André
Martinuzzi, Robert Kudlak, Claus Faber, Adele Wiman
1. Abstract
Competition in the automotive industry is characterised by
overcapacity, high market saturation, high labour and fixed costs, and the need
for constant product development and innovation. Due to mergers, very few
global players dominate the automotive market, causing major entry barriers.
Owing to a high motorization rate in Europe, demand is largely based on
replacement. This has led to a dramatically shortened product life cycle and to
constantly differentiating brands and models. Slim margins press automakers to
pay more attention to after-sales services to improve profitability.
From the environmental point of view, the crucial issue is a
relatively long life span of the industry’s products. Thus, about 80% of
environmental impacts stem from the usage phase of the car. This offers room
for improvement, especially in the design phase (using lightweight materials,
improving fuel efficiency, inventing new energy sources). Due to the mass use
of cars and their shortening life cycle, end-of-life vehicle is also perceived
as an important issue. It is now regulated by the EU, but is also recognised as
a CSR issue by the producers themselves. As car manufacturing is characterized
by long and numerous supply chains, producers’ responsibility should be
expanded to the whole supply chain.
Car manufacturers are engaging in CSR activities concerning
end-of-life-vehicles and producers’ extended responsibility for their products,
green supply chain management, environmental management schemes, and labour
codes of conduct (such as ILO and GRI standards).
Concerning
quality of work, the automotive industry is shaped by conditions typical to a
high-skill high-quality sector. Still, working conditions vary according to the
specific production system of a plant, which is largely dominated by its owner.
Scandinavian team production offers higher autonomy and job satisfaction, but
considerably higher workload and stress than a traditional line assembly. The
German model of specialized and general workers strengthens differences in
payment, job security, and training compared to more reflective production
systems. As a common pattern, a strong focus lies on ergonomics. Another issue
is safety in combination with training. Job stability and flexibility
(including agency contracting) is an issue for non-specialized employees with
low skills and low-wage jobs, which still exist in larger numbers in Eastern
Europe. Social dialogue and worker involvement is interesting due to two
factors: First, worker involvement is a necessary factor for innovation and
quality, and employees are difficult to replace and therefore valuable to the
company. Second, the core workforce in Europe’s automotive industry tends to be
well organized, which is a threat if social dialogue fails. Only one fifth of the
workforce is comprised of women, and there is no representative research on
gender issues, or on work-life balance.
2. Facts and figures
The EU is the largest producer of motor vehicles in the
world; hence, automotive industry plays a very important role in the overall
European economy - exporting much more than it imports. Moreover, with 18.4
thousand enterprises, it employs over 2,2mln people, 1/3rd of all
manufacturing jobs in EU 27 (IHS Global Insight, 2009) and thus is a major
employer of skilled workforce (Eurostat, 2009, p. 286). The automotive sector
also accounts for one of the biggest shares of private investments in R&D
and covers a wide range of materials in its supply chain: metals, plastics,
chemicals, textiles and electric & electronic systems (ACEA, 2009).
The automotive sector is also one of the sectors that was
hit the most as a result of the global financial crisis. In 2009, total vehicle
production in Europe (cars, trucks, buses) decreased by 17.3% compared to 2008
and by 23% compared to the pre-crisis levels of 2007 (ACEA, 2010, p20). Out of
the top players the worst hit in 2008 was Italy (-20,3%) followed by France (-14,9%)
and Spain (-12%) (ACEA, 2009).
The sector according to NACE (version 1.1; for the
automotive industry in the NACE 2.0 see Annex 1) belongs to the NACE Subsection
DM that covers two sub areas: motor vehicles production and production of other
types of transport equipment (shipbuilding, railway rolling stock, aerospace
equipment, motorcycles and bicycles, and others). The whole subdivision is
characterised by large (>250 persons employed) enterprises. However, the
whole transport manufacturing covers several tiers of suppliers sometimes
providing only a single component (Eurostat, 2009). The motor vehicle
production represents by far the largest share of the sector turnover and
employment (see table 1)
|
Manufacture of transport
equipment
|
Share of
sector employment (2006)
|
Share of
sector value added (2006)
|
|
Motor vehicles, trailers,
& semi-trailers
|
73,9%
|
70,6
|
|
Ships and boats
|
5,8
|
9,5
|
|
Railway equipment
|
3,6
|
5,2
|
|
Aircraft and spacecraft
|
15,4
|
12,2%
|
|
Miscellaneous transport
equipment
|
1,5%
|
2%
|
Table 1: Manufacture of transport equipment (NACE
Subsection DM) Source: Eurostat 2009
The main sub-sectors of the
motor vehicle sector (NACE 1.1, Group 34) are the following:
|
Automotive sub-sectors in
Europe
|
Share of sector
employment
(2006)
|
Share of sector value added
(2006)
|
|
Manufacture of motor
vehicles
|
49%
|
61%
|
|
Manufacture of bodies (coachwork) for motor vehicles;
manufacture of trailers and semi-trailers
|
8%
|
5,7%
|
|
Manufacture of parts and accessories for motor vehicles and
their engines
|
42%
|
33,3%
|
Table 2: Automotive sector: Importance of sub-sectors. Source:
Eurostat (2009)
As table 2 shows, manufacture of motor vehicles and
manufacture of bodies for motor vehicles, trailers, and semi trailers are the
most important sub-sectors in terms of the share of sector employment and the
share of sector value added in Europe.
The five largest national shares
account for 69% of motor vehicle production (Germany, Italy, France, United
Kingdom, and Spain) (see figure 1). The same group of five countries are also
the top five in terms of European value added and total number of persons employed
in automotive sector (Eurostat, 2009).
FIOthers
<1%BG 4%
ROHU1%1% DE
1%
2BE%
NL
7%
13%
Figure 1: Country share % of total European motor vehicle
fleets (2008). Source: OICA, 2009
Sector employment: The motor vehicle sector is characterized by a
predominantly full-time male workforce (79,4%). Due to the lack of recent data,
the accurate effect of the financial crisis on the employment in the automotive
sector is difficult to assess – the most recent employment figures are only
available for 2007. However, the industry has indicated that 15-20% of the
automotive labour force is at risk, while a crisis in the automotive sector
also puts its suppliers at risk (EC responding to the crisis in the European automotive
industry). The trend in employment shows concentration: A slight decrease of
employment figures in EU–15 countries (20012007) faced a growing workforce in
EU-10 countries (ACEA, 2010).
Figure 2:
Automotive employment by country. Source: ACEA (2010)
3. Growth and competitiveness
Sector growth: The demand for transport equipment has been rising
until 2007 (Eurostat, 2009). However, the financial crisis caused a sudden drop
in demand. Together with limited access to credit, the automotive production in
Europe fell dramatically by the end of 2008. Table 4 shows the decline of motor
vehicle production in various EU regions.
|
Country
|
2008
|
2009
|
% change
|
|
EU - 27
|
18,439,079
|
15,252,862
|
-17,3%
|
|
EU - 15
|
15,174,690
|
12,241,033
|
-19,3%
|
|
EU New members
|
3,264,389
|
3,011,829
|
-7,7%
|
Table 3: motor vehicle production change in units and %.
Source: OICA 2009
The automotive sector has been one of the most affected
during the financial crisis, with a record decline of almost 20% - the largest
decline ever recorded. This phenomenon is partly explained by the fact that
60-80% of new car purchases in Europe are financed by credit. The trends for
the near future are also not encouraging (European Commission, 2009b, Wad,
2010).
European automotive sector growth has been largely fed by
the demand from new member states, while the demand in Western European
countries has been quite flat in recent years. However, this trend changed.
From 2008 onwards, after the economic crisis, the whole industry remains
sluggish. The main demand is expected to come from emerging markets (China,
India, or Russia) where European manufacturers already have significant
presence (European Commission, 2009a). According to the European Commission,
the main driver for competitiveness in the global automotive sector will be
technological competition, especially in terms of fuel and energy developments,
in which the European automotive industry is already well positioned. Moreover,
European car makers face a challenge in terms of cost competitiveness in these
markets – Europeans often focus on premium cars, have higher labour costs, and
are affected by stricter regulations (European Commission, 2009).
Sector competitiveness: In 2005, the European Commission has
launched the CARS 21 process (Competitive Automotive Regulatory System, for the
21st century) (European Commission, 2006) that until now serves (or at least it
was planned to do so) as the main watchdog of the development in the
competitiveness of the European automotive industry (European Commission,
2009b). In the CARS 21, the main challenges in relation to competitiveness were
summarized:
ƒ
Globalisation of economic activities: Automotive
sector is increasingly becoming globalised, thus the European car makers need
to virtually compete with everyone and everywhere.
ƒ
A rapidly changing operating environment and
innovation competition: European manufacturers have to continue high
investments in R&D in order to keep up with their global competitors in
terms of technological breakthroughs.
ƒ
Greater environmental and health concerns and
the regulatory environment: EU customers pose ever increasing demands in terms
of safety, comfort, and fuel efficiency, thus car makers have to compete in
terms of both – price and meeting societal goals.
ƒ
Market environment: Above all, challenges have
to be met in an environment of limited future growth and inflexible prices
(European Commission, 2006).
In its latest communication “Responding to the Crisis in the
European Automotive Industry”, the European Commission has identified these
issues in order to contribute to long-term competitiveness. Investments in R &
D and innovation for developing “green” cars are essential (European
Commission, 2009b).
When looking at market shares, production volumes, value
added, and employment, the European automotive industry has maintained its
global competitiveness in the last years. However, it also faces various
challenges like overcapacity, low productivity levels, high labor costs, high
fixed costs, little market growth, and new technologies. Competition in the
European automotive markets is intense. Evidence to support this thesis can be
found in successful new entries, fluctuating market shares, shorter product
life cycles, and increased consumer choice. While drivers of competitiveness in
the short run may be productivity and labor costs (which seem to be more
favorable in Japan and in the USA), innovation is the key factor in the long
run. European firms, which are global technology leaders (also because of a
demanding home market) have to continue innovating and investing in R&D to
remain competitive. Its strong supplier base and strict regulatory standards
for environment and safety may further support the innovation processes
(Heneric et al., 2005; Europäische Kommission, 2009; Eurostat, 2009). On the
contrary, according to Donnelly et al., (2002) the European automakers
responded to global competition challenges by costs reduction, shed labor,
rationalizing plants, raising productivity, and improving their relationships
with suppliers. However, the authors conclude that these reactions were delayed
and Europe remains the weakest of the triad car manufacturers. Yet the European
industry is at the forefront in terms of technology because the leading brands
can practice cost recovery (in contradiction to cost reduction) on a market
where customers are willing to pay more for the brand, exclusivity, and
marginal gains via innovation.
The role of
innovations in the automotive industry was scrutinised by Tseng and Wu (2007)
who developed five indicators of innovation quality and compared 17 global
automobile firms by means of these indicators, whereas three of the indicators
(patent count, citation-weighted patents, scope of innovations) positively and
significantly affect firm profits. Furthermore, Liang and Iuan (2006) show that
automakers actively engage in product innovation (issuing a large number of
patents), especially if they produce high-quality products (showing low numbers
of failure).
Competition in the automotive sector is strongly influenced
by highly saturated markets and overcapacity (Orsato, Wells, 2007b; Volpato,
Stochetti, 2008). Most of the Western car markets entered into the high
saturation phase in the 70s of the previous century. It resulted in a high
motorisation rate. Consequently, demand almost entirely consists of replacement
purchases. This pushed car makers to provide products with high degree of
differentiation and to dramatically shorten the product life cycle. To keep
their market positions, car producers must be able to offer a new or better car
at any moment that the client makes a decision to replace the old product. The
customer decision is mainly based on the willingness to have a better car with
innovative solutions, rather than by technical default of the old car (Volpato,
Stochetti, 2008). Therefore, some authors recognised brands and mergers as the
most important competitiveness factors in the automotive industry. Wells and
Morreau (2005) give an overview of car brand names, models, body styles and
variants in the UK market in 1994-2005 periods. The number of brands remained
constant, while the number of models rose from 205 to 323, number of different
body styles increased from 300 to 376 and number of variants from 1303 to 3155
(which also undermines economies of scale). Similar overview was given by
Volpato and Stochetti (2008) for the Italian market (1984-2006 periods). Again
the number of brands remained almost constant, (rose from 54 to 55), while the
number of models increased from 170 to 281 and the number of versions from 696
to 3440. The emergence of international mergers and alliances can be explained
by excess capacity, economies of scale and access to global markets (Fai,
Morgan, 2007).
Tay (2003, p. 24) stated that “achieving and sustaining
competitive differentiation is the most foremost challenge for the remaining
automakers around the world, and their key to future survival and prosperity”.
According to Tay (2003) there are three parameters by which differentiation can
be expressed: quality, cost/value relation, and timeliness. The traditional
measures of quality are reliability, durability, noise, vibration, and
harshness control. But they are no longer sufficient enough. Other quality
factors crucial for car makers are: safety, use of electronics and their
applications, new energy sources, etc. Cost/value referrers to the relationship
between providing a high value products to consumers and reducing costs both
linked with product design as well as with service and maintenance costs.
Timeliness simply means delivering a new product to the market faster than
other competitors. For example, leading Japanese automakers such as Toyota or
Honda have the capacity to roll-off new models from their assembly lines in 12
months or less.
The importance of the differentiation strategy was also
stressed by Renard (2002) and Dietl et al. (2009). However, the latter
concluded that it will no longer be a sufficient source of long-term
competitiveness, as distribution and complementary services (in finance and
after-sales) are becoming much more important. The importance of distribution is increasing due to fierce
competition resulting from the rising number of players, innovative sales
channels, and the new balance of power between the traditional franchised
dealers and the vehicle manufacturers. Another factor strengthening the role of
distribution stems from the fact that the automotive industry is characterised
by slim margins between profit and loss. This is due to two factors. First is
the imperative of economies of scale. 250 000 cars per model and year is
considered to be a minimum outcome bringing profitability (Bremmer, 2000). It
means that a typical plant with a production capacity of 300 000 cars per year
must reach 80 % of its utilisation to be viable (Orsato, Wells, 2007b). The
second factor is manufacturers’ inability to capture profits generated by the
whole life cycle of a car – from manufacturing to sales, ownership, and use.
When considering all activities linked with car manufacturing, retailing,
leasing, servicing, insurance, finance, and car parts, car producers and components
suppliers together have about 3,5 % returns on revenue (Orsato, Wells, 2007b).
Therefore, car producers try to increase their profit margins by engaging in
after-sales activities.
Table 4 below summarises
literature on the critical success factors in the automotive industry.
|
Success factors - automotive sector
|
Authors/Year
|
|
Innovation,
improved environmental performance
|
Triebswetter,
Wackerbauer, 2008
|
|
Different approaches to
new, environmentally friendly products design
|
Willander,2007
|
|
Manufacturing excellence, value-added of product, market
expansion, financial returns, and intangible values
|
Sirikrai, Tang, 2006
|
|
Superior environmental
performance
|
Pil et al., 2003
|
|
Network resources,
knowledge-sharing initiatives between supplier and manufacturer
|
Dyer & Hatch, 2006
|
|
Brand distinction, supplier integration, protection of
technological innovations, valuable complementary services in finance and
after-sales
|
Dietl, Royer,
Stratmann, 2009
|
|
Factor conditions in the home market, strong and dynamic
supporting industries, demanding customers
|
Sledge, 2005
|
|
Minimization of costs and
maximization of differentiation
|
Renard, 2002
|
|
Product life cycle,
product differentiation
|
Tay, 2003 ;Volpato, Stochetti, 2008
|
|
Degree of differentiation,
shortening product life cycle
|
Orsato, Wells, 2007b
|
|
Product innovations,
high-quality products
|
Liang, Iuan, 2006
|
|
R&D, “green”
innovations
|
European
Commission,
2009b
|
|
Emergence of international
mergers and alliances
|
Fai, Morgan, 2007
|
|
Innovations indicated by patent count, citation-weighted
patents, scope of innovations
|
Tseng, Wu, 2007
|
|
Green manufacturing
|
Menzel et al., 2010
|
|
Managerial resources and
technology capabilities
|
Sirikrai, Tang, 2006
|
|
European automakers’
reactions to increasing global competition
|
Donnelly et al., 2002
|
|
Supply chain management
|
Oh, Rhee, 2010;
Sánchez,Pérez,2005
|
|
Organisational learning
|
West, Burners, 2000
|
|
Contribution of supplying
industry, “Partnerships for Innovation”
|
Roth, 2006
|
Table 4:
Automotive sector: literature on success factors
Sledge (2005) found - by means of a study of the 50 most
successful automotive companies and using Porter’s diamond as a theoretical
background (demand conditions; factor conditions; related and supporting
industries; firm strategy, structure and rivalry) - what comprises national
competitiveness in the global automotive industry. First of all, “more
demanding customers in the home market positively impact a firm’s global
competitiveness”. Secondly, “more advanced factor conditions in the home market
may also positively impact a firm’s global competitiveness” and “strong and
dynamic related and supporting industries in a firm’s home market advance and
strengthen the automotive industry”. However, with the fourth element - firm
strategy, structure, and rivalry - no relationship with national
competitiveness was indicated.
Another model to analyze industrial competitiveness applied
theories from both the strategic and operations management perspectives to
determine which organizational performance indicators are important when
assessing competitiveness and which drivers could lead to better economic
performance. Identified competitiveness indicators comprise manufacturing
excellence, value-added of product, market expansion, financial returns, and
intangible values. Competitiveness drivers, however, can be divided into
industrial competitive conditions (basically Porter’s five market forces),
government roles, managerial resources, and technology capabilities
(Sirikrai, Tang, 2006).
Willander (2007) analysed three big car producers – Ford,
Volvo, and Toyota – trying to identify differences in their willingness and
ability seek technological changes in their production processes. The author
found that all of these companies addressed environmental problems differently,
with Ford and Volvo looking for alternatives to petrol and cleaner energy
sources, and Toyota being much more innovative and designing cars for less
energy demand. According to the author, Toyota was much more successful thanks
to its high aspirations to discover new technology, together with its more
open-minded approach to environmental issues (by experimentation, testing,
learning by doing). Willander (2007) also found that the company’s opportunity
to benefit from going green is dependent on customers’ values, expectations and
needs, e.g. private customers and fleet customers turned out to have rather
different good domains.
Triebswetter and Wackerbauer (2008) scrutinised an
automotive industry in the region of Munich. They found that integrated
environmental innovation is driven by factors such as regulatory pressure, the
search for competitive advantage, and technological lead and customer pressure.
The study revealed that regulatory pressure and voluntary approach have very
similar effects on environmental innovations. The authors also highlighted some
economically successful ecoinnovations.
However, in
industries such as the automotive, a technological lock-in might occur which
can make companies blind for technological and economic opportunities as well
as create a powerful exclusion effect (Dosi, 1982). Any company questioning
itself about boosting profitability by going green first analyses its
technological paradigm (Dosi, 1982). The latter is a part of a greater
technological system (Hughes, 1987).
Each organisation in an industrial sector is a part of such
a technological system, and it is mirrored in the company’s organizational
structures. The combination of technological lock-in and organizational
proximity strongly influences the product design and the probability of
eco-innovation.
Nevertheless, studies also exist providing evidence that
these green approaches do not always show the desired effect on financial
indicators. For example, a study analyzing Europe’s automotive and pharmaceutical
industries revealed no significant relationship between greener manufacturing
and corporate performance (Menzel et al., 2010).
Quite frequently, the role of suppliers’ capabilities in the
automotive industry was scrutinized. Oh and Rhee (2010) found that suppliers’
flexibility and engineering capabilities positively affected a collaboration in
new car development, which at the end positively influenced the competitive
advantage of the car manufacturers. Sánchez and Pérez (2005) highlighted that flexibility
along the supply chain is a factor positively affecting firm performance.
Sturgeon et al. (2008) gave a broad discussion of the role of networks in the
automotive industry.
West and Burnes (2000) discussed
the importance of organizational learning as vital factor in building an
organization’s competitiveness. According to the authors, managing uncertainty
and change is essential for success in the automotive industry. Thus. companies
are seeking to promote organizational learning in a systematic and
organization-wide manner. They named the issues which are of the prime
importance: building closer links with customers and suppliers, involving the
whole organization into recognizing and responding to the external events,
developing organizational culture which encourages established ways of working
and thinking to be challenged by individuals and teams, and enhancing
individuals to contribute to the organization’s performance.
Roth (2006)
highlights the main challenges for further growth and competitiveness in the
automotive sector, which are the tougher competition, the saturated markets,
the growing excess capacity, and the radical change in the demand structure.
Additionally, the dramatic rising of commodity prices of steel, oil, plastics,
as well as other basic materials causes a market and consumer driven
reorganization. Hence, restrictive credit policy and the cost and price
pressure from manufacturers result in cost pressure on the workforce,
decreasing pressure on collective agreements, and pressure to shift locations.
However, the EU states still remain a relevant production market in the long
term, but their importance as a sales market is foreseen to keep declining. According
to Roth (2006), the only sustainable economic model for the future is that of
mutual cooperation within the value chain, in which not only benefits and
rewards are balanced, but also sufficient financing and investment are
provided. Due to cooperative processes and value creation in the supply chain,
benefits and synergies, especially in product and process innovation, can be
developed through pooling their expertise and consequently counteracting
against relocation. Cooperated value-added processes also exert a constant
pressure to innovate due to the proximity of competitors, partner, users and
science, and guarantee for long-term jobs in the regions concerned.
4. Environmental issues
An environmental pressure imposed on the automotive industry
cannot be denied. According to Whitelegg (1993) about 26, 6 tonnes of waste and
922 m2 of polluted air are produced before a customer can use an
average car. And it is highly significant that these numbers represent only
about 10 % of all environmental pressure imposed by the whole life cycle of the
car. About 80 % of this pressure stems from the usage phase, and another 10 %
is linked with the disposal of the car. A simplified car life cycle is
presented at Fig.3.
Comparing an average car from 1975 and 2000, the amount of
air pollution decreased by 95 % (Graedel, Allenby, 1998). Surprisingly, the
total amount of pollution resulting from car manufacturing and use increased,
mainly due to the boost of number of cars in the world.
The post-use phase has witnessed
huge changes during last decade, especially in the EU. In 2000, the End-of-Life
Vehicles Directive was implemented to encourage manufacturers to develop
components and vehicles that are easy to dismantle and recycle. According to
this regulation, car producers should reach 95% recovery/re-use rate and 85%
recycling rate by 2015. Smith and Crotty (2008) analysed the influence of the
EU End of Life Vehicle Directives (ELVD) from the point of view of ecological
modernisation. They found little evidence that this new regulation stimulated
product innovation beyond short-term, incremental technological trajectories.
In Europe, approximately 75% of the weight of all End-of-Life vehicles is
recycled. This mainly corresponds with a metal fraction, while other components
(such as plastics, windows) are disposed of. Also toxic materials contained
within road vehicles (oil, batteries, heavy metals) do not receive proper
treatment (Smith, Crotty, 2008; see also Fergusson, 2007). However, the latest
data suggest that there is a substantial improvement in terms of ELV reuse and
recycling rate
(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/waste/documents/0501ENnew_l
abels_halo.pdf). However, it is worth mentioning that most materials from the
old cars are not recycled into new cars, but downcycled into less demanding
applications. Thus, the automotive industry remains a major consumer of virgin
raw materials, regardless the level of recycling.
Figure 3 Simplified car
life-cycle environmental impact
Source: Authors’ own
elaboration based on Orsato, and Wells, 2007b.
The design of the car seems to be the crucial activity when
aiming for decreasing an adverse impact on the natural environment, considering
the whole life cycle of the product. Redesign of the cars may include using
lightweight materials, improving fuel efficiency, and inventing new sources of
energy. Proper design is also a key factor to reach the highest recycling and
reuse rates. However, there are several obstacles that hamper development of
new, innovative solutions. One of them is a technological lock-in, resulting
from a highly oligopolistic market structure and an existing technological
paradigm that is also mirrored in the organisational structure (Dosi, 1982;
Hughes, 1987). Van den Hoed (2007) presented this phenomenon, explaining the
emergence and development of alternative sources of energy such as battery
electric cars and fuel cells technology. He revealed that technological
progress alone is not sufficient enough for success of new technology. He
discussed factors that may bring radical technological change: new entries,
external shocks or crises, performance of the new technology, market changes
and industry competition. Van den Hoed (2007) also concluded that there is a little
chance that within the next 20 years that traditional inside combustion engines
will be replaced by any other technology. This is due to the fact that the
latter are much more costly to be manufactured and there is lack of
infrastructure to use them. Also, the safety of fuel cell cars is disputable.
However, Hensley et al. (2009) argued that sooner or later, electric cars will
become a great market opportunity for those who notice it, and at the same time
they will be a threat for the automakers manufacturing “traditional” cars.
Fournier (2009) claimed that we will soon witness a shift towards a new techno
economic paradigm. The fossil fuels-based mobility will be substituted by a
mixture of various technologies such as biofuels, electric vehicles, ethanol,
rape oil, biomethan, microalgae, hybrid etc.
Perujo and
Ciuffo (2010) analysed the possible impact of the electric cars’ recharging
activities on the electric supply system for the Province of Milan, and on the
global environment with a 2030 time horizon. They concluded that electric cars
seem to be very promising in terms of decreasing CO2 emissions and
environmental pressures of the road transportation system in general (see also
Mayer, 2000). However it is not clear if the pace of development of the
electric car market is fast enough to have a significant influence on the car
market in next twenty years. Steenberghen and Lopez (2008) stressed that there
are obstacles of a structural nature that are disrupting the development of
alternative fuels. These obstacles are, among others, lack of infrastructure of
filling stations and lack of specific legislation and safety certification. As
the risks of investing in new fuel technologies are high, producers are very
likely to significantly engage themselves in developing and promoting
alternative fuels for road transportation, unless there is a regulatory
framework enforcing and supporting the development of new engine technologies.
On the contrary, Moriarty and Honnery (2008), after discussing different approaches
implemented to tackle environmental problems caused by the car mobility,
concluded that there is no technological solution for these problems, and that
the world will have to move towards far lower levels of motorised travel.
Notter et al. (2010) performed a study exploring the
environmental impact assessment of lithium-ion batteries, which are now the
most commonly applied in the electric vehicles. They confirmed earlier studies
highlighting that regardless of the energy sources used in the car, the
operation phase represents the biggest burden for the environment. In general,
the impact of the Li-Ion battery is relatively small. The major contribution to environmental
burdens caused by the battery is the supply of copper and aluminium required for
the production of the cathode, anode, and the battery pack.
Another important argument questioning the rise and success
of new energy sources for car bodies is the fact that customers have poor
knowledge of cleaner car technologies and the environmental impacts of road
transport (Lane, Potter, 2007). They value car performance, safety, and its
innovativeness. Knowledge on the life cycle of an average car is crucial, as it
may turn out that redesigning the car results simply in shifting environmental
impacts to another phase. For example, Orsato and Wells (2007b) discussed this
problem using the steel body of the car as an example: Steel is the main factor
influencing the weight of the car, and therefore also determines the energy
required to run the car. Steel bodies could be replaced by aluminium bodies.
According to aluminium producers, the substitution of one tonne of aluminium
for steel in automotive applications would reduce CO2 emission by 20 tonnes
over the whole life cycle of an average car. On the other hand it is argued
that the production of one tonne of aluminium generates 10-15 times more CO2
emissions than the production of one tonne of steel.
OECD (2004) distinguishes between emissions causing local
air pollution and those causing global warming. While the efficiency of
combustion engines gets better and air pollution is decreasing, it seems that
this is not the optimal solution to fight the problem of global warming, since
burning hydrocarbons will always generate CO2 emissions. There exist a variety
of possible alternative fuels (LPG, CNG, methanol, bio-fuels), and new
technology vehicles (electric, hybrid, fuel cell), but the degree in which
these options can reduce emissions while remaining competitive when confronted
with conventional technologies is not clear.
Table 5 below summarises
environmental issues in the automotive industry
|
Environmental issues - automotive sector
|
Authors/Year
|
|
Green buildings,
eco-design, green supply chains, green manufacturing, reverse logistics,
innovation
|
Nunes, Bennett,2010
|
|
Packaging and waste
reduction, eco-friendly processes and
|
|
|
products in the supply
chain. raw material decrease, reuse of material,
|
Thun, Müller,2010
|
|
CO2 emissions of cars,
affordable mobility
|
Fournier, 2009
|
|
Reduction of air
emissions, waste water and solid wastes,
|
|
|
decrease in consumption of
hazardous/harmful/toxic materials, decrease in frequency for environmental
accidents
|
Zhu et.al., 2007, 2008
|
|
GHG emissions from cars
|
Mayer, 2000; OECD, 2004
|
|
End of Life Vehicle
|
Fergusson, 2007; Smith, Crotty, 2008
|
|
Factors stimulating
radical technological change (new entries, external shocks or crises,
performance of the new technology, market changes and industry competition)
|
Van den Hoed, 2007
|
|
Car life cycle
|
Orsato, Wells, 2007b
|
|
The biggest car manufacturers’ approaches to the
environmental issues
|
Steinweg, 2010
|
|
Electric cars
|
Hensley et al., 2009;
Perujo, Ciuffo, 2010
|
|
Alternative fuels
|
Steenberghen, Lopez, 2008
|
|
Environmental Impact
Assessment of Electric Vehicles
|
Notter et al., 2010
|
Table 5: Automotive
sector: literature on environmental issues
Another important environmental threat from the automotive
industry is hazardous chemical substances such as mercury, lead, cadmium, and
hexavalent chromium. To face this threat and improve companies’ performance in
this area, the EU implemented a REACH directive in 2006, which imposed on car
manufacturers and all their suppliers’ the responsibility to manage risks from
chemicals and provide safety information on the substances. Thanks to this,
management was improved and companies redesigned their cars to phase out their
use of these SVHCs (Steinweg, 2010).
Nunes and Bennett (2010) investigated green operations
initiatives in the automotive industry that were documented in the
environmental reports of selected companies. They found that car manufacturers
are pursuing a wide range of green operations practices such as green
buildings, eco-design, green supply chains, green manufacturing, reverse
logistics, and innovation. Green supply chain management practices have been
investigated by Zhu et al. (2007, 2008). The basic approaches here are:
selection of suppliers, transfer of technology, and more efficient logistic
systems (e.g. packaging, reduction of empty container travelling). Zhu et al.
(2007) found that implementation of GSCM has slightly improved firms’
environmental and operational performance, and has not improved firms’ economic
performance. It has been discussed that the automotive industry witnessed a
great shortening of product life cycle (Volpato, Stochetti, 2008). This can be
perceived as another factor increasing the negative environmental pressure from
the industry.
Study by
Sarkis et al. (2010) indicated that training, especially environmental
training, is an important factor mediating between stakeholders’ expectations
and pressures, and various environmental practices. According to the authors,
automotive companies are only adopting environmental practices if training
programs are in effect. A practical implication of their findings is that
another stakeholder (e.g. governmental or regulatory agencies) should
constantly analyze a firm’s environmental performance. However, the power of
the latter to influence company’s behavior depends on whether it is primary or
secondary stakeholder.
5. Quality of Jobs issues
The automotive industry is characterized
by mostly high skilled work with high quality demands. These demands cannot be
met with command-and-control job conditions. The result is high pressure on
performance and only a limited workforce with low or no skills, which are
generally vulnerable to “sweatshop” conditions. This work has generally been
sourced out (Hamprecht, 2006; Takeishi, 2002). Different production systems
have emerged (reflective, teamwork oriented versus monotonous, line oriented)
and provide different pictures of dominant quality of jobs issues. Plus, there
are also national differences, although they are merging into company-specific
in production systems (Lewchuk, 2001). Therefore, no general trend can be
observed.
Table 6 below summarises Quality
of jobs issues in automotive industry.
|
Quality
of Jobs issues - automotive sector
|
Authors
& Year
|
|
Intrinsic work quality
|
Weichel et al, 2010; Dawal, Taha, 2007; Richardson
et al., 2010; Pil, Fujimoto, 2007; Barker, 1993
|
|
Skills and employability
|
Pil, 2007; Berggren, 1993
|
|
Health and working
conditions
|
Boraiko et al, 2008; Landau et al., 2006; Winter, 2006;
Clarke, 2004; White et al, 2003; Barker, 1993; Graham,
1995; Danford, 1998; Parker and Slaughter, 1988
|
|
Flexibility, stability,
and security
|
Jürgens,
Krzywdzinski, 2008, 2009
|
|
Work-life balance
|
White et al, 2003;Bond, 1998.
|
|
Social dialogue and
worker involvement
|
Sako, 1998; Berggren, 1992; Gorgeu, Mathieu, 2005;
Zacharatos et al., 2007; Lewchuk, Wells, 2007
|
|
Wages and inclusion
|
Lewchuk et al, 2001; Wallace, 2000; Zacharatos et
al., 2007.
|
Table 6: Automotive sector: literature on quality of jobs
issues.
Intrinsic work
quality varies due to different production systems. Reflective production
systems (with teamwork and autonomy) tend to have higher job satisfaction, but
also considerably higher stress and workload (Gorgeu, Mathieu, 2005; Graham,
1995). Barker (1993) offers a possible explanation for higher stress, showing
that concertive control (of a group) tends to exert higher pressure than
hierarchy. Line assembly has monotonous and repetitive work with low intrinsic
value (Pil, Fujimoto, 2007). The most significant factors on job satisfaction
in automotive companies are job rotation, work method, problem solving, and
goal setting (Weichel et al, 2010; Dawal, Taha, 2007). However, the notion that
reflective production increases employee influence is also contested
(Richardson et al., 2010).
Skills and
employability offer a mixed picture too. In reflective production systems,
training seems to be stronger based on the individual’s needs. Other production
systems (like the “German”; Berggren, 1993) have more room for job segregation
between “Facharbeiter” (with high training) and “Massenarbeiter” (with low or
no training) jobs.
Equal treatment:
Women are only a fraction of the workforce and tend to occupy lower qualified
and paid jobs. Nevertheless, equality issues are neither well researched nor is
there evidence of concern from within the industry.
Health and working
conditions are of some concern, with emphasis on stress and workload,
especially in reflective production schemes (Pil, Fujimoto, 2007; Winter et al.,
2006; Parker, Slaughter, 1988; Barker, 1993; Graham, 1995; Danford, 1998 cit in
White et al., 2003), enforced by high pressure to cut costs. Further studies
deal with ergonomics (Landau et al., 2006) as well as with safety climate and
safety culture in car manufacturing plants (Boraiko et al., 2008; Clarke,
2004).
Flexibility,
stability and security (with job security and work contracts) are an issue,
when moving away from the well-trained, high-skilled “Facharbeiter” to low
skill and wage jobs. Whereas in Western Europe these tasks are mostly
outsourced, they partly remain in Eastern Europe (Jürgens, Krzywdzinski, 2008,
2009). Nevertheless, the problem tends to increase with workforce separation
between permanent and agency contract workers.
Inclusion and access
to the labour market is a political concept of quality of work and is not
researched.
Work-life balance is
scarcely researched. Research and experience from similar sectors (high hours
worked combined with high performance practices like team work) suggest
possible negative work-to-home spill-over effects. Not astonishingly, flexible
working hours tend to reduce this effect, especially with women (Bond et al.,
1998; Maume, Houston, 2001; cit. in White et al., 2003). But flexible work
arrangements are scarce in shift work.
Social dialogue and
worker involvement circles around two phenomena: The rise of lean
production and participatory production schemes which openly invite employees
to contribute to managerial decisions about production procedures, and benefits
vs. costs of union representation. Generally, differences in labour
representation (union coverage, union structure) vary nationally, influenced by
different regulatory and institutional regimes (Berggren, 1992). Based on a
1994 survey of European automotive plants, Sako (1998) found a strong
correlation of performance with direct (quality circles etc.) and indirect participation (union
representation) of workers in decision making. One case study (Lewchuk, Wells,
2007 on Magna) shows attempts to bypass trade unions with unfavourable
consequences on job quality.
Wages and inclusion circle around
performance-oriented pay schemes, which were introduced in the course of lean
production processes (Lewchuk et al., 2001 on Canada/UK; Wallace, 2000 on
Volvo). In a singular meta-study on American carmakers, Zacharatos et al.,
(2007) found that organization-focused factors like commitment and perceptions
of organizational justice have a high influence on performance, whereas
person-focused outcomes (like job satisfaction or health) don’t.
6. CSR issues
CSR in the automotive industry comprises a great variety of
issues emerging during the production, use and disposal phases. Automotive
suppliers should adopt a lifecycle approach paying attention to CSR issues in
all stages of their supply (Orsato, Wells, 2007a). The most important subject
in this field, however, seems to be the one of alternative technologies and
fuels. There exist a variety of possible alternative fuels (LPG, CNG, methanol,
bio-fuels) and new technology vehicles (electric, hybrid, and fuel cell). It is
unclear which of these options has the ability to reduce emissions and to best
compete in the marketplace with conventional technologies. Depending on the
circumstances and the attitude towards innovation (radical/incremental),
different technologies get chosen, for example a wider adoption of bio-fuels
(ethanol) in Brazil, the first hybrid car by Toyota, or the low spread of
hydrogen fuel cell technology (Zapata, Nieuwenhuis, 2010).
With the life cycle perspective in mind, the European
Parliament and the Council passed the End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) Directive in
2000. The goal was to reduce waste and improve environmental performance by
enhancing end-of-life vehicle recovery. Studies confirm that positive outcomes
have already originated from the ELV-directive such as increased rate of
recycling, increased hazardous substance removal and improved information
dissemination. A more radical approach (“dematerialization”) would be needed to
generate more radical, ecological design solutions within the automotive
industry (Gerrard, Kandlikar, 2007; Smith, Crotty, 2008).
Green supply chain management
(GSCM) refers to incorporating ecological aspects into the whole value chain.
Usually, companies are aware of the ability of GSCM to increase their economic,
social, and environmental performance. However, most economic entities fail to fully capture GSCM
potential. An empirical analysis highlighted the status quo of green supply
chain management in the German automotive industry - drivers, goals, particular
realization and barriers of GSCM – and confirmed the preposition that some GSCM
goals were successfully obtained
(fulfillment
of legal regulations, environmental protection), while realization of efficient
resource usage, waste creation, and cost reduction was far from satisfactory
(Thun, Muller, 2010). However, being aware of the potential of sustainable
business, many firms try to incorporate environmental and social aspects into
their supply chain. The Volkswagen management did so by setting normative
requirements in relationships with business partners, trying to detect supply
related risks early, operationally implementing supply processes, and
monitoring and supplier development (Koplin et al., 2007).
Table 7 below summarises
literature on CSR issues in automotive industry.
|
CSR issues - automotive sector
|
Authors
|
|
Recycling techniques,
adopting energy efficient technologies,
|
|
|
proper use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials,
customer environmental compliance, purchasing packaging materials from
recycled materials, reduce consumption of non-renewable
resources, personal
environmental awareness training
|
Kehbila
et, al., 2009
|
|
Consuming fewer resources in production processes,
developing alternative fuel technologies, environmental efficiency of
factories
|
Zapata, Nieuwenhuis, 2010
|
|
Supply chain responsibility (use of raw materials, social
or human rights, conditions at the mining level, recycling end-of-life
vehicles)
|
Steinweg, 2010
|
|
Green supply chain
management
|
Thun, Müller, 2010; Koplin et al.,2007
|
|
Product life cycle,
alternative technologies and fuels
|
Orsato, Wells, 2007a
|
|
End-of-life vehicle
|
Gerrard, Kandlikar,
2007; Smith, Crotty,
2008
|
|
Environmental management
schemes
|
González et al., 2008; Beske et al., 2008
|
Table 7: Automotive
sector: literature on CSR issues.
Environmental management schemes are widely recognized and
implemented within the automotive industry. However, similar social standards,
which would remove hard working conditions, are still missing (Gonzalez et al.,
2008; Beske et al., 2008; Kehbila et al., 2009). The most frequent CSR
activities among car manufacturers are based on the ILO code (on essential
working conditions), companies’ individual codes of conduct (CSR policies, and
reports), GRI standards, supply chain responsibility, and environmental
management systems (Steinweg, 2010).
7. Trends and Future Prospects
The future of the automotive sector will be basically shaped
by economic recovery, new software technologies, electric vehicles or other
alternative energy propulsion possibilities, and an economic shift toward Asian
markets. It is also expected that the automobile industry will be forced to
tackle spacial problems like parking and congestion, especially in urban
areas.(Vasilash, 2010)
According to Datamonitor (2011), the company car market is
expected to show buoyant growth in 2011, and recovery is expected in the second
half of the year. In terms of demand, it is forecasted that leasing companies
will have purchase more cars this year compared to 2010 due to the improved
economy. Therefore car financing will become more readily available and more
affordable and leasing companies might expand their geographical coverage
again.
As a result of economic recovery and corporate confidence, a
growing demand for company cars will be expected. Datamonitor (2011) predicts a
compound annual growth rate of 7% between 2010 and 2015, which shows an
optimistic outlook for the European company car market. Due to rapid
developments in the infotainment market, the automotive industry will need to
adapt to growing consumer demands in terms of internet based systems in order
to keep up with the market. Harsh
competition forces the auto industry to adapt to modern trends. Therefore, it
is expected that smartphone connectivity will become a prerequisite in the
future. An example for the adaptation of flexibility in software design is the
Toyota Entune. Yet, safety features like keyless entry, remote starting, and
breakdown recovery are experimented and might influence consumers’ demands and
enforce competition in the automobile sector. (Taylor, 2008)
Illustrating the economic point of view, Corswant and
Frederiksson (2002) claim that there will be a change toward more global
operations. That means that car manufacturers and suppliers may increase their
production volume and merge with or acquire other car manufacturers. An example
of this phenomenon is the merger between Chrysler and Daimler. Yet Asian car
manufacturers, particularly India and China, will penetrate into European
markets. Furthermore there is an increasing outsourcing trend regarding certain
activities to specialized suppliers and companies to be noted. Whereas
suppliers increase their outsourcing and globalization of product development
activities, car manufacturers do not. To remain competitive, car manufacturers
and suppliers continue to reduce product development time and need in order to
improve their performance and production.
Corswant and
Frederiksson (2002) raised the idea of a tailor-made or individualized car to
respond to consumers’ demands. Rapid manufacturing technologies allow the
possibility to shape and style the components of a car which then should be
perfectly matched to the consumers’ wishes for “comparable” prices.
Evident trends concerning the efforts of the production of
“green cars” can be identified. Next to
escalating fuel prices, the European regulations on carbon reduction are also
reasons for the need for green cars. Alternatives to gasoline propulsion are
therefore considered, like making cars and trucks more energy efficient through
hybridization, electrification, or other fuels. Hereby, it has to be considered
that drivers are still reluctant to buy electric cars because of high initial
purchase cost, a lack of charging points, and short travel ranges. Hence, technology
has to improve in terms of the user-friendliness of electric cars. Also, the
use of material has to be thought over in order to tackle the problem of waste
management and resource efficiency. (Vasilash, 2010)
The ideas of multiple transportation modes opportunity, like
hybrid transportation modes, road-air, smart grids for electric vehicles, and
road-water have also been proposed. Seidl et al. (2005) forecasted the business
opportunity of brand extension into unrelated markets so that car manufacturers
extend their brands to other consumer product categories that include, among
others, brand financial, lifestyle, entertainment, and communication products.
However, these assumed business opportunities, as well as the idea of the
tailored car, are models which would take a decade or even more to be
developed.
In summary, it can be stated
that the main trends in the car industry will be about over-capacity,
increasing customer requirements, tougher environmental legislation, and rapid
technology development.
|
Trends and Future Prospects- Automotive Sector
|
Authors
|
Year
|
|
Sourcing trends, motor
industry, outsourcing, supplier relations
|
Corswant, Fredriksson
|
2002
|
|
Economic
outlook for the automobile industry and vehicle manufacturers, market
penetration, business development, and forecasting
|
Datamonitor
|
2011
|
|
Automotive future, Industry
Transformations, consumer
behavior, business opportunities for the future
|
Seidl, Loch,
Chahil
|
2005
|
|
Forecast predictions of the development of the global car
industry
|
Taylor
|
2008
|
|
Future trend to electric networked vehicle, expected growth
of automobile industry
|
Vasilash
|
2010
|
Table 8: Automotive Sector: literature on future
trends
8. Literature
ACEA (2009). European automobile industry report. Available
at:
http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20090519_ACEA_Industry_Report09FULL.pdf. ACEA (2010) EU Economic Report March 2010.
Available at: http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20100311_ER_1003_2010_I_Q1-4.pdf
Barker, J.R. (1993) Tightening the iron cage: convertive
control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38, No.
3, pp. 408-437.
Berggren, C. (1993) The Volvo experience. Alternatives to
lean production in the Swedish auto industry. MacMillan, London.
Berggren, C. (1992) Alternatives to lean Production: Work
organization in the Swedish auto industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Beske, P., Koplin, J., Seuring, S. (2008) The Use of
Environmental and Social Standards by German First-Tier Suppliers of the
Volkswagen AG. Corporate Social Responsibility, and Environmental Management.
Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 63- 75.
Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., Swinberg, J. (1998) National Study
of the Changing Workforce. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Boraiko, C., Beardsley T., Wright E., (2008) Accident
Investigations: one element of an effective safety culture. Professional
Safety, Vol. 53, No. 9, pp. 26-30.
Bremmer, R. (2000) Big, bigger, biggest. Automotive World, June,
pp. 37-43.
Clarke, S. (2004). Safety climate in an automobile
manufacturing plant: The effects of work environment, job communication and
safety attitudes on accidents and unsafe behaviour. Personnel Review, Vol. 35,
No. 4, pp. 413-430.
Corswant F., Fredriksson P. (2002) Sourcing trends in the car
industry. A survey of car manufacturers’ and suppliers’ strategies and
relations. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 741-758
Datamonitor (2011) Feature Analysis. Market Watch:
Automotive. Vol. 10 Issue 4, pp 4-9
Dawal,
S.Z., Taha, Z. (2007). The effects of job organizational factors on job
satisfaction in two automotive industries in Malaysia. Journal of Human Ergo
logy, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 6368.
Dietl H., Royer S., Stratmann U. (2009) Value creation
architectures and competitive advantage: lessons from the European automotive
industry. California Management Review, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 24-48.
Danford, A. (1998) Team working and labour regulation in the
auto-components industry. Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 12, pp. 409-31.
Donnelly, T., Mellahi, K., Morris, D. (2002) The European
automobile industry: Escape from parochialism. European Business Review, Vol.
14, No. 1, pp. 30-39.
Dosi G. (1982) Technological paradigms and technological
trajectories – a suggested interpretation of determinants and directions of
technological change. Research Policy, Vol. 11, pp. 147-162.
Dyer, J.H., Hatch, N.H. (2006) Relation-specific capabilities
and barriers to knowledge transfers: creating advantage through network
relationships. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27, No. 8, pg. 4
Europäische Kommission (2009) Commission Staff Working
Document: European Industry in a
Changing World: Updated Sectoral Overview 2009. SEC (2009)
1111 final vom 30. July
2009
European Commission (2006) CARS 21 A Competitive Automotive
Regulatory System for the 21st century Final Report. Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission (2009a) European Industry In A
Changing World Updated Sectoral
Overview 2009. Commission Staff Working Document SEC (2009)
1111 final
European Commission (2009b) "Responding to the crisis in
the European automotive industry". COM (2009) 104 final.
Eurostat (2009) European Business: Facts and figures – 2009.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009.
Eurostat (2009) European Business: Facts and figures
2009 - Chapter 12: Transport equipment, pp. 285-305, in:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KSBW-
09-001/EN/KS-BW-09-001-EN.PDF (downloaded 11.10.10)
Fai, F., Morgan, E. (2007) Innovation, Competition and
Regulatory Change: Assessing Interrelationships at the Industry Level.
Management International Review, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 767-785.
Fergusson, M. / IEEP (2007): End of Life Vehicles (ELV)
Directive. An assessment of the current state of implementation by Member
States, in: http://www.pedz.unimannheim.de/daten/edz-ma/ep/07/pe385625-en.pdf
(23. 10. 2011)
Fournier, G. (2009) How To Cope With Distance In The
Future? The Impact Of Globalisation And Ecological Requirements The Destiny Of
The Automotive Industry And Its
Suppliers. Economic and Business Review for Central and South
- Eastern Europe. Vol.11, No. 1, pg. 75-102.
Gerrard J., Kandlikar M. (2007) Is European end-of-life
vehicle legislation living up to expectations? Assessing the impact of ELV
Directive on ‘green’ innovation, and vehicle recovery. Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 17-27.
Gonzalez, Sarkis, J., Adenso-Diaz, B. (2008) environmental
management system certification, and its influence on corporate practices.
International Journal of Operations & Production, Vol. 28, No. 11, pp.
1021-1041.
Gorgeu A., Mathieu R. (2005) Teamwork in factories within the
French automobile industry. New Technology, Work, and Employment, Vol. 20, No.
2, pp. 88-101.
Graedel T., Allenby B., (1998) Industrial ecology and the
automobile. Prentice-Hall International.
Graham, L. (1995) On the Line at Subaru-Isuzu. Ithaca, NY:
ILR Press.
Hamprecht, H., (2006) GME’s ‘horror catalog’. Automotive News
Europe, 5/15/2006, Vol. 11, Issue 10, p2-2, 5p
Heneric, O., Licht G., Sofka W., (2005). Europe’s automotive
industry on the move - competitiveness in a changing world. Physica-Verlag,
Heidelberg.
Hensley, R., Knupfer, S., Pinner, D. (2009) Electrifying
cars: How three industries will evolve. McKinsey Quarterly, No.3, pp. 87-96.
Hughes, T.P. (1987) The evolution of large technological
systems. In: W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes, T.J. Pinch (eds.), the social
construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and
history of technology. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
IHS Global Insight (2009). Impacts of the financial, and
economic crisis on the automotive industry. Requested by the European
parliament's committee on industry, energy, and research.
Jürgens, U., Krzywdzinski, M. (2009) Changing East-West
Division of Labour in the European Automotive Industry. European Urban &
Regional Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 27-42.
Jürgens, U., Krzywdzinski, M. (2008) Relocation and
East-West competition: the case of the European automotive industry. International
Journal of Automotive Technology & Management, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 145-169.
Kehbila,
G.A., Ertel, J., Brent, A.C. (2009) Uptake of Voluntary Environmental
Management System Initiatives by South African retailers. Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, Vol. 35, pp. 55-66.
Koplin J., Seuring S., Mesterharm M. (2007) Incorporating
sustainability into supply management in the automotive industry: the case of
the Volkswagen AG. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, No. 11-12, pp.
1053-1062.
Landau, K., Peters, H. (2006) Ergonomic demands in automotive
component inspection tasks. Occupational Ergonomics, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 95-105.
Lane B., Potter S., 2007. The adoption of cleaner vehicles in
the UK: exploring the customer attitude-action gap. Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 15, pp. 1085-1092.
Lewchuk,
W., Stewart, P., Yates C. (2001) Quality of working life in the automobile
industry: A Canada-UK comparative study. New Technology, Work and Employment,
Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 189-198.
Lewchuk, W. and Wells, D. (2007) Transforming Worker
Representation: The Magna Model in Canada and Mexico. Labour, No. 60, pp.
107-136.
Liang-Hung L., Iuan-Yuan L. (2006) Product quality as a
determinant of product innovation: an empirical analysis of the global
automotive industry. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol.
17, No. 2, pp. 141-147.
Maume, D. J., Houston, P. (2001) Job segregation and gender
differences in work-family spillover among white-collar workers. Journal of
Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 171-89.
Mayer, D. O. (2000) Greenhouse gas emissions and the social
responsibility of automakers. Business and Society Review. Vol. 105, No. 3, pp.
347-361.
Menzel, V., Smagin, J., David, F. (2010) Can companies profit
from greener manufacturing. Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.
22-31.
Moriarty, P., Honnery, D. (2008) The prospects for global
green car mobility. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 1717-1726.
Nunes, B. & Bennett, D. (2010) Green operations
initiatives in the automotive industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 396-420.
Notter, D., Gauch, M., Widmer, R., Wager, P., Stamp, A., Zah,
R., Althaus, H.-J. (2010) Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental
Impact of Electric Vehicles. Environmental Science & Technology, Vol. 44,
No. 17, pp. 6550-6556.
Oh, J., Rhee S-K. (2010) Influences of supplier capabilities
and collaboration in new car development on competitive advantage of carmakers.
Management Decision, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 756-774.
OICA (2009) World Ranking of Manufacturers - Year 2008.
Available at: http://oica.net/wpcontent/uploads/world-ranking-2008.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2004)
Can Cars come clean: strategies for low-emission vehicles. OECD, Paris.
Orsato, R.J., Wells., P. (2007a) The Automobile Industry
& Sustainability: Introduction. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, No.
11-12, pp. 989-993.
Orsato, R.J., Wells, P. (2007b) U-turn: the rise and demise
of the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, pp.
994-1006.
Parker, M., Slaughter, J. (1988) Management by stress.
Technology Review, Vol. 91, No. 7, pp. 36-44.
Perujo, A., Ciuffo, B. (2010) The introduction of electric
vehicles in the private fleet: Potential impact on the electric supply system
and on the environment. A case study for the Province of Milan, Italy. Energy
Policy, Vol. 38, pp. 4549-4561.
Pil, K., Frits, K., Rothenberg, S. (2003) Environmental
performance as a driver of superior quality. Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 404-416.
Pil, F. K., Fujimoto,
T. (2007). Lean and reflective production: the dynamic nature of production
models. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45, No. 16, pp.
3741. Renard, L. (2002) The automobile manufacturers' global competitiveness
and dimensioneffects: Differentiation and cost advantages reconciled.
International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management. Vol. 2, No. 3-4,
pp. 280.
Richardson, M., Danford, A., Stewart, P., Pulignano, V.
(2010) Employee participation and involvement: Experiences of aerospace and
automobile workers in the UK and Italy. European Journal of Industrial
Relations, Vol. 16, No. 1 , pp. 21-37.
Roth, S. (2006) Zukunftsperspektiven für die europäische
Automobilindustrie, in: Pries, L. (Hrsg.): Europäische Automobilindustrie am
Scheideweg. Harte globale Herausforderungen und weiche lokale Erfolgsfaktoren,
Hampp, München, pp. 29-45.
Sako, M. (1998) The nature and impact of employee 'voice' in
the European car components industry. Human Resource Management Journal, 1998,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 5-13.
Sánchez, A.M., Pérez, P. M. (2005) Supply chain flexibility
and firm performance. A conceptual model and empirical study in the automotive
industry. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol.
25, No. 7, pp. 681-700.
Sarkis, J., Gonzalez-Torre, P., Adenso-Diaz, B. (2010)
Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating
effect of training. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.
163-176.
Sirikrai, S., Tang, J. (2006) Industrial competitiveness
analysis: Using the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of High Technology
Management Research, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 71-83.
Seidl M., Loch C.H., Chahil S. (2005) Quo vadis,
Automotive Industry? A Vision of possible
Industry Transformations. European Management Journal. Vol.
23 Issue 4, pp. 439-449
Sledge, S. (2005) Does Porter's Diamond Hold In The Global
Automotive Industry? Advances in Competitiveness Research, Vol. 13, No. 1. pp.
22-31.
Smith M.,
Crotty, J. (2008) Environmental regulation and innovation driving ecological
designin the UK automotive industry. Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 341-349.
Steenberghen, T., Lopez, E. (2008) Overcoming barriers to the
implementation of alternative fuels for road transport in Europe. Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 577-590.
Steinweg, T. (2010) Driven by corporate social
responsibility? Top ten car manufacturers: a CSR analysis. Report, Centre for
Research on Multinational Corporations, Amsterdam.
Sturgeon, T.J., Van Biesebroeck, J., Gereffi, G. (2008) Value
chains, networks, and clusters: Reframing the global automotive industry.
Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 297-321.
Takeishi,
A. (2002) Knowledge Partitioning in the Interfirm Division of Labor: The Case
of Automotive Product Development. Organization Science, May/Jun2002, Vol. 13,
No. 3, pp. 321-338.
Tay, H.K. (2003) Achieving competitive differentiation: the
challenge for automakers. Strategy and
Leadership, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 23-30.
Taylor A., Taylor M. (2008) Operations management research in
the automotive sector. Some contemporary issues and future directions.
International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Vol. 28, Issue
6, pp. 480-489
Thun, J.,
Müller, A. (2010) An empirical analysis of green supply chain management in the
German automotive industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19, No.
2, pp. 119-132.
Triebswetter, U., Wackerbauer, J. (2008) Integrated
environmental product innovation and impacts on company competitiveness: a case
study of the automotive industry in the region of Munich. European Environment,
Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 30-44.
Tseng, C-Y., Wu, L-Y. (2007) Innovation quality in the
automobile industry: measurement indicators and performance implications.
International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 37, No. 1/2, pp. 162-177.
Vasilash G. (2010) The future of automotive transportation.
Automotive Design and Production. Vol. 122 Issue 3, pp. 18-19
Van den
Hoed, R. (2007) Sources of radical technological innovation: the emergence of
fuel cell technology in the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 15, pp. 10141021.
Volpato, G., Stochetti, A. (2008) Managing product life cycle
in the auto industry: evaluating carmakers effectiveness. International Journal
of Automotive Technology and Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 22-41.
Wad, P. (2010) Impact of the global economic and financial
crisis over the automotive industry in developing countries. Vienna, UNIDO.
Wallace, T. (2000) Societal effects meet sectoral effects:
work organization, competencies and payment systems in the Volvo Commercial
Vehicle Division. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11,
No. 4, pp. 714-735.
Weichel, J., Stanic, S., Diaz, J., Frieling, E. (2010) Job
rotation – Implications for old and impaired assembly line workers.
Occupational Ergonomics, Vol. 9, pp. 67-74.
Wells, P., Morreau, A. (2005) Market segmentation in the UK.
World Automotive Manufacturing, Vol. 82, pp. 30-31.
West, P., Burnes, B. (2000) Applying organizational learning:
lessons from the automotive industry. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 10, pp. 1236-1251.
White, M., Hill S., McGovern, P., Mills, C., Smeaton, D.
(2003) ‘High Performance’ Management Practices, Working Hours and Work-Life
Balance. British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 175-195.
Whitelegg, J. (1993) Transport for sustainable future: the
case for Europe. London: Belhaven. Willander, M. (2007) Absorptive capacity and
interpretation system’s impact when going green: an empirical study of Ford,
Volvo Cars and Toyota. Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 16, pp.
202-213.
Winter, G., Schaub, K., Landau, K. (2006) Stress screening
procedure for the automotive industry: Development and application of screening
procedures in assembly and quality control. Occupational Ergonomics, Vol. 6,
pp. 107–120.
Zacharatos, A., Hershcovis, M.S., Turner, N., Barling J.
(2007) Human resource management in the North American automotive industry: A
meta-analysis review. Personnel Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 231-254.
Zapata, C., Nieuwenhuis, P. (2010) Exploring innovation in
the automotive industry: new technologies for cleaner cars. Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 14-20.
Zhu, O., Crotty, J., Sarkis, J. (2008) A Cross-Country
Empirical Comparison of Environmental Supply Chain Management Practices in the
Automotive Industry. Asian Business & Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 467-489.
Zhu Q., Sarkis J. Kee-hung L. (2007) Green supply chain
management: pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile
industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, pp. 1041-1052.
9. Annex
The following table shows the
automotive sub-sectors according to NACE 1.1 version
|
Sector
|
NACE 1.1
|
Sub-sector
|
|
Automotive
|
34
|
Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and
semi-trailers
|
|
34.1
|
Manufacture of motor vehicles
|
|
|
34.10
|
Manufacture of motor vehicles
|
|
|
34.2
|
Manufacture of bodies (coachwork) for motor
vehicles; manufacture of trailers and semi-trailers
|
|
|
34.20
|
Manufacture of bodies (coachwork) for motor
vehicles; manufacture of trailers and semi-trailers
|
|
|
34.3
|
Manufacture of parts and accessories for motor
vehicles and their engines
|
|
|
34.30
|
Manufacture of parts and accessories for motor
vehicles and their engines
|
The following table shows the
automotive sub-sectors according to NACE 2.0 version
|
Sector
|
NACE 2.0
|
Sub-sector
|
|
Automotive
|
C29
|
Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and
semi-trailers
|
|
C29.1
|
Manufacture of motor vehicles
|
|
|
C29.1.0
|
Manufacture of motor vehicles
|
|
|
C29.2
|
Manufacture of bodies (coachwork) for motor
vehicles; manufacture of trailers and semi-trailers
|
|
|
C29.2.0
|
Manufacture of bodies (coachwork) for motor
vehicles; manufacture of trailers and semi-trailers
|
|
|
C29.3
|
Manufacture of parts and accessories for motor
vehicles
|
|
|
C29.3.1
|
Manufacture of electrical and electronic equipment
for motor vehicles
|
|
|
C29.3.2
|
Manufacture of other parts and accessories for motor
vehicles
|
|
|
C30
|
Manufacture of other transport equipment
|
|
|
C30.1
|
Building of ships and boats
|
|
|
C30.1.1
|
Building of ships and floating structures
|
|
|
C30.1.2
|
Building of pleasure and
sporting boats
|
|
|
C30.2
|
Manufacture of railway locomotives and rolling stock
|
|
|
C30.2.0
|
Manufacture of railway locomotives and rolling stock
|
|
|
C30.3
|
Manufacture of air and spacecraft and related
machinery
|
|
|
C30.3.0
|
Manufacture of air and spacecraft and related
machinery
|
|
|
C30.4
|
Manufacture of military fighting vehicles
|
|
|
C30.4.0
|
Manufacture of military fighting vehicles
|
|
|
C30.9
|
Manufacture of transport equipment n.e.c
|
|
|
C30.9.1
|
Manufacture of motorcycles
|
|
|
C30.9.2
|
Manufacture of bicycles and invalid carriages
|
|
|
C30.9.9
|
Manufacture of other transport equipment n.e.c
|
The EU biggest companies from
the automotive sector in 2009
|
|
Company name
|
Country
|
NACE 2.0
code
|
|
1.
|
VOLKSWAGEN
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
|
DE
|
2910
|
|
2.
|
DAIMLER AG
|
DE
|
2910
|
|
3.
|
PEUGEOT CITROEN
AUTOMOBILES SA
|
FR
|
2910
|
|
4.
|
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
|
DE
|
2910
|
|
5.
|
ROBERT BOSCH GESELLSCHAFT
MIT BESCHRÄNKTER HAFTUNG
|
DE
|
2932
|
|
6.
|
RENAULT
|
FR
|
2910
|
|
7.
|
AUDI AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
INGOLSTADT
|
DE
|
2910
|
|
8.
|
RENAULT SAS
|
FR
|
2910
|
|
9.
|
BAE SYSTEMS PLC
|
GB
|
3030
|
|
10.
|
FIAT GROUP AUTOMOBILES
S.P.A. O BREVEMENTE FIAT AUTO S.P.A.
|
IT
|
2910
|
|
11.
|
FORD-WERKE GMBH
|
DE
|
2930
|
|
12.
|
ROLLS-ROYCE GROUP PLC
|
GB
|
3030
|
|
13.
|
ADAM OPEL GMBH
|
DE
|
2910
|
|
14.
|
AUTOMOBILES PEUGEOT
|
FR
|
2910
|
|
15.
|
FORD ESPANA SL
|
ES
|
2910
|
|
16.
|
VOLVO PERSONVAGNAR AB
|
SE
|
2910
|
|
17.
|
SA AUTOMOBILES CITROEN
|
FR
|
2910
|
|
18.
|
FORD MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED
|
GB
|
2910
|
|
19.
|
ŠKODA AUTO, A.S.
|
CZ
|
2910
|
|
20.
|
AIRBUS OPERATIONS GMBH
|
DE
|
3030
|
|
21.
|
SCANIA CV AB
|
SE
|
2910
|
|
22.
|
AIRBUS OPERATIONS SAS
|
FR
|
3030
|
|
23.
|
PEUGEOT CITROEN
AUTOMOVILES ESPANA SA
|
ES
|
2910
|
|
24.
|
SNECMA
|
FR
|
3030
|
|
25.
|
FIAT AUTO POLAND S.A.
|
PL
|
2910
|
|
26.
|
GKN HOLDINGS PLC
|
GB
|
2932
|
|
27.
|
GKN PLC
|
GB
|
2932
|
|
28.
|
SEAT SA
|
ES
|
2910
|
|
29.
|
GENERAL MOTORS ESPANA SLU
|
ES
|
2910
|
|
30.
|
NISSAN MOTOR MANUFACTURING
(UK) LIMITED
|
GB
|
2910
|
Source: Amadeus data base
Sectoral Institutions and Initiatives
y EU High
Level Group Cars 21
(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/competitivenesscars21/cars21/index_en.htm),
y European
Association of Automotive Suppliers (www.acea.be), y European Council for Motor Trades and Repairs (www.cecra.eu),
y
European Union Road
Federation (www.erf.be),
y European
Transport Workers’ Federation (www.itfglobal.org/etf/index.cfm), y European Road Transport Research Advisory Council
(www.ertrac.org/en/), y The
European Group of Automobile Recycling (www.egaranet.org), y Association of Automotive R&D Organisations
(www.earpa.eu), y Natural Gas
Vehicles Association (www.ngvaeurope.eu), y Association
for European Transport (www.aetransport.org), y Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st century
(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/competitivenesscars21/cars21/index_en.htm),
y DG Climate
Action: Reducing CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles
(http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/index_en.htm)
Major European legal frameworks relevant to the sector
EU legislation affecting environmental issues
y Regulation
(EC) n° 79/2009 on type-approval of hydrogen-powered motor vehicles y Regulation (EU) No 406/2010 implementing Regulation (EC) No
79/2009 on type-approval of hydrogen-powered motor vehicles
y Regulation
(EC) n° 443/2009 setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars
as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from
lightduty vehicles
y Regulation
(EC) n° 692/2008 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) n° 715/2007 on
type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger
and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and
maintenance information
y Regulation
(EC) n° 715/2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions
from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access
to vehicle repair and maintenance
y Regulation
(EC) No 595/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009
on type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to emissions from
heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance
information and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Directive 2007/46/EC
and repealing Directives
80/1269/EEC, 2005/55/EC and 2005/78/EC Regulation (EC)
No 595/2009 (Euro VI
Regulation) setting emission limits for heavy duty-vehicles y Regulation (EC) n° 692/2008 implementing and amending
Regulation (EC) n° 715/2007 on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to
emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and
on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information
y Regulation
(EC) n° 715/2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions
from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access
to vehicle repair and maintenance
y Directive
2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in
electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS),
y Regulation
(EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), y Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles,
y Directive
2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning integrated
pollution prevention and control (IPCC),
y Directive
2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009
amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas
emission allowance trading scheme of the Community, EU legislation affecting quality of work
y Directive
91/533/EEC on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions
applicable to the contract or employment relationship,
y Council
Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on
fixed-term,
y Council
Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on
part-time work,
y Directive
2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November
2008 on temporary agency work, y Directives aimed at improving health and safety at work:
89/391 (Framework), 89/654
(Workplaces), 89/655 (Work Equipment), 89/656 (Personal Protective
Equipment), 90/269
(Manual Handling of Loads) and 90/270 (Display Screen
Equipment), Directive 91/383/EEC, y Council
Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work, y Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
working time,
y Directive
96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of
services,
y Directive
2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on
the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer,
y Council
Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of
transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses,
y The
Framework on Information and Consultation (Directive 2002/14/EC) grants basic
principles, definitions and arrangements for information of employees at the
enterprise level,
y Council
Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to collective redundancies.
Databases relevant in the sector
5 major European databases
exist on job satisfaction, which meet the restrictive criteria: European in
scope, periodically updated and statistically representative. They are not
sector specific.
y European
Labour Force Survey (ELFS), y European
Working Conditions Survey (EWCS), y European
Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), y European Structure of Earnings Survey (ESES), y International Social Survey Programme (ISSP).
No comments :
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.