How to Screen Supply-Chain Relationships for Negotiating Leverage
July 7, 2026
Altsets
Research by Altsets Research
Use directional concentration and relationship size to find economically asymmetric relationships that deserve deeper bargaining-power research.
Data used:Altsets Supply Chain Intelligence: 90k+ entities, 400k+ relationships, 20+ years of history.
Key findings
- Directional concentration can identify relationships that are financially asymmetric without pretending the percentages directly measure bargaining power.
- LG Energy Solution to Tesla shows a wide supplier-side concentration gap, while Lam Research to Micron displays nearly equal directional percentages.
Screen for negotiating leverage by comparing the relationship's directional exposure on both sides and flagging cases where one company is much more concentrated on the other. Supply-chain data cannot prove bargaining power, but visible asymmetry identifies where it is worth investigating.
Several Altsets examples show different patterns:
| Relationship | Supplier revenue percentage | Customer cost percentage |
|---|---|---|
| SK ecoplant to SK Hynix | 36.49% | 18.81% |
| SK Hynix to Nvidia | 27.88% | 27.33% |
| LG Energy Solution to Tesla | 19.03% | 3.41% |
| Micron Technology to Nvidia | 17.62% | 14.00% |
| Lam Research to Micron Technology | 5.61% | 5.52% |
These percentages do not produce a bargaining-power score. They reveal where the relationship looks highly asymmetric and where it looks economically visible from both sides.
Why asymmetry matters
If one customer represents a large share of supplier revenue while the supplier represents a small share of customer costs, the supplier may face greater customer-concentration risk. The LG Energy Solution to Tesla relationship illustrates that pattern. Altsets estimates Tesla at 19.03% of LG Energy Solution revenue, while LG Energy Solution is associated with 3.41% of Tesla COGS.
The gap does not prove Tesla has pricing power. It says the commercial relationship appears more concentrated in the supplier's revenue base than in the customer's total cost base. That is a reason to investigate contract structure, alternative customers, switching costs, and supplier differentiation.
Balanced percentages tell a different story
The Lam Research to Micron relationship is estimated at 5.61% of Lam Research revenue and 5.52% of Micron COGS. Those percentages are unusually close numerically.
That does not mean bargaining power is equal. The denominators are different, and the operational characteristics of semiconductor equipment matter enormously.
But the relationship does not display the same wide financial asymmetry as LG Energy Solution and Tesla. The research question changes accordingly. Instead of beginning with customer concentration, the analyst may focus more on technical differentiation, installed base, process qualification, and replacement difficulty.
Large exposure on both sides can create mutual importance
The SK Hynix to Nvidia relationship is estimated at 27.88% of SK Hynix revenue and 27.33% of Nvidia COGS. Both percentages are high in the displayed data. That pattern suggests a relationship that is economically important from both directions.
Again, this is not proof of equal power. One side may have better alternatives, stronger technology, more capacity, longer qualification cycles, or greater ability to absorb short-term disruption. But two large directional percentages are a strong reason to investigate the relationship as mutually important rather than routine.
What actually determines negotiating leverage
Economic concentration is only one layer. Bargaining power can also depend on product differentiation, alternatives, qualification time, switching costs, intellectual property, capacity, inventory, contract duration, geography, regulation, and cost pass-through. Relationship data helps decide where those questions matter most.
Relationship size adds context
The percentages should also be read beside absolute scale.
LG Energy Solution to Tesla is estimated at 3.2B USD. SK Hynix to Nvidia is 21B USD. Lam Research to Micron is 1.2B USD. A relationship can have a large concentration percentage because one side is relatively small, so absolute relationship size helps avoid overreading percentage differences.
A better leverage research framework
Do not ask, "Who has more power?" directly from the graph. Ask:
- Which side is more financially concentrated on the relationship?
- How large is the relationship in absolute terms?
- How many alternatives does each side have?
- How difficult is qualification or switching?
- Is the product scarce, differentiated, or capacity constrained?
- Are there long-term agreements or co-development ties?
- Which side can absorb a disruption more easily?
The first two are relationship-data questions. The rest require operational and contractual research.
A repeatable screening method
- Select a relationship.
- Record supplier revenue percentage.
- Record customer cost percentage.
- Do not divide them into a universal power ratio.
- Use the directional gap only as a screening signal.
- Add relationship size.
- Investigate alternatives, switching costs, capacity, and contracts.
- Keep the final conclusion bounded by the evidence.
The Tesla and LG Energy Solution analysis shows a large supplier-side concentration gap. The Lam Research and Micron analysis shows a much more balanced pattern.
For metric definitions and limits, read the Altsets supply-chain data methodology. Browse Supply-Chain Data Use Cases for other methods.