If you want a single lens for comparing how seriously automakers take electrification, look at how they get their battery cells. Because the cell is the costliest and most supply-constrained part of an EV, the make-or-buy decision is one of the clearest signals of strategy a company emits — and the filings make it legible.
Picture a spectrum. At one end, an automaker simply buys finished cells from a supplier under contract. It is capital-light and flexible, but it leaves cost, supply security, and chemistry roadmap in someone else's hands. At the other end, the automaker builds and operates cell plants entirely on its own — maximum control, maximum capital and technical risk. Most of the industry lands somewhere in between.
GM is a useful anchor for the middle of that spectrum. Its Form 10-K, filed January 27, 2026 for the year ended December 31, 2025, describes "integrated supply chain development, including battery cell production from Ultium Cells," which earlier filings identify as "an equally owned joint venture with LG Energy Solution." The record is on sec.gov, indexed by EdgarBeast. Equal ownership is the defining detail: GM shares the capital and imports cell-making expertise while keeping real control.
The joint-venture middle exists because the two ends each have a fatal flaw for a serious EV program. Pure buying leaves you exposed when cells are scarce and your supplier's other customers come first. Pure building demands electrochemistry depth and tens of billions in capital that automakers historically did not have. The JV splits the difference: shared cost, shared risk, partner expertise, and a seat at the chemistry table.
So when you compare automakers, place each on this spectrum. A company still buying all its cells is treating the battery as a procured input; one co-owning or building is treating it as core technology worth bending its balance sheet around. The filings tell you which — and the position on the spectrum is a strategy statement in itself.