-counter (OTC) contracts similar to futures but lacking and exchange clearing, thus carrying higher , while swaps involve agreements to exchange cash flows based on commodity price differences, often used for basis hedging in energy and metals markets. Spot contracts, involving immediate delivery and , serve as benchmarks but are less emphasized in organized trading due to their illiquidity compared to . Market participants are categorized by the (CFTC) in its Commitments of Traders (COT) reports into commercials (hedgers), non-commercials (large speculators), and non-reportables (smaller traders), based on position sizes exceeding reporting thresholds as of data through October 2025. Hedgers, typically producers like or miners and consumers such as food processors or airlines, use instruments to lock in prices and mitigate volatility; for instance, a farmer might sell futures to secure against harvest-time declines, comprising the majority of open interest in agricultural contracts per CFTC data. Speculators, including hedge funds, commodity trading advisors (CTAs), and index investors, assume price risk for potential profits without intending physical delivery, providing essential liquidity; non-commercial positions often dominate in financialized commodities like crude oil, where they balanced 70-80% of trading volume in recent years according to exchange reports. Arbitrageurs exploit price discrepancies across markets or instruments, such as between spot and futures or related commodities, enhancing but representing a smaller share of volume. Intermediaries like futures commission merchants (FCMs) and brokers facilitate trades, while regulators such as the CFTC oversee reporting to prevent manipulation, with swap dealers required to register post-Dodd-Frank Act reforms in 2010.

Trading Systems

Commodity trading occurs through structured stages including deal origination, execution, risk assessment, confirmation, and settlement, supported by integrated tools such as Commodity Trade and Risk Management (CTRM) software that automates processes from trade capture to post-trade operations. These systems handle physical and financial trades across commodities, providing real-time valuation, position management, and compliance reporting. Trading firms organize operations into front, middle, and back offices. The front office manages deal execution, pricing, and client interactions, utilizing electronic platforms for order placement and real-time market data analysis to capture trading opportunities. The middle office oversees risk management, including position limits, value-at-risk calculations, and regulatory compliance, employing analytics modules within CTRM systems for scenario simulations and exposure monitoring. The back office handles trade confirmation, settlement, invoicing, and reconciliation, ensuring accurate delivery logistics or financial transfers through automated workflows that integrate with accounting and logistics systems. This division enhances efficiency and risk control in volatile markets, with CTRM tools like those from ION Group or FIS unifying functions across offices.

Global Trading Firms

Global trading firms, often referred to as commodity trading houses, specialize in the physical movement, storage, , and financing of commodities such as , metals, grains, and , bridging producers in resource-rich regions with consumers worldwide. Unlike financial speculators, these firms engage in "" by exploiting spatial, temporal, and qualitative differences in commodity prices, while managing risks through proprietary information on market conditions, shipping, and inventories. Their operations enhance global liquidity and stabilize flows during disruptions, as evidenced by their role in redirecting supplies post-2022 Russia-Ukraine conflict. The largest independent energy-focused trading firms include , , , and , which collectively amassed in cash reserves by early 2024 despite record exceeding $20 billion across the group in prior years. , the world's largest independent oil trader, reported earnings surpassing $28 billion over 2022-2023 and distributed a record $10.6 billion in share buybacks to executives and staff in 2024, supported by its $26 billion equity base. achieved net profits of $7.4 billion in its fiscal year ending September 2023, followed by a $5.9 billion dividend payout, while maintaining elevated capital levels for asset investments amid fading volatility. anticipates stabilized annual earnings of $1.5-2 billion, reflecting a shift from peak post-invasion windfalls. Diversified firms like Glencore integrate trading with mining and production, generating $1.57 billion in metals and minerals trading earnings in the first half of 2025 despite a decline in energy trading profits due to normalizing markets and potential tariff impacts. Agricultural giants such as Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, and Louis Dreyfus—collectively known as the "ABCD" traders—dominate grain and soft commodity flows, handling hundreds of millions of tons annually through blending, storage, and multimodal transport. These firms often operate with limited public disclosure, relying on employee ownership models that align incentives with long-term risk-taking in opaque markets. In recent years, global trading firms have pivoted toward , including refineries, mines, and , to deploy excess capital—estimated in tens of billions—while governments increasingly partner with them for supply security in transitioning systems. This underscores their to lower volatility, with trading desks focusing on data-driven and ESG-linked financing, though profitability remains tied to geopolitical shocks rather than routine .

Economic Functions and Dynamics

Price Formation and Discovery

In commodity markets, refers to the process by which buyers and sellers interact to establish a prevailing market for a commodity, reflecting the aggregation of available information on supply, , and other influencing factors. This occurs primarily through competitive bidding and offering in organized exchanges, where transactions reveal the equilibrium at which supply meets . In spot markets, prices form based on immediate delivery and current conditions, while futures markets incorporate expectations of future fundamentals, enabling earlier revelation of price signals. Futures contracts play a central role in by facilitating the rapid dissemination of information across global participants, including hedgers, speculators, and , who incorporate data on weather events, geopolitical risks, production costs, and levels. For instance, in highly liquid markets like those for metals (aluminum, , , ), futures prices often dominate the discovery process, leading spot prices due to opportunities and finite elasticity in storage and . Empirical analyses confirm that futures markets contribute significantly to price formation, with changes in commodity prices typically appearing first in futures before influencing spot markets. Speculative trading enhances by increasing and incorporating diverse information, though its effects can introduce short-term volatility amid limits to such as noise trading. Studies across agricultural commodities show that speculation improves the informational efficiency of futures prices relative to cash markets. In the long term, prices revert to fundamentals driven by supply-demand balances and production costs, but —through index funds and derivatives—can amplify distortions during periods of imbalance, as observed in commodity booms post-2000. Arbitrage mechanisms between spot and futures ensure price convergence over time, with basis (the difference between spot and futures prices) narrowing as delivery approaches, thereby validating the discovery process. For commodities, futures prices serve dual functions of discovery and hedging, with spot prices adjusting to futures signals amid supply shocks like those from the 2022 Russia-Ukraine conflict, which drove crude oil futures to over $120 per barrel in March 2022 before spot markets fully reflected the disruptions. Overall, efficient price in commodities relies on transparent exchanges that minimize information asymmetries, though external factors like regulatory interventions or can impair it.

Hedging, Speculation, and Risk Management

Hedging in commodity markets involves the use of , such as futures contracts, to offset potential losses from adverse price movements in the underlying physical commodity. Producers, like farmers anticipating harvest sales, typically initiate short hedges by selling futures contracts at current prices, thereby locking in revenue and insulating against future price drops; for example, a farmer might sell futures equivalent to expected output to secure a minimum selling price. Consumers, such as food processors or airlines, employ long hedges by buying futures to cap input costs; an airline might purchase crude futures on the to protect against jet price surges, as seen in strategies adopted during the volatility when major carriers hedged up to 50-70% of their needs. These strategies reduce basis risk—the difference between spot and futures prices—but do not eliminate it entirely, requiring ongoing position adjustments. Speculation entails taking positions in commodity derivatives primarily to profit from anticipated price changes, without an underlying physical exposure to hedge. Speculators, including hedge funds and individual traders, provide countervailing trades to hedgers, absorbing transferred risk in exchange for expected gains; this activity enhances market liquidity, allowing hedgers to execute larger positions with minimal price impact. By aggregating diverse information on supply, demand, and external factors like weather or geopolitics, speculators contribute to price discovery, where futures prices converge toward expected spot values at expiration, reflecting fundamental economic signals rather than isolated bets. Contrary to claims of destabilization, empirical analyses, including those by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, find that speculative trading does not systematically increase volatility and often narrows it by deepening order books and tightening bid-ask spreads. For instance, a CFTC staff study on futures markets concluded that higher speculative participation correlates with reduced price swings, as liquidity buffers absorb shocks without propagating to spot markets. Risk management in commodities integrates hedging and speculation within broader frameworks to balance exposure, liquidity needs, and return objectives, often guided by value-at-risk models or scenario analyses. Hedgers prioritize downside protection, using tools like options for asymmetric payoffs—paying premiums for the right but not obligation to buy or sell at strike prices—while minimizing over-hedging costs that could erode margins. Speculation complements this by enabling dynamic adjustments; non-commercial traders, per Commitment of Traders reports, often amplify hedging efficiency without dominating physical flows, as evidenced by studies showing no causal link between speculative net positions and spot price deviations during events like the 2007-2008 commodity surge. However, excessive speculation in illiquid markets can temporarily exaggerate volatility, though regulatory position limits and bona fide hedge exemptions under CFTC rules mitigate systemic risks by distinguishing risk-transfer from directional bets. Overall, the interplay ensures markets function as efficient allocators of risk, with hedgers offloading uncertainty and speculators pricing it, fostering resilience against fundamentals-driven disruptions like droughts or sanctions.

Inventory Management and Data

Inventory levels of physical commodities serve as a primary indicator of supply availability, directly influencing formation through their reflection of market balance between production, consumption, and storage. Low inventories typically signal tightening supply, prompting upward pressure, while ample stocks exert downward influence; empirical analyses confirm that inventory scarcity correlates positively with commodity volatility across sectors like and . These dynamics underscore the causal link between stockpiles and market responses to shocks, where inventories act as a buffer amplifying or mitigating swings based on their magnitude. In energy markets, particularly crude oil, the publishes the Weekly Petroleum Status Report every Wednesday at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time, detailing commercial inventories by Petroleum Administration for Defense (PAD) district, including crude oil stocks that exclude strategic reserves. For instance, as of October 10, 2025, U.S. crude oil inventories rose by 3.524 million barrels week-over-week, exceeding expectations and contributing to price stabilization. These reports, derived from surveys of refiners, importers, and storage operators, often trigger immediate trading volatility, with deviations from consensus forecasts driving intraday price movements of 1-3% in futures. Agricultural commodities rely on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data, such as the quarterly Grain Stocks report from the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), which estimates on-farm and off-farm holdings of corn, , soybeans, and other grains as of June 1, September 1, December 1, and March 1. The September 30, 2025, report showed U.S. old-crop corn stocks at 1.532 billion bushels, down 13% year-over-year but above trade estimates, influencing (CBOT) futures. Complementing this, the monthly World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) incorporates global stock projections, revealing, for example, projected U.S. corn ending stocks for 2024/25 at levels supporting export records of 71.7 million tons. For base and precious metals, the London Metal Exchange (LME) provides daily stock movement reports at 9:00 a.m. time, aggregating warehouse holdings in approved global facilities for metals like , aluminum, and lead, excluding on-warrant (deliverable) versus cancelled warrant stocks. Monthly summaries track year-to-date trends, such as aluminum stocks fluctuating due to inflows from ports like , where over 650,000 tons arrived in mid-2024, easing premiums but highlighting queue delays. These visible stocks represent a fraction of total supply, as unreported private or producer inventories—particularly in , which dominates metal consumption—can distort global signals, leading analysts to cross-reference with or customs data for fuller pictures. Inventory management practices in commodity supply chains increasingly incorporate technologies like IoT sensors and AI-driven to optimize storage costs and reduce spoilage risks, particularly for perishables like grains, where overstocking ties up capital amid volatile prices. However, opacity persists in non-exchange warehouses and state-held reserves, complicating accurate aggregation; for instance, discrepancies between reported U.S. oil draws and physical deliveries underscore reliance on sampled surveys rather than real-time tracking. Traders thus against report-induced using futures contracts, where surprises historically explain up to 20-30% of short-term price variance in liquid markets.

Commodity Super Cycles

Commodity super cycles refer to prolonged periods, typically spanning 10 to 40 years, during which prices of a broad basket of commodities deviate significantly—either above or below—their long-term trends, often by 20-40% in amplitude, contrasting with shorter business cycles of 3-10 years. These cycles are identified through statistical decomposition of real commodity price indices, revealing structural shifts in global supply and demand rather than transient fluctuations. Historical data from 1865 to 2010 indicate four such super cycles, driven by transformative economic events like industrialization waves. The first modern super cycle emerged in the late 19th century amid the , as demand for , , and other raw materials surged to fuel railroads, production, and in and ; prices, for instance, rose steadily from the 1870s to the early 1900s. A second cycle followed post-World War I reconstruction and interwar electrification, peaking in the 1920s before the induced a bust. The third, from the 1960s to early 1980s, was propelled by U.S. dollar depreciation after the Bretton Woods collapse and OPEC oil embargoes, with crude oil prices escalating from $3 per barrel in 1970 to over $35 by 1980. The most recent historical cycle began around 1999-2000, fueled by China's industrialization and ; commodity prices, including copper (which quadrupled from 2001 to 2006) and (which rose over 300% in the same period), reflected China's spending jumping from $200 billion annually in 2000 to over $1 trillion by 2010, accounting for 50-60% of global mining demand. This boom ended abruptly post-2008 and China's economic rebalancing, leading to a decade-long bust until prices stabilized around 2016. Causal drivers of super cycles stem from fundamental imbalances: explosive demand from emerging economies' catch-up growth, demographic expansions, or technological paradigms (e.g., or steel age), outpacing supply responses due to long lead times in and extraction investments, which can take 10-15 years to scale. In historical commodity cycles, industrial metals like copper often lead with growth due to economic demand, followed by precious metals acting as a hedge against uncertainty. Supply inelasticity exacerbates this, as new capacity requires massive capital amid regulatory and geological hurdles, while demand signals from —such as China's 300 million rural-to-urban migrants in the —create persistent deficits. World Bank analyses confirm synchronized price movements across commodities during these phases, with group-specific cycles in metals and amplifying the global trend. Unlike speculative bubbles, these cycles align with real economic expansions, as evidenced by GDP correlations in commodity-exporting nations during booms. In the 2020s, debate persists on whether a new super cycle is underway, potentially driven by the global transition's for critical minerals like (prices surged 500% from 2020 to 2022), , and to support electric vehicles and renewables, alongside lingering post-COVID supply disruptions. However, World Bank data show prices volatile but not yet sustaining the multi-decade elevation of prior cycles, with indices declining 0.5% monthly as of September 2024 amid stalled transition progress and persistent . Analysts caution that without accelerated decarbonization—requiring 3-4 times current mine output by 2030—this may manifest as episodic spikes rather than a full cycle, potentially reverting to an -led pattern if transition falters. Empirical tracking via indices like the , which peaked in 2022 before retrenching, underscores the need for sustained growth to confirm a super cycle, distinct from 2021-2022 transients.

Commoditization

Process of Commoditization

The process of commoditization transforms differentiated products or services—characterized by unique features, branding, or quality variations—into fungible commodities where buyers perceive little distinction beyond price and basic functionality. This evolution typically unfolds through competitive imitation, technological maturation, and standardization efforts that erode proprietary advantages, shifting market dynamics from value-based to cost-based rivalry. Empirical observations across industries, such as and basic chemicals, show that commoditization accelerates when production scales enable low-cost replication, often within 5–10 years of initial . The initial stage involves product innovation or differentiation, where pioneers capture high margins through scarcity, patents, or superior performance; for instance, early semiconductor chips in the 1970s commanded premiums due to novel transistor densities. As barriers to entry fall—via expired intellectual property, reverse engineering, or shared standards—rivals flood the market, replicating core attributes and commoditizing reliability and convenience features, as seen in the standardization of personal computer components by the 1990s. This imitation phase heightens supply, pressuring incumbents to cut costs without sacrificing essential utility, thereby homogenizing offerings. Standardization then solidifies, often driven by industry consortia or regulatory uniformity, rendering products interchangeable; production exemplifies this, where global specs like ASTM standards since the mid-20th century minimized variations, enabling price-driven bulk trading. In the final phase, consumer focus narrows to efficiency, fostering oligopolistic consolidation as weaker players exit; data from the U.S. sector post-1980s reveal mergers reducing active mills from over 100 to fewer than 10 by 2000, with pricing volatility tied to raw input costs rather than branding. Factors like and digital supply chains exacerbate this, as evidenced by shipping's , where vessel capacities standardized post-1960s, slashing freight rates by over 90% in real terms by 2020. While this process enhances through lower prices—benefiting end-users—it diminishes incentives for sustained R&D unless offset by scale economies or adjacent innovations.

Industry Examples

The industry exemplifies through technological advancements that standardized production and eroded differentiation. The , invented in the 1850s, enabled of at lower costs, transforming it from a specialized material into a ubiquitous commodity used in railroads, buildings, and machinery. By the late , this led to interchangeable products traded primarily on , with global output surging; for instance, worldwide production nearly doubled between 1950 and 1960, then again by 1980, as competition intensified on cost efficiency rather than unique attributes. In commoditized markets, volatility persists despite uniformity, as seen in industries like basic metals where buyers prioritize specifications and cost over branding. The airline industry underwent following regulatory , particularly in the United States with the of 1978, which removed and spurred low-cost carriers that standardized as a price-driven service. This shift commoditized seats, with passengers increasingly viewing flights as interchangeable based on fare rather than service distinctions, leading to fierce competition; by the , low-cost models proliferated, capturing market share through operational efficiencies like one-way pricing and reduced amenities. 's commoditized nature is evident in its high competitiveness, where economic moats are rare, and carriers like operate without significant differentiation, relying on temporary factors like fuel costs for margins. Personal computers represent a technology sector case of , evolving from innovative hardware in the to undifferentiated products by the early , where market dynamics hinge on price amid minimal feature variances across manufacturers. Over the past three decades, PCs transitioned from technical novelties to everyday commodities, with hundreds of millions produced annually and differentiation limited to minor specs, compelling firms to compete on cost; this mirrors broader hardware trends where open architectures accelerated uniformity. In such markets, commoditization disrupts incumbents, as seen in bus architectures enabling third-party components that commodified core PC elements, prioritizing volume over proprietary advantages.

Business and Market Implications

Commoditization compels businesses to prioritize cost leadership and , as differentiation diminishes and price becomes the primary competitive factor, often resulting in margin compression and slower growth. Firms in such markets must achieve through mergers, , or supply chain optimization to remain viable, with the effectiveness of in driving performance notably reduced compared to less commoditized sectors. For instance, in the trucking industry, commoditization has led to declining s for owners, prompting strategies focused on revenue diversification beyond pure hauling services. Markets undergoing exhibit heightened and , enabling standardized products to be traded more readily and allowing buyers to compare offerings primarily on price, which weakens manufacturers' pricing power. This process fosters price transparency and opportunities but also intensifies , frequently sparking price wars that exacerbate volatility and reduce overall industry profitability. In commoditized environments like bearings or coatings, buyers gain dominant positions, pressuring sellers to innovate or bundle services to mitigate pure price-based rivalry. Successful firms counter commoditization by layering value-added elements, such as superior or technological integrations, to escape the commodity trap, while markets benefit from more fluid capital allocation yet face risks from external shocks like supply disruptions that amplify price swings. Digitalization further accelerates these dynamics in sectors like commodity trading, deconstructing traditional value chains and demanding adaptive business models.

Commodification and Critiques

Theoretical Foundations

The theoretical foundations of commodification rest on the distinction between use-value (the utility of a good for direct consumption) and exchange-value (its worth in ), a framework originating in classical with thinkers like and , who emphasized labor as the source of value in marketable goods. Smith, in (1776), described how division of labor transforms products into commodities exchanged in markets, enabling specialization and wealth creation through and . Ricardo extended this by quantifying value in terms of embodied labor time, laying groundwork for analyzing how goods become standardized objects of commerce rather than unique items for personal use. Karl Marx built upon and critiqued this tradition in Capital (1867), positing as a defining feature of where exchange-value dominates use-value, reducing social relations to relations between things—a phenomenon he termed . Marx argued that labor power, treated as a commodity sold by workers to capitalists, generates through unpaid labor, perpetuating exploitation and alienation as production orients toward profit rather than human needs. This materialist critique influenced subsequent left-leaning analyses, viewing as eroding intrinsic motivations and embedding power asymmetries in market forms. However, empirical deviations—such as prices influenced by or rather than solely labor inputs—undermine the labor theory's universality, as evidenced by historical price fluctuations uncorrelated with labor coefficients. Neoclassical economics, emerging from the marginal revolution of the 1870s with , , and , reframes through subjective value theory, where exchange emerges from individual preferences and rather than objective labor. Commodities, in this view, facilitate efficient allocation via price signals that aggregate dispersed , promoting voluntary trades that enhance welfare under assumptions of and . Pro-market arguments highlight benefits like incentivizing and reducing transaction costs through standardization, as markets reveal true scarcities and enable comparative advantages. Critiques of over-commodification, often moral or pragmatic, contend it corrupts non-market goods (e.g., organs or ) by crowding out or introducing inefficiencies from , yet causal analysis shows voluntary markets typically expand options without inherent , provided property rights are enforced. Academic sources advancing expansive critiques frequently exhibit ideological biases favoring interventionist policies, underemphasizing evidence from market expansions that have correlated with poverty reductions, such as global trade since 1990 lifting over 1 billion people from .

Commodification of Labor and Resources

Commodification of labor refers to the treatment of human labor power as a marketable commodity, where individuals sell their capacity to work in exchange for wages, subject to supply-demand dynamics akin to other goods. This concept emerged prominently in classical , with economists like and viewing labor as a factor of production valued by its marginal productivity, enabling efficient but also exposing workers to market fluctuations. In practice, this process accelerated during the , particularly from 1760 to 1840 in Britain, as acts displaced smallholders from common lands, forcing millions into urban wage labor markets and proletarianizing rural populations. Critics, drawing from John Stuart Mill's observations, argue that such erodes workers' and intrinsic motivations, reducing human effort to interchangeable inputs and fostering dependency on employers for subsistence. Historical precedents include the transatlantic slave trade, where from the 16th to 19th centuries, over 12 million Africans were forcibly commodified not merely as labor but as chattel property, underpinning commodity production in and plantations across the . In wage labor contexts, critiqued this as alienating workers from their labor's products and processes, positing that capitalists extract by paying wages below the full value produced, a dynamic empirically observable in 19th-century conditions where average workdays exceeded 12 hours amid stagnant until union interventions post-1850. Modern extensions appear in gig economies, where platforms like , operational since 2010, algorithmically price labor in real-time, intensifying by tying earnings to variable demand and eroding traditional employment protections. Empirical studies indicate this heightens income volatility, with U.S. gig workers experiencing 20-30% higher earnings instability compared to traditional employees from 2012-2020. For natural resources, commodification involves privatizing access rights and extracting materials for market exchange, transforming elements like timber, minerals, and into tradable assets. This intensified post-1492 with European colonization, as indigenous commons were enclosed for export commodities; for instance, the rubber boom in the Amazon from 1870-1910 commodified latex extraction, leading to forced labor systems that depopulated regions through peonage and . In , this process is theorized to internalize externalities via property rights, as per Ronald Coase's 1960 theorem, yet critiques highlight market failures where prices undervalue ecological costs, such as . A key example is global for soy and , where from 2000-2020, commodity-driven clearing accounted for 80% of loss, equating to 420 million hectares, with associated carbon emissions exceeding 4 gigatons annually despite schemes. Critics contend that commodification alienates societies from nature's intrinsic value, treating it as a "free gift" to capital, as Marx noted, enabling without accounting for regeneration limits. Empirical evidence from water markets in , privatized in 1981, shows initial efficiency gains in allocation but subsequent inequities, with rural communities facing 30-50% price hikes and reduced access by , exacerbating scarcity in arid zones. Similarly, carbon offset schemes since the 1997 have commodified emissions reductions, yet a 2023 analysis found 90% of offsets in verified projects ineffective due to baseline manipulations, failing to curb net . These cases underscore how , while facilitating —evident in the $10 trillion annual global extraction value—often prioritizes short-term profits over sustainable stewardship, per reviews.

Balanced Perspectives on Market Efficiency

Commodity markets exemplify market efficiency through mechanisms like futures trading, where prices rapidly incorporate new from global dynamics, enabling producers and consumers to risks effectively. Empirical studies on commodity futures, including energies, metals, and agriculturals, demonstrate that these markets often conform to the weak form of the (EMH), as past price data shows little predictability, supporting behavior. For instance, analyses of 25 commodity groups reveal informational efficiency in price adjustments, facilitating optimal by signaling or abundance. Commodification further bolsters efficiency by standardizing goods, reducing differentiation costs, and enhancing liquidity, which lowers and promotes . This process allows markets to clear more effectively, as seen in how commoditized products like crude oil or enable transparent without negotiations, drawing in diverse participants for better discovery. Proponents, drawing from economic , argue this yields Pareto improvements by aligning production with needs via incentives, with from commodity exchanges showing reduced spreads and faster convergence to fundamentals. Yet, critiques highlight limitations, noting that while narrow informational efficiency holds, broader falters due to unpriced externalities such as or social inequities in commodified resources. Studies detect inefficiencies like multifractality and in commodity returns, suggesting persistent anomalies that deviate from strict EMH, particularly during shocks like the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war, where prices exhibited non-random deviations. Moreover, can amplify short-termism, prioritizing speculative gains over long-term , as markets undervalue intangible factors like in agricultural commodities. A balanced view recognizes empirical support for in core functions—price signaling and transfer—but cautions against overreliance, as real-world frictions like regulatory gaps or asymmetries erode gains. For example, while EMH tests affirm semi-strong in many futures, strong-form tests fail amid insider advantages in opaque supply chains, underscoring the need for complementary institutions to internalize externalities without dismantling market incentives. Overall, drives verifiable in economic throughput, yet its net welfare effects hinge on addressing market failures through , rather than ideological rejection.

Controversies and Challenges

Trading Scandals and Frauds

One of the earliest prominent commodity trading scandals involved the Hunt brothers— and —who attempted to corner the global silver market between 1979 and 1980. By accumulating over 200 million ounces of silver futures contracts and physical bullion, equivalent to about one-third of the world's deliverable supply, they drove s from approximately $6 per ounce in early 1979 to a peak of $49.45 per ounce on January 18, 1980. This manipulation culminated in "" on March 27, 1980, when exchanges imposed trading limits and margin hikes, triggering a price collapse to $10.80 per ounce and forcing the brothers into $1.7 billion in margin calls, leading to personal bankruptcies and lawsuits. The episode prompted the (CFTC) to liquidate positions and contributed to stricter position limits in futures markets. In the energy sector, Corporation's fraud from the mid-1990s to 2001 exemplified accounting manipulations intertwined with commodity trading. used entities to conceal billions in debt while employing to inflate reported profits from volatile and trades, creating illusory value from long-term contracts. Practices like "fat finger" trades and wash sales further distorted energy markets during the 2000-2001 , exacerbating blackouts and price spikes up to 9,000% in some cases. The scandal unraveled in October 2001, leading to 's —the largest in U.S. history at the time—with $74 billion in assets—and criminal convictions of executives including CEO on 19 counts of fraud and conspiracy. It spurred the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to enhance and standards. Modern scandals often involve spoofing—placing non-bona fide orders to mislead markets—and occurred systematically at JPMorgan Chase's precious metals desk from 2008 to 2016. Traders, including Michael Nowak and Gregg Smith, executed over 10,000 spoofing episodes in , silver, , and futures, layering fake orders to induce price movements before canceling them, generating $280 million in illicit profits. The CFTC fined JPMorgan a record $920 million in September 2020, while the Department of Justice convicted Nowak and Smith in 2022 on charges including commodities fraud and spoofing; Smith received a two-year sentence in 2023. Such practices exploited environments, highlighting vulnerabilities in electronic commodity exchanges. Commodity giants have also faced penalties for enabling fraudulent trades. Ltd. pleaded guilty in May 2022 to U.S. charges of in oil and products from 2007 to 2018, alongside foreign involving $100 million in corrupt payments to officials in , , and the Democratic Republic of Congo to secure illicit deals. This resulted in a $1.186 billion CFTC penalty and over $1 billion in total global fines, including a conviction for . Similarly, Trading LLC was ordered by the CFTC in June 2024 to pay $55 million for manipulating U.S. and renewable identification number markets between 2019 and 2021 through false reporting and wash trades. These cases underscore how opaque supply chains in emerging markets facilitate -fueled frauds, often investigated via whistleblowers and forensic audits rather than real-time oversight. Earlier instances include the 1996 Sumitomo Corporation copper scandal, where trader accumulated $2.6 billion in unauthorized losses through off-exchange deals and price rigging on Metal Exchange, leading to a $1.8 billion fine and his . Collectively, these events reveal recurring patterns: inadequate position monitoring, regulatory across jurisdictions, and incentives for traders to exploit information asymmetries, prompting enhanced CFTC and SEC surveillance tools like automated reconstruction. Despite reforms, the opacity of over-the-counter commodity deals sustains risks, as evidenced by multiplying probes into firms like and for similar corrupt practices in the .

Volatility and Speculative Bubbles

Commodity prices exhibit significantly higher volatility compared to prices of manufactured or financial equities, with historical data showing annualized standard deviations often exceeding 30% for major commodities like and agricultural products between 1980 and 2020. This volatility stems from inherent supply-side fragilities, including weather-induced failures, geopolitical disruptions to extraction and , and rigid production lags that prevent rapid adjustments to demand shifts. For instance, the 2010-2012 spike in prices, which rose over 50% due to droughts in key exporting regions like and , exemplifies how exogenous shocks propagate through inelastic supply chains, amplifying price swings. Financial exacerbates this baseline volatility by introducing momentum-driven trading and leverage, though empirical studies yield mixed findings on its net impact. Research indicates that increased participation by index traders and funds since the early 2000s has heightened short-term price fluctuations in and metals markets, with tests linking speculative positions to volatility persistence during periods of low inventories. However, meta-analyses of speculation's effects reveal no consistent destabilizing influence across commodities; in some cases, speculators provide that dampens volatility by absorbing hedger risks, as evidenced by reduced price swings in futures markets with high speculative . uncertainty further compounds these dynamics, with models showing it Granger-causes elevated volatility in crude oil and gold futures, independent of speculation. Speculative bubbles in commodities occur when prices detach from fundamental values—such as marginal production costs and consumption demand—driven by , , and low-interest environments that encourage leveraged bets. The 2007-2008 commodities supercycle, where oil peaked at $147 per barrel in July 2008 before collapsing 78% within months, illustrates this: while supply constraints from quotas contributed, econometric decompositions attribute up to 50% of the run-up to speculative inflows from commodity index funds, which tripled in from 2003 to 2008. Similarly, the 1979-1980 silver bubble, orchestrated by the Hunt brothers' accumulation of over 200 million ounces via futures contracts, propelled prices from $6 to $50 per ounce before regulatory position limits triggered a 50% crash in one day on "," March 27, 1980, highlighting how concentrated speculation can overwhelm physical delivery constraints. Post-bubble corrections often reveal overleveraged positions and forced liquidations, underscoring causal realism in market dynamics: speculation amplifies deviations but bursts when fundamentals reassert, as seen in the 1920 U.S. agricultural bubble where and prices surged 500%+ before plummeting amid post-World War I demand normalization. Recent analyses caution against overattributing volatility to speculation alone, noting that deregulatory policies enabling have not uniformly increased fragility, with some TGARCH models showing neutral or stabilizing effects in agricultural futures. Nonetheless, bubbles persist as recurring risks in thinly traded or storable commodities, where storage fails under speculative pressure, prompting calls for enhanced position limits and transparency in exchanges like the .

Geopolitical and Supply Risks

Geopolitical tensions and concentrated production patterns expose commodity markets to significant supply disruptions, as major exporters wield leverage through sanctions, controls, and conflicts that interrupt global trade flows. In 2025, risks remain elevated due to ongoing conflicts, trade barriers, and , with vulnerabilities amplified by reliance on a few dominant producers; for instance, disruptions can lead to sharp price volatility and shortages in , , and critical minerals. The Russia-Ukraine war, initiated in February 2022, exemplifies acute supply shocks in and commodities. and collectively supplied about 25% of global and exports, 15% of , and 60% of sunflower seeds prior to the invasion, leading to immediate blockades of ports and a surge in ; futures rose 36% within two weeks of the conflict's onset. Sanctions on Russian energy exports further tightened and oil supplies, contributing to averaging $100 per barrel in 2022 projections amid reduced global availability of fuels and fertilizers. By 2025, lingering effects persist, with volatility in markets tied to wartime risks rather than speculative . In energy markets, decisions and dynamics introduce ongoing risks, as the group's spare capacity mitigates but does not eliminate shocks from geopolitical events like sanctions or regional conflicts. Recent Russian sanctions in 2025 restored a geopolitical premium to oil prices, countering oversupply fears, while production adjustments balance member interests against global demand. Critical minerals face heightened vulnerabilities from 's dominance, controlling over 80% of rare earth processing and imposing export restrictions in October 2025 that affect magnets and batteries essential for defense, semiconductors, and renewables. These controls, extending to products with trace Chinese content, underscore supply concentration risks, prompting Western efforts to diversify but highlighting persistent dependencies that could exacerbate shortages amid U.S.- tensions. Similarly, broader critical mineral chains remain prone to disruptions from , geopolitical shocks, and criminal infiltration, with U.S. assessments modeling GDP losses from simulated one-year supply halts.

Environmental and Regulatory Debates

Commodity production, encompassing , , and extraction, contributes substantially to global . Resource extraction and processing account for over 90% of some impacts and a significant portion of stress worldwide, with and driving habitat loss and . In tropical regions, commodity-driven —primarily from soy, , , and cocoa production—releases carbon emissions equivalent to 444 million metric tons annually, surpassing Germany's total emissions, with nearly half of land-use emissions stemming from such activities. extraction exacerbates these effects through oil spills and leaks, which destroy habitats and contaminate sources, while agricultural expansion correlates with elevated from land conversion. Debates intensify over the trade-offs between these impacts and economic necessities, with critics arguing that narratives emphasizing fossil fuels overlook comparable harms from "green" commodities like rare earth metals, whose mining generates and high energy use without proportional regulatory scrutiny. Empirical data indicate that two-thirds of emissions arise from domestic demand rather than , challenging claims of as the primary culprit and underscoring local policy failures in producer nations. Resource extraction overall drives half of global carbon emissions and over 80% of , yet mitigation efforts often prioritize emissions over broader ecosystem restoration. Regulatory responses include schemes and , intended to internalize environmental costs, but face criticism for inefficacy and market distortions. The U.S. (CFTC) issued guidance in October 2024 for voluntary carbon markets, mandating standards against manipulation in credit derivatives, amid concerns over overstated offsets and greenwashing. signals have faltered due to regulatory gaps, hindering orderly markets, while subsidies for biofuels and renewables—totaling hundreds of billions globally—distort commodity prices without commensurate emission reductions. Economic critiques highlight that stringent regulations elevate production costs, with a 10% energy price hike from policies reducing manufacturing employment by under 1%, though foreign direct investment may rise slightly as firms seek laxer jurisdictions. Studies on tradeable permits show higher commodity prices and output reductions, yet overall national economic effects remain modest, prompting debates on whether such measures achieve environmental gains proportional to competitiveness losses. Proponents cite air quality improvements despite output growth, but skeptics, drawing from first-principles analysis of incentives, note persistent evasion via leakage to unregulated regions, as evidenced by ongoing tropical despite international pacts. These tensions reflect broader causal realities: regulations can curb localized but often fail to address global externalities without uniform enforcement, which geopolitical realities impede.

Recent Developments

Post-2020 Market Shifts

The triggered an initial collapse in commodity prices in early 2020, with the dropping 9% in the month following the World Health Organization's pandemic declaration, reaching 59.5 points amid global lockdowns that curtailed demand. markets experienced extreme volatility, including negative crude oil prices in April 2020 due to storage overflows and plummeting consumption; metal prices also slumped in the first half of the year as industrial activity halted. Recovery accelerated in late 2020 and into 2021 as economies reopened and stimulus measures boosted , leading to a broad surge; crude prices doubled from April lows by October 2020, while base metals rebounded sharply from troughs. Agricultural commodities faced upward pressure from disruptions and recovering , with the 2021 food index rising due to these factors rather than supply shortages alone. This period marked a shift toward persistent vulnerabilities, amplifying swings across , metals, and . Russia's invasion of in February 2022 exacerbated these dynamics, causing acute supply disruptions in and ; natural gas prices hit record highs, while and corn futures surged on fears of halted Black Sea exports from two major grain producers. prices spiked due to sanctions on Russian supplies, indirectly pressuring agricultural costs globally. Overall, the conflict drove historically elevated prices across multiple commodities by April 2022, with reduced supplies of fuels, foods, and inputs compared to pre-war baselines. From 2023 onward, markets showed moderation amid diversified supplies and slower demand growth, though volatility persisted; metal prices rose 2.9% in recent updates, with precious metals surging 37.4% year-over-year by March 2025 on industrial and safe-haven demand, while fertilizers declined 4.4%. Energy forecasts for 2025 anticipate easing oil prices amid + output increases, contrasted by strength from rising consumption. Agricultural trends reflect reallocation efforts, but global indices point to slight easing in 2025-26 for most categories, underscoring ongoing geopolitical and transition risks in green energy metals like and . In energy commodities, prices trended downward overall in 2025, with the World Bank's energy price index forecasted to decline by 17 percent for the year, driven by increased supply outpacing demand amid geopolitical resolutions and slower global economic growth. oil prices averaged lower, with the (EIA) projecting a fourth-quarter average of $62 per barrel, reflecting higher non-OPEC production and subdued consumption in major economies like . markets showed divergence, as U.S. spot prices rose to an expected annual average of $3.79 per million British thermal units (MMBtu), up approximately 20 percent from prior estimates, due to tighter inventories and export growth to and despite expanded domestic production. Volatility persisted from supply disruptions in regions like the and policy shifts, including potential U.S. trade adjustments under new administrations. Agricultural commodity prices softened gradually, declining by about 1 percent in 2025 according to World Bank projections, supported by record global harvests and normalized flows post-2022 disruptions. In grains, U.S. corn production reached unprecedented levels at 427 million metric tons for the 2025/26 marketing year, per USDA estimates, pressuring prices to a season-average of $3.90 per , down significantly from 2022 peaks due to abundant supplies and steady demand for feed and . outlooks indicated tighter U.S. supplies with reduced domestic use but higher exports, leading to smaller ending stocks, while global production rose to 827 million metric tons amid favorable weather in key exporters like and . ending stocks fell to 290 million s in the U.S., reflecting lower plantings and exports, though prices stabilized around lower levels. Cross-sector influences amplified trends, including rising costs—projected up over prior years—which squeezed agricultural margins despite falling inputs, and variability heightening risks for crops in vulnerable regions like and . The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook anticipated sustained price moderation through 2034 barring major shocks, but 2025 saw elevated volatility from El Niño remnants, trade tariffs, and strains. -agriculture linkages, such as mandates boosting corn demand, provided some counterbalance, yet overall, abundant supplies dominated, fostering a bearish outlook tempered by persistent geopolitical and weather uncertainties.

Technological and Sustainability Innovations

technology has emerged as a key innovation in commodity trading, enabling secure, transparent tracking of goods from origin to end-user. Platforms such as komgo and VAKT utilize systems to digitize processes, reducing paperwork and intermediary involvement while minimizing fraud risks in transactions for , metals, and agricultural products. By 2025, tokenized commodities on networks have facilitated and faster settlement, lowering transaction costs by up to 30% in some cross-border deals, though adoption remains limited by regulatory hurdles and issues. In agricultural commodity production, technologies—including GPS-guided machinery, drones, and AI-driven soil sensors—have enhanced efficiency by optimizing input use and yields. Adoption rates rise with farm size, with large U.S. operations (over $1 million in sales) employing these tools on more than 70% of acreage, compared to under 20% for smaller farms, leading to reductions in application by 10-20% and usage by similar margins. These methods stabilize supply amid volatile prices, as evidenced by improved resilience to weather extremes, though high upfront costs deter widespread use among smaller producers. Sustainability innovations in commodities focus on carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), which captures CO2 emissions from facilities for underground sequestration or industrial reuse. As of 2025, global CCUS capacity exceeds 40 million of CO2 annually, primarily from power plants and refineries, with projects like those supported by the U.S. Department of demonstrating viability in extending commodity lifespans while curbing emissions. However, deployment lags due to costs averaging $50-100 per captured, and persists regarding without subsidies, as economic analyses highlight risks of locking in high-emission infrastructure. In metals and , innovations such as and electrified processing reduce intensity by 15-25%, addressing environmental critiques of extraction while meeting rising demand for battery materials. Emerging cleantech trends integrate (IoT) sensors and AI analytics across commodity sectors, enabling in energy extraction and real-time monitoring in . For instance, IoT-driven platforms forecast supply disruptions, potentially stabilizing prices in volatile markets like soft commodities. production from renewables offers a pathway to decarbonize industrial feedstocks, with pilot projects scaling to gigawatt capacities by 2025, though efficiency losses and infrastructure needs constrain near-term impact. These advancements, while promising empirical gains in , face causal challenges from biased academic projections that overstate rapid transitions without accounting for trade-offs in alternatives versus traditional commodities.

References

  1. https://www.cfainstitute.org/insights/professional-learning/refresher-readings/2025/introduction-commodities-commodity-derivatives
  2. https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/html/c5-203.html
  3. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/commodities/hard-vs-soft-commodities/
  4. https://www.pimco.com/us/en/resources/education/understanding-commodities
  5. https://www.worldbank.org/en/research/commodity-markets
  6. https://aaec.vt.edu/news/articles/legrand.html
  7. https://www.etymonline.com/word/commodity
  8. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodity
  9. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/commodity_n
  10. https://www.yourdictionary.com/commodity
  11. https://www.bankrate.com/investing/commodities-defined/
  12. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity.asp
  13. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Commodity
  14. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fungibles.asp
  15. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fungibility.asp
  16. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/labor-theory-of-value.asp
  17. https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/commodities/
  18. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WEO/2023/October/English/ch3.ashx
  19. https://www.bauer.uh.edu/spirrong/commoditiesdemystified-guide-en.pdf
  20. https://cc-test.cffm.umn.edu/learn/assets/AAGM/AAGM-Chapter-5.pdf
  21. https://analystprep.com/study-notes/cfa-level-2/characteristics-of-commodity-sectors/
  22. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/softcommodity.asp
  23. https://www.stonex.com/en/financial-glossary/softs/
  24. https://www.5paisa.com/stock-market-guide/commodity-trading-basics/soft-commodities-vs-hard-ommodities
  25. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodity-market.asp
  26. https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/agriculture/grains/corn.contractSpecs.html
  27. https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards
  28. https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/metals/base/copper.contractSpecs.html
  29. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gradingcertificate.asp
  30. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commodityfuturescontract.asp
  31. https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/economicpurpose.html
  32. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/courses/introduction-to-futures/definition-of-a-futures-contract.html
  33. https://earn2trade.com/blog/standardization-in-derivatives/
  34. http://hedgepointglobal.com/en/blog/what-is-fungibility-in-commodity-markets
  35. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2114/trade-in-ancient-mesopotamia/
  36. https://cdli.earth/articles/cdlj/2017-2
  37. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvh1djjn
  38. http://asbbs.org/files/ASBBS2012V1/PDF/A/AlexanderW.pdf
  39. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldcivilization/chapter/ancient-egyptian-trade/
  40. https://mfgsc-vic.libguides.com/c.php?g=719871&p=5129180
  41. https://acoup.blog/2022/12/02/collections-why-roman-egypt-was-such-a-strange-province/
  42. https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/going-with-the-grain-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-roman-market/
  43. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/silk-road/
  44. https://smarthistory.org/reframing-art-history/the-silk-roads/
  45. https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1301/trade-in-medieval-europe/
  46. https://www.economics.utoronto.ca/munro5/SPICES1.htm
  47. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dojima-rice-exchange.asp
  48. https://www.jpx.co.jp/dojima/en/index.html
  49. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=36846
  50. https://www.odex.co.jp/en/about/derivative/index.html
  51. https://www.quantifiedstrategies.com/history-of-the-commodity-market/
  52. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/courses/introduction-to-futures/midwest-grain-trade-history-of-futures-exchanges.html
  53. https://www.cftc.gov/About/HistoryoftheCFTC/history_precftc.html
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498305000422
  55. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/history-of-the-london-metal-exchange-idUSBRE85E0ZL/
  56. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/b4ff84b2d5dc4d0963a5074102460cc1-0350012022/related/Commodity-Markets-Chapter-1.pdf
  57. https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization
  58. https://academic.oup.com/book/32046/chapter/267844679
  59. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1975/12/1975c_bpea_cooper_lawrence_bosworth_houthakker.pdf
  60. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/1981/commodity-prices-in-the-1970s.pdf
  61. https://unctad.org/news/key-evolutions-trade-and-development-over-decades
  62. https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/trade_evolution_e/evolution_trade_wto_e.htm
  63. https://unctad.org/news/shipping-data-unctad-releases-new-seaborne-trade-statistics
  64. https://www.morganstanley.com/im/publication/insights/articles/article_whencommoditiesrisesowillemergingmarkets_en.pdf
  65. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/spotmarket.asp
  66. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/career-map/sell-side/capital-markets/spot-market/
  67. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062315/how-are-commodity-spot-prices-different-futures-prices.asp
  68. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/courses/using-fundamental-analysis-when-evaluating-trades/fundamental-analysis-futures-supply-and-demand.html
  69. https://ceepr.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2001-002.pdf
  70. https://therobusttrader.com/largest-futures-exchanges-in-the-world/
  71. https://www.cmegroup.com/market-data/browse-data/exchange-volume.html
  72. https://www.fow.com/insights/analysis-commodity-exchanges-report-trading-records-on-stellar-first-half
  73. https://sfvn-invest.com.vn/en/article/top-12-leading-derivatives-commodity-exchanges-worldwide
  74. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/derivative.asp
  75. https://www.agiboo.com/derivatives/
  76. https://terranoha.com/commodities-derivatives/
  77. https://www.cftc.gov/MarketReports/CommitmentsofTraders/index.htm
  78. https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/FuturesMarketBasics/index.htm
  79. https://www.ice.com/insights/exchanges/why-financial-participants-matter-to-the-commodity-markets/participation-in-derivatives-markets
  80. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/courses/introduction-to-futures/understanding-the-role-of-hedgers.html
  81. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48451/R48451.1.pdf
  82. https://www.ctrmcenter.com/what-is/ctrm-software-commodity-trade-risk-management-software/
  83. https://www.agiboo.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/EY-CTRM_System-Overview.pdf
  84. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tradingdesk.asp
  85. https://hermestech.io/en/blog/post/how-ctrm-software-improves-commodity-risk-management
  86. https://www.comfinsoftware.com/what-is-ctrm-software/
  87. https://www.fisglobal.com/products/fis-commodity-risk-manager
  88. https://www.atlantafed.org/-/media/documents/news/conferences/2014/cenfis-nonbank-financial-firms/Pirrong.pdf
  89. https://www.bauer.uh.edu/spirrong/economics-commodity-trading-firms.pdf
  90. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/top-global-energy-traders-face-multi-billion-cash-quandary-2024-02-26/
  91. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-28/oil-giant-vitol-hands-record-10-6-billion-payout-to-its-traders
  92. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-29/commodity-traders-profits-stay-high-as-post-ukraine-invasion-surge-wanes
  93. https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/crude-oil/080625-glencore-sees-energy-trading-profits-nosedive-in-trumps-tariff-era
  94. https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/commodity-trading-services-57369
  95. https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2024/mar/commodity-trading-report-2024.html
  96. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/energy-and-materials/our-insights/how-to-capture-the-next-s-curve-in-commodity-trading
  97. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/javier-blas-363b9512_the-profitability-of-the-worlds-top-commodity-activity-7377766701423173632-m4R8
  98. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/courses/introduction-to-futures/price-discovery.html
  99. https://grains.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Chapter-9-Price-Discovery-and-Cash-Markets-20220301-Final.pdf
  100. https://economia.uc3m.es/jgonzalo/FiguerolaGonzaloPriceDiscoveryRevision.pdf
  101. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10479-021-04172-3
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405851318300941
  103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405851318300941
  104. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/gds20111_en.pdf
  105. https://www.efmaefm.org/0efmameetings/efma%2520annual%2520meetings/2008-Athens/papers/Ferretti.pdf
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S014098832400673X
  107. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/files/dea/deabonafidehedgingreport.pdf
  108. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/stellent/groups/public/%40rulesandproducts/documents/ifdocs/gasldchedgingpaper.pdf
  109. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/berkovitzstatement072809
  110. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/courses/introduction-to-futures/understanding-the-role-of-speculators.html
  111. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/%40swaps/documents/file/plstudy_03_cftc.pdf
  112. https://www.cftc.gov/sites/default/files/idc/groups/public/%40economicanalysis/documents/file/oce_commodityindextrading.pdf
  113. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w18951/w18951.pdf
  114. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents?DocumentID=4286
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1386418115000476
  116. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521922000072
  117. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajae.12436
  118. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/weekly/
  119. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/crude-oil-stocks-change
  120. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/eia-petroleum-status-report.asp
  121. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Off-Farm_Grain_Stocks/index.php
  122. https://www.agriculture.com/september-2025-grain-stocks-11821352
  123. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/staff-offices/office-chief-economist/commodity-markets/wasde-report
  124. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/grain.pdf
  125. https://www.lme.com/en/market-data/reports-and-data/warehouse-and-stocks-reports/stocks-summary/stock-movement-report
  126. https://www.lme.com/en/market-data/reports-and-data/warehouse-and-stocks-reports
  127. https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/last-swing-lme-aluminium-stocks-roundabout-2025-08-21/
  128. https://macrosynergy.com/academy/notebooks/commodity-inventories/
  129. https://haslam.utk.edu/gsci/news/inventory-management-in-supply-chain/
  130. https://www.cmegroup.com/education/courses/learn-about-key-economic-events/understanding-the-oil-data-report.html
  131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590037425001141
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X12002926
  133. https://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/boc-review-autumn16-buyuksahin.pdf
  134. https://www.cmegroup.com/openmarkets/economics/2021/a-closer-look-at-commodities-supercycles.html
  135. https://www.mining.com/the-commodity-supercycle-revisited/
  136. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/19/a-commodity-supercycle-depends-on-china-cba-says.html
  137. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099327104112317532/pdf/IDU06ab72d230b6f904cd60a6330dc2f31705b4f.pdf
  138. https://www.tradingview.com/chart/COIN/vCSmqccG-Global-Commodity-Trends/
  139. https://www.tradingview.com/chart/MSFT/x83LYGGe-Commodity-Supercycle-Concept-Causes-and-Global-Impact/
  140. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/11101363-1c3f-43df-a078-06511efaab3a
  141. https://www.dws.com/en-us/insights/cio-view/macro/a-commodity-supercycle/
  142. https://discoveryalert.com.au/news/energy-transition-stalling-oil-super-cycle-2025/
  143. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesfinancecouncil/2025/03/18/todays-commodity-supercycle-what-it-is-and-golds-role-in-it/
  144. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/commoditization.asp
  145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019850107001575
  146. https://www.wallstreetprep.com/knowledge/commoditization/
  147. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239925552_Market_Commoditization_of_Products_and_Services
  148. https://www.oliverschilke.com/fileadmin/pdf/Reimann_Schilke_Thomas._Toward_an_understanding_of_industry_commoditization_-_Its_nature_and_role_in_evolving_marketing_competition.pdf
  149. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2015/business-unit-strategy-escaping-dog-house-winning-commoditized-markets
  150. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09540962.2023.2240641
  151. https://economicsofsaas.com/chapter-02.html
  152. https://eoxs.com/new_blog/from-metal-to-icon-the-evolution-of-steels-marketing-journey/
  153. https://frontiergroup.org/articles/beyond-the-politics-of-nostalgia-the-fall-of-the-steel-industry-and-the-future-of-america/
  154. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128126202000031
  155. https://research.cbs.dk/files/59141961/x656504144.pdf
  156. https://www.morningstar.com/company-reports/1241446-air-travel-is-highly-competitive-and-commoditized-and-air-new-zealand-lacks-an-economic-moat
  157. https://www.opentextbooks.org.hk/ditatopic/18374
  158. https://www.indium.com/blog/the-pc-as-a-commodity/
  159. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/16990/54032850-MIT.pdf?sequence=2
  160. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/15998/
  161. https://udspace.udel.edu/bitstreams/7d73dfae-7e84-40d3-be73-8b7b4de4ddfc/download
  162. https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/marketing/articles/fighting-commoditization/
  163. https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/when-your-product-becomes-a-commodity
  164. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2017/energy-environment-technology-digital-attack-algorithms-value-chain-disruption
  165. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354007729_A_Theory_of_Commodification
  166. https://academic.oup.com/book/39886/chapter/340097689
  167. https://inomics.com/blog/marxian-v-neoclassical-economics-1348559
  168. https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/orientation/neoclassical-economics/
  169. https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-03876907/document
  170. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354007817_The_Critique_of_Commodification
  171. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0308518X221128305
  172. https://academic.oup.com/book/46106/chapter/404639103
  173. https://s-usih.org/2018/09/two-paths-for-the-history-of-capitalism-commodification-and-proletarianization/
  174. https://earlyamericanists.com/2014/09/25/commodifying-labour-commodifying-people/
  175. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/intro-philosophy/commodification
  176. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/684508
  177. https://autonomy.work/portfolio/the-politics-of-free-time-and-the-de-commodification-of-labour/
  178. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22616120/
  179. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environmental-conservation/article/commodification-of-natural-resources-and-forest-ecosystem-services-examining-implications-for-forest-protection/8C615DDC71FFD4AE430CA256440EB7CD
  180. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800919316337
  181. https://www.epw.in/engage/article/alienation-and-commodification-nature-fighting
  182. https://daily.jstor.org/should-environmental-policy-commodify-nature/
  183. https://theecologist.org/2021/feb/09/commodifying-natural-world
  184. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0921800919316337
  185. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988313002776
  186. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301420722001635
  187. https://erl.scholasticahq.com/article/90916-commodity-market-efficiency-new-evidence-from-the-russia-ukraine-war
  188. https://hbr.org/2014/10/the-dark-side-of-efficient-markets
  189. https://researchportal.hw.ac.uk/files/42755780/IJBAAF120101_RAO_175856_OA.pdf
  190. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227358677_Efficiency_in_Commodity_Futures_Markets
  191. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/09/silver-thursday-hunt-brothers.asp
  192. https://www.investopedia.com/updates/enron-scandal-summary/
  193. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/enron
  194. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8260-20
  195. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/former-jp-morgan-traders-convicted-fraud-attempted-price-manipulation-and-spoofing-multi-year
  196. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8534-22
  197. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/glencore-entered-guilty-pleas-foreign-bribery-and-market-manipulation-schemes
  198. https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/8921-24
  199. https://federal-criminal.com/white-collar/high-profile-cases-of-fraud-in-the-commodities-market/
  200. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/04/27/why-commodity-trading-scandals-are-multiplying
  201. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp1212.pdf
  202. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/cimem2d57_en.pdf
  203. https://globaljournals.org/GJMBR_Volume18/5-Impact-of-Financial-Speculation.pdf
  204. https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jocoma/v22y2021ics2405851320300258.html
  205. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9010710/
  206. https://www.uptrends.ai/article/the-top-10-biggest-asset-bubbles-of-all-time
  207. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/062315/five-largest-asset-bubbles-history.asp
  208. https://www.levyinstitute.org/blog/the-biggest-speculative-bubble-of-all-time
  209. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349420197_Financial_speculation_impact_on_agricultural_commodity_price_volatility_TGARCH_approach
  210. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405851317301630
  211. https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/market-insights/geopolitical-risk
  212. https://www.aon.com/en/insights/reports/global-risk-management-survey/commodity-price-risk-and-material-scarcity-an-escalating-and-complex-risk
  213. https://globalmarkets.cib.bnpparibas/commodity-markets-energy-markets-2025/
  214. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1648918/full
  215. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/how-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-has-further-aggravated-the-global-food-crisis/
  216. https://www.kansascityfed.org/agriculture/turmoil-in-commodity-markets-following-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
  217. https://www.eia.gov/finance/markets/crudeoil/supply-opec.php
  218. https://www.investing.com/analysis/oil-rally-accelerates-with-russian-sanctions-restoring-geopolitical-premium-200669070
  219. https://www.forex.com/en-us/news-and-analysis/crude-oil-q4-outlook-opec-supply-fed-cuts-geopolitics-in-focus/
  220. https://www.iea.org/commentaries/with-new-export-controls-on-critical-minerals-supply-concentration-risks-become-reality
  221. https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-new-rare-earth-and-magnet-restrictions-threaten-us-defense-supply-chains
  222. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/10/chinas-new-restrictions-rare-earth-exports-send-stark-warning-west
  223. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/critical-minerals-in-crisis-stress-testing-us-supply-chains-against-shocks/
  224. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2025/1047/ofr20251047.pdf
  225. https://rmis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/environmental-impacts-along-the-supply-chain-3dfccf
  226. https://globalcanopy.org/insights/insight/commodity-driven-deforestation-and-peatland-loss-emits-more-carbon-than-germany/
  227. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379952427_Global_patterns_of_commodity-driven_deforestation_and_associated_carbon_emissions
  228. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-climate-environmental-and-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-2021
  229. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11683860/
  230. https://www.pbl.nl/system/files/document/2024-02/PBL-2024-Environmental-impacts-of-extraction-and-processing-of-raw-materials-for-the-energy-transition-5364.pdf
  231. https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-deforestation-trade
  232. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/12/resource-extraction-carbon-emissions-biodiversity-loss
  233. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/10/15/2024-23105/commission-guidance-regarding-the-listing-of-voluntary-carbon-credit-derivative-contracts
  234. https://www.esgdive.com/news/cftc-issues-final-voluntary-carbon-market-guidance-carbon-credits/729901/
  235. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925524000313
  236. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/assessing-the-economic-impacts-of-environmental-policies_bf2fb156-en.html
  237. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1093/reep/rex013
  238. https://www.nber.org/reporter/spring-2000/economic-impacts-environmental-policies
  239. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/working-paper-impacts-environmental-regulation-us-economy
  240. https://www.theregreview.org/2016/11/24/williamson-do-environmental-regulations-really-work/
  241. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069621000358
  242. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9091/10/6/128
  243. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/10/22/impact-of-covid-19-on-commodity-markets-heaviest-on-energy-prices-lower-oil-demand-likely-to-persist-beyond-2021
  244. https://www.usitc.gov/research_and_analysis/tradeshifts/2021/special_topic
  245. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/a4087100-73d5-56a8-92b5-dfa41f6069da
  246. https://www.ifpri.org/blog/covid-19-and-rising-global-food-prices-whats-really-happening/
  247. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/4f55f6a4-a780-5119-8bbf-be6990042c4b
  248. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10015268/
  249. https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2022/number/3/article/the-war-in-ukraine-agricultural-trade-and-risks-to-global-food-security.html
  250. https://unctad.org/news/price-hike-commodity-index-rises-march-record-mineral-and-metal-highs
  251. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/the-commodity-markets-outlook-in-eight-charts1
  252. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/
  253. https://naga.com/en/news-and-analysis/articles/natural-gas-price-prediction
  254. https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/hart/HarNov24.html
  255. https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/wasde0825.pdf
  256. https://www.profarmer.com/pro-farmer-max/market-snapshot/market-snapshot-crude-oil-rebound-pulls-corn-soybeans-higher
  257. https://sites.udel.edu/weeklycropupdate/?p=27048
  258. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/developmenttalk/risks-and-challenges-in-global-agricultural-markets0
  259. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/07/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2025-2034_3eb15914/full-report/agricultural-and-food-markets-trends-and-prospects_d3812d71.html
  260. https://markets.financialcontent.com/wral/article/marketminute-2025-10-24-global-agricultural-markets-brace-for-volatility-amidst-climate-geopolitical-and-supply-chain-headwinds
  261. https://consensys.io/blockchain-use-cases/finance/komgo
  262. https://www.vakt.com/
  263. https://trustwallet.com/blog/guides/what-are-tokenized-commodities
  264. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/10-ways-blockchain-disrupt-commodity-trading-investing-lachezar-zanev-qx5qf
  265. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=110550
  266. https://www.ars.usda.gov/oc/utm/benefits-and-evolution-of-precision-agriculture/
  267. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-105962
  268. https://www.agrivi.com/blog/how-precision-agriculture-helps-farmers-navigate-rising-input-costs-and-climate-challenges/
  269. https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage
  270. https://www.energy.gov/carbon-capture-utilization-storage
  271. https://drawdown.org/explorer/use-carbon-capture-storage-on-fossil-fuel-power-plants
  272. https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/topics/environment-and-sustainability
  273. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/energy-and-materials/our-insights/global-materials-perspective
  274. https://www.alpsfunds.com/hubfs/alps-docs/lit/bro/alps-corecommodity-management-completecommodities-strategy-fund-jcrix-commodity-outlook.pdf
  275. https://foodinstitute.com/focus/3-sustainability-ideas-that-could-be-widely-impactful/
  276. https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/ci/en/documents/news-research/special-reports/top-cleantech-trends-for-2025.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.