Connect with us

News

Oil and water: why Nissan and Honda are setting aside their rivalry

Published

on

Oil and water: why Nissan and Honda are setting aside their rivalry

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

In the summer of 2020 when the Financial Times reported that Japanese government officials had tried to merge Honda and Nissan, sceptics scoffed at the idea as akin to mixing “oil and water”. Nearly four years later, Japan’s second- and third-largest carmakers (behind Toyota) are planning to combine forces to develop electric cars in a bid to survive the coming wave of high-tech, low-cost models from China. While Honda has ruled out a capital tie-up with Nissan for now, the endeavour is the closest the two historic rivals have ever come in terms of working together.

From the early days of their establishment, Nissan and Honda have taken very different paths to growth. When Nissan started in 1934, Yoshisuke Aikawa, its low-profile founder, built the group into a massive conglomerate during the prewar period through a series of aggressive acquisitions that were funded by taking its companies public. In the case of Soichiro Honda, the charismatic founder of the eponymous carmaker, he was famous for his go-it-alone strategy and is said to have criticised alliances for slowing things down. Until recently, that DNA has stayed with the company. 

Today, the two corporate cultures remain just as different as in the past, but that does not necessarily mean that the planned partnership is doomed to fail. The reasons that have brought the bitter rivals together are similar, although the degree of desperation may vary. Both Nissan and Honda have stumbled in their traditional approaches to expansion, misreading the pace of market changes in China, and they lack the scale and resources to remain competitive global players. 

Advertisement

After a quarter of a century, Nissan and its French alliance partner Renault have sharply cut back their capital ties as both companies acknowledged that the partnership would not be enough to survive the industry disruption caused by the shift to electric vehicles and tougher emission rules. Nissan chief executive Makoto Uchida is blunt on the need for new partners, although the company insists its alliance with Renault and Mitsubishi Motors will not be unwound. 

Meanwhile, Honda has recognised that going it alone is no longer a viable strategy, striking a surprise partnership with Sony in 2022 to produce EVs. It also has an alliance with General Motors in fuel-cell vehicles and self-driving technology, but the two carmakers last year scrapped plans to jointly develop affordable EVs owing to differences over cost. 

The setback in the alliance with GM was a blow for Honda’s chief executive Toshihiro Mibe, who declared a phaseout from petrol and diesel cars by 2040 when he assumed the role three years ago. Despite this bold target, Honda has been one of the slowest of the big carmakers to roll out EVs.

Both Japanese carmakers, which each sell about 4mn vehicles a year globally, were caught off-guard by the rise of China’s homegrown EV groups, while Nissan missed out on a boom in hybrid vehicles sales in the US because of a lack of offerings in this category. 

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Advertisement

In a recent FT interview, Uchida said Nissan needed partners such as Honda to acquire scale and share costs. “We need to move drastically faster. I don’t know half a year or a year later what could happen to the industry.” 

That uncertainty has also pushed Germany’s Volkswagen to hold talks with Renault to pool resources to develop lower cost EVs. But while the warnings about survival from the industry’s chief executives are dire, it is hard to judge how serious the moves are until products are launched and cost-benefits become clear.

Honda’s tie-up with Sony generated much excitement when it was announced, but it remains unclear how committed the entertainment group is. People close to Sony suggest the project is aimed at gaining manufacturing knowhow of cars, which could then help Sony to sell its automotive image sensors to Tesla and other EV groups. 

Nissan and Honda began talks in January, and the scope of their co-operation includes software, core EV components and auto-intelligence technology. But, so far, only a non-binding memorandum has been signed, and both CEOs expressed caution on how far the partnership would expand. 

At the end of their joint press conference last month, there was an awkward moment when Uchida and Mibe rejected a request by photographers to shake hands. In many ways, the physical distance between the two CEOs is symbolic of the challenges they face in bridging their differences to ensure that the latest partnership is successful.  

Advertisement

kana.inagaki@ft.com

News

The Maine Town That Actually Wants a Data Center

Published

on

This year, Maine nearly became the first state to pass a statewide moratorium on new data centers. But before the law could take effect, supporters of an A.I. data center project in the small town of Jay rallied to fight the ban — and won. So why do residents there want one? We traveled to Jay to find out.

Continue Reading

News

The Supreme Court says the U.S. can turn away asylum seekers at the border

Published

on

The Supreme Court says the U.S. can turn away asylum seekers at the border

The U.S. Supreme Court

Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Drew Angerer/AFP via Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed the Trump administration a tool that could make it far more difficult for asylum seekers to enter the United States.

Asylum is a form of legal protection available to people fleeing persecution in their home countries if they meet certain criteria. Under U.S. law, an asylum seeker who “arrives in” the U.S. is entitled to apply for asylum and generally cannot be removed from the country until their asylum application is processed. 

By a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that federal law allows the government to stop asylum seekers from physically setting foot in the country, effectively keeping them from applying for asylum. 

Advertisement

The Obama administration was the first to try stemming the flow of asylum seekers that way. But the lower courts blocked the policy on grounds that it violated federal law by denying asylum to people who otherwise would have qualified for it, had they been permitted to literally put one foot over the border.

The Trump administration, however, sought to revive the policy, contending that the lower court’s ruling “deprives the Executive Branch of a critical tool for addressing border surges and preventing overcrowding at ports of entry.” And on Thursday, the Supreme Court agreed.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito ruled that because asylum seekers are not in the U.S. when they are turned away at the border, they did not “arrive in” the country. Therefore, he continued, the legal protections for asylum seekers have not kicked in.

Writing for the liberal dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that Border Patrol agents speak with all immigrants at legal entry points and speaking with an agent is effectively the first step in “arriving in” the U.S.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list

Published

on

Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.

U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.

Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits, both filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, noting in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”

It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.

The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order seeking to establish a federal voter list, argued that the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

Advertisement

But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.

Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.

The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.

The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.

Advertisement

The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.

In a separate lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, who have appealed.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending