Why legacy automakers are losing the race

Industries do not decline gradually — they polarize. One segment ascends, propelled by new technology and fresher economics; another descends, weighed down by the very capabilities that once made it great.

The world is watching as this dynamic unfolds inside the global automobile industry today, and the script is disturbingly familiar to anyone who has read Clayton Christensen's The Innovator's Dilemma (1997). The question is no longer whether Chinese electric vehicles are winning. It is why the legacy automakers — with their century of accumulated engineering, brand equity, and distribution reach — are so structurally incapable of matching the speed of their Chinese competitors.

Christensen's central insight is simple yet brutal. It explains why well-managed, profitable incumbents fail — precisely because they are well-managed. They primarily focus on higher returns by investing excessively in the products their customers want.

As such, they operate within a locked "value network" shaped by their supplier relationships, cost structures and investor expectations.

This very discipline makes them lower their guard against the "disruptive innovations" that initially seem unprofitable but eventually overtake the market. Over time, as disrupters improve, the chasm widens, revealing gaps that are structural rather than merely technical.

The automobile industry has lived this story before. In the 1970s, General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler — the American "Big Three" — were locked into a high-cost, high-margin manufacturing philosophy anchored around large, fuel-hungry vehicles. The oil shocks of 1973 and 1979 exposed their vulnerability. Into that gap stepped Toyota and Honda, offering the Corolla and the Civic: compact, fuel-efficient, and engineered with a reliability that American producers had never prioritized.

The Japanese did not compete on the Big Three's terms. They rewrote the terms. Toyota's production system — lean manufacturing, just-in-time inventory, and kaizen culture (a Japanese business philosophy focused on continuous, incremental improvements) — gave Japan a structural cost and quality advantage that Detroit could not replicate simply by building smaller cars. By 1980, Japan had surpassed the United States as the world's largest automobile producer.

Another example that illustrates Christensen's pattern is the Republic of Korea's Hyundai Motor Group.

When they entered the Western markets in the mid-1980s with inexpensive, rudimentary vehicles, Japanese and American manufacturers openly mocked them. They were dismissed — until they were not. Investing heavily in quality improvement and design through the 1990s and 2000s, Hyundai closed 2025 on a high note, achieving the fifth straight year of record retail sales, what they called their "5 for 5 in 2025" mission.

The recent entry of Chinese manufacturers through EVs is a classic case of the innovator's dilemma. They compete with legacy automakers on two fronts simultaneously — one regulatory, the other technological.

On the compliance front, Chinese manufacturers developed a vertically integrated supply chain and modular production architecture that slashed development cycles from five years to under three. This allowed them to meet — and in some cases exceed — global emissions and safety standards faster than incumbents could react. On the technological front, the Chinese challengers fundamentally rewrote the value proposition of the car. Instead of competing on horsepower or heritage, they shifted the center of gravity toward software-defined features — advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), over-the-air updates, and immersive digital cockpits.

For legacy automakers, long organized around mechanical engineering and combustion platforms, this shift created a painful asymmetry.

The existing capabilities of legacy manufacturers have become liabilities whereas their EV road maps, often compromised by the need to protect internal combustion profits, fell chronically behind.

Honda reported losses worth $2.6 billion in the fiscal year ending in March 2026, mainly attributed to enhanced competition from Chinese automakers as well as the allocation of resources to EV development at the cost of a decline in value for customers in the hybrid and gasoline car segments.

The innovator's dilemma does not spare the high end of the market. For decades, European luxury marques relied on barriers of brand prestige, V8 dynamics, and hand-finished interiors to fend off newcomers. Today, those defenses are being bypassed.

Brands like BYD, Nio and XPeng — and now Huawei with its expanding automotive ecosystem — are making inroads into the high-end market long dominated by Ferrari, Porsche, and Mercedes-AMG.

They are offering instant torque, lidar-based autonomous driving across all product lines, and smartphone-grade user experiences at more competitive prices.

The legacy supercar manufacturers remain ambivalent about their EV strategies because of two major challenges. First, because they have lost ground in major markets such as China.

Second, they are under pressure to produce cars that comply with global emissions standards. Both Lamborghini and Porsche have signaled curtailment of EV plans due to lower demand.

Even Ferrari, which unveiled its first fully electric model, the Ferrari Luce, did not get an overwhelmingly positive response. Rather than rallying, Ferrari's shares fell — a telling reaction from investors who recognized that a once-unassailable icon is now playing catch-up in a game whose rules have been rewritten in Shenzhen and Shanghai, not Maranello.

There is at least one consolation in this disruption: it is unambiguously good for the planet. The accelerated adoption of EVs, whatever its competitive origins, is an essential response to the climate emergency.

Yet history rarely grants permanent advantage. Japan disrupted the US; ROK disrupted Japan; China is now disrupting both. The innovator's dilemma is not a onetime event — it is a recurring structural condition of capitalism to which the Chinese EV manufacturers must remain vigilant.

The author is a faculty member at Bahria Business School, Bahria University Islamabad.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.