Sustainable Value

The figure below provides an initial overview of the absolute Sustainable Value created by 17 automobile manufacturers between 1999-2007. The Sustainable Value produced by these companies ranges from € -13.36 billion (GM, 2005) to € +7.44 billion (Toyota, 2006). One salient feature is that three manufacturers managed to consistently produce a positive Sustainable Value over the entire review period (BMW Group, Honda, Toyota). In the case of two other manufacturers, no complete time series are available; in those years for which data is available, however, they also produce consistently positive Sustainable Value (Hyundai, Nissan). In addition, two companies were identified as generating negative Sustainable Value over the entire review period (FIAT Auto, GM). Renault and Mitsubishi achieved a positive Sustainable Value in only one year.

Absolute Sustainable Value of car manufacturers (in 1,000 €)

During the review period, clearly positive trends in absolute Sustainable Value were reported for Toyota (1999: € 1.33 billion; 2007: € 5.26 billion), BMW Group (1999: € 1.50 billion; 2007: € 2.82 billion) and Honda (1999: € 359 million; 2007: € 1.10 billion). Those companies showing a very negative trend in their Sustainable Value include Ford (1999: - € 259 million; 2007: - € 3.26 billion) and General Motors (1999: - € 3.43 billion; 2007: -€ 9.87 billion). The negative performance of these two sector heavyweights has a significant influence on the results: While most manufacturers showed a negative performance relative to the industry average in the years 1999 and 2000 (9 and 10 out of 14), the relationship changes in subsequent years. In the period 2001-2004 at least half of the 16 companies report a positive Sustainable Value (2001: 8/15; 2002: 8/16; 2003: 8/16; 2004: 9/16). In 2004, only seven of the 16 manufacturers fall below the industry average. In 2005, the significant deterioration in the performance of General Motors meant that merely five other manufacturers in the group of 16 posted a negative Sustainable Value. In 2006, eight of the now 15 companies report a positive Sustainable Value. In the final year of the review period, nine of the 16 manufacturers are above the industry average.

The graphic representation below of the Sustainable Value clearly illustrates the impact of the two large manufacturers on the overall development. The downward trend for Ford and General Motors can be clearly seen. DaimlerChrysler shows a very negative trend from 1999 to 2001, but subsequently recovers continuously. In 2007, only Daimler AG is included in the analysis, now with the company creating the second largest Sustainable Value in 2007 following the demerger with Chrysler. Toyota shows the strongest positive trend (starting from an already high initial level). The trend is also positive for the BMW Group, which also has a high starting point. Another conspicuous trend is the isolated position of General Motors, whose performance in the area of absolute Sustainable Value is by far the worst in the industry.

The next figures show the graphic representation of Sustainable Value trends in regional terms. In the figure below it can be seen that no uniform trend initially emerges for European and North American manufacturers. But if we look at the two manufacturers with the biggest proportion of US production facilities (Ford, General Motors), they show the worst negative performance in terms of absolute Sustainable Value. With European manufacturers, by contrast, the Sustainable Value is relatively stable over time (BMW Group, FIAT Auto, PSA, Renault). The exceptions to these two groups are DaimlerChrysler, whose Sustainable Value curve follows a convex path, and Volkswagen, whose curve fluctuates significantly over time.

A different picture emerges when we look at the Asian manufacturers (see figure below): with the exception of Toyota, all of the other seven Asian manufacturers move within a comparatively narrow bandwidth of between - € 1.1 billion and + € 2.1 billion Sustainable Value. The Sustainable Value of Asian manufacturers therefore fluctuates less than the Sustainable Value of the European and North American automobile producers. This is mainly attributable to the fact that many of the Asian manufacturers are comparatively small companies, such as Suzuki, Daihatsu or Isuzu. It is also interesting to note that during the period 2003-2007 only one or two of all eight (2006: 7) Asian manufacturers show a negative Sustainable Value.

(C) 2009 - All rights reserved

Print this page