[News Analysis] GM’s history of “hit-and-run” subsidy requests under scrutiny

Posted on : 2018-02-22 16:51 KST Modified on : 2019-10-19 20:29 KST
The company has repeatedly asked for government assistance and then shuttered production facilities
Workers head to their shifts at GM Korea’s Bupyeong factory in Gyeonggi Province while the company’s Employment Special Measures Committee meets for a third round of negotiations on Feb. 21.
Workers head to their shifts at GM Korea’s Bupyeong factory in Gyeonggi Province while the company’s Employment Special Measures Committee meets for a third round of negotiations on Feb. 21.

Amid reports that the GM corporate headquarters in the US has announced the closure of GM Korea’s factory in Gunsan, North Jeolla Province and asked the South Korean government for more than 1 trillion won (US$920 million) in aid and tax benefits, the spotlight is turning to GM’s practice of using jobs and the local economy as leverage to force governments around the world, including Australia and Europe, to shoulder the cost for its corporate restructuring.

The Australian and European experience with GM is prompting concerns that, if the South Korean government prioritizes GM Korea’s short-term survival, its financial and tax support may be squandered on temporary life support for the jobs of workers in its factories. In other words, if the government pumps support into GM Korea without obtaining a mid- and long-term blueprint for GM’s development, the South Korean public might be left to cover the bill of the company’s phased withdrawal – which the GM corporate headquarters ought to pay, given its considerable responsibility for GM Korea’s poor management.

According to multiple politicians and government officials interviewed by the Hankyoreh on Feb. 21, GM’s request for government assistance, at least thus far, can be broken down into four main points: a guarantee for GM Korea’s outstanding loans, a greater infusion of capital by the Korea Development Bank, financial support and incentives. This was the gist of the request for government assistance unveiled by GM International President Barry Engle during meetings with officials from government ministries through the beginning of February, when he also mentioned a plan to normalize management at GM Korea.

The series of actions taken by GM in South Korea is reminiscent of the company’s requests for assistance from local governments in other parts of the world, including Australia and Europe. During the decade since the GM corporate headquarters was resuscitated with an infusion of public funding from the US government during the global financial crisis in 2009, the company has been relentlessly proceeding with a restructuring plan for its global operations.

Established in the 19th century and acquired by GM in the 1920s and 1930s, European and Australian automakers Opel and GM Holden went through a restructuring process during which GM shut down their factories and then eventually sold them off altogether in 2017. A similar story involves Saab Automobile, whose management rights went to GM in 1990. Despite government assistance, the company was passed around a number of buyers until it was finally liquidated in 2017.

Germany’s Opel, the UK’s Vauxhall Motors, Australia’s GM Holden and Sweden’s Saab Automobile all retained a strong identity as national companies with production facilities, even though GM took over their management long ago. For this reason, the fact that concern for jobs and the local economy forced these governments to devote considerable assistance to these companies, both through financial aid and tax relief, has major implications for South Korea.

Shifting production focus to the US and China

As recently as the mid-2000s, GM regarded the US, Germany and South Korea as major nodes in its global production network, but now the focus seems to be shifting to the US and China, the biggest markets for GM vehicles, with other production centers being relegated to the periphery. In addition to this, Mary Barra, who became CEO of GM in Jan. 2014, announced the GM 2025 Platform Plan in the second half of that year, in which she promised to save billions of dollars by whittling the company’s 26 global production platforms down to four. This would increase the integrity of GM’s global production centers and cut costs, but also decrease subsidiaries’ ability to survive as independent companies.

“We need to think about whether GM Korea can survive as a company in the future, even if we do provide it with billions of dollars. At the moment, GM Korea has a low share of the domestic market and relies on allocations of GM’s global export volume. This means that, even if it gets some breathing room, its fate could be reversed at any time by the main office’s global strategy,” said an official from the Korea Development Bank, which is the second largest shareholder in GM Korea.

Past restructuring offers clues to how GM may act in Korean market

The restructuring and sale of GM’s European subsidiary Opel, which lasted from 2009 to 2017, also offers some useful clues into the restructuring of GM Korea. Opel had four factories in Germany; one factory in the UK, where it operated as Vauxhall Motors; and one factory in Belgium. When Opel was about to go bankrupt in 2009, along with the GM corporate headquarters, the German government promised funding of 4.5 billion euros, including a bridge loan of 1.5 billion euros, and tried to arrange a sale to Canadian auto parts manufacturer Magna. But GM postponed the sale as it weighed various factors, including trends in the local elections in Germany and an acquisition offer by another company that wanted an additional funding package from the German government.

At the end of 2009, the company blindsided the German government by scrapping the sale to Magna, which the government had assumed was a done deal, and by announcing its own restructuring plan. During the restructuring process that followed, GM obtained assurances of assistance from the governments of Germany and UK as it pondered whether or not to close factories in the two countries. In the end, GM decided to withdraw from Europe in line with its global strategy despite support from European governments and concessions from labor unions. In Mar. 2017, it sold Opel and Vauxhall to the French automaker Groupe PSA (formerly called PSA Peugeot Citroën).

The case of the Swedish company Saab displayed another example of GM using a factory closure to bludgeon a government into providing support. In 2004, GM announced that it would close one of two factories – an Opel factory in Germany or a Saab factory in Sweden. Concerned by the prospect for a mass layoff, the Swedish government offered an aid package including an investment of more than 2 billion kronor and improvements to highways near the factory.

When the GM corporate headquarters nearly went bankrupt in 2009, it requested urgent financial assistance from the Swedish government, which the Swedish government rejected on the grounds that it was GM, and not the Swedish government, that ought to save Saab. At this, GM applied for bankruptcy protection for Saab and decided to sell off the company. But the sale of Saab in 2010 did not resolve the issue of intellectual property rights with GM, and after several changes in fortune, Saab was liquidated in June 2017.

GM is now pressuring the South Korean government to provide assistance by the end of February. But if the government agrees to do so without a thorough due diligence of GM Korea’s management problems and a careful assessment of GM’s strategy for the integration of its global platform, many analysts believe, this will ultimately lead to tax money being wasted to help the company limp along for a couple more years.

“In Europe and other regions, GM has frequently passed along the cost for restructuring to the local government and then withdrawn when the aid was cut off. If the government decides to delay the crisis for two or three years given the upcoming elections and its Achilles’ heel of jobs, it will just be kicking the can down the road, until the second half of this administration or the next administration. I’m not saying we shouldn’t help the company; I’m saying we should go about it in a careful and rational way so that we don’t waste tax money,” said Kim Pil-su, a professor of automotive engineering at Daelim University College.

“It would also cost GM a great deal to withdraw from the country. Since it’s not able to shut down the factories other than Gunsan in a short period of time, we should absolutely not get hung up on the February deadline and instead prioritize carrying out a thorough due diligence and acquiring a mid- and long-term masterplan,” Kim added.

By Lee Ji-hye and Jung Se-ra, staff reporters

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]



button that move to original korean article (클릭시 원문으로 이동하는 버튼)

Related stories

Most viewed articles