The Dilemma of New Energy Transition in Traditional Automakers from A Path Dependence Perspective: A Case Study of Toyota Motor Corporation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/kg4ar387Keywords:
Toyota; new energy vehicles; path dependence; high added value; patent protection.Abstract
Since 2010, significant advancements in new energy technologies—particularly those centered around electric power—have been widely applied across multiple sectors, with the automobile manufacturing industry being a notable example. These technologies have become fundamental to the development of new energy vehicles (NEVs), substantially improving their efficiency, driving range, and overall performance. The emergence of electric and hybrid vehicle models is reshaping travel behavior while making significant contributions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, thereby playing a critical role in climate and environmental protection. Toyota Motor Corporation introduced its first hybrid vehicle, the Prius, as early as the 1990s and has since maintained a strong competitive edge in the manufacturing, research and development, and sales of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). However, over the past decade, with the rapid acceleration of battery electric vehicle (BEV) technology—particularly in China and the United States—Toyota has struggled to keep pace. As the world’s leading automobile manufacturer, Toyota has not only fallen behind in BEV innovation but has also experienced a decline in its HEV market share due to the rise of emerging NEV companies in these key markets. This paper takes Toyota Motor Corporation as the focal point of analysis and proposes the existence of a path dependence model embedded within the company’s strategic framework—namely, a model characterized by ‘high added value coupled with patent protection.’ This entrenched approach has arguably constrained Toyota’s ability to gain a competitive advantage in the transition from HEV to BEV. In addition, this study employs econometric and empirical methods to draw corresponding conclusions and offer policy-relevant recommendations for the industry's technological transition.
Downloads
References
[1] Wang Hongliang. Application of just-in-time production logistics in China's automobile industry[J]. Industrial Engineering, 2009, 12(06): 57-61.
[2] Wang Jianjun, Zan Dongping. Research on the relationship between dynamic capabilities, crisis management and corporate competitive advantage[J]. Science Research Management, 2015, 36(07): 79-85.
[3] Wang Fengbin, Li Donghong, Zhang Tingting, Yang Yang. Hyper modularization of product development organization and its impact on innovation: A case study of Toyota Motors[J]. China Industrial Economy, 2011(02):131-141.
[4] Xie Yongmei. Path dependence in the process of technological innovation: a case study based on Toyota's lean model[J]. Journal of Dialectics of Nature, 2010, 26(01): 29-34.
[5] Li Yuqiong, Zhu Xiuying. An empirical study on the innovation symbiosis strategy of Toyota's automotive ecosystem[J]. Management Review, 2007(06):15-20+63.
[6] Miao Wei. Lane-changing racing[M]. Beijing: Posts and Telecommunications Press, 2024.
[7] Porter, ME Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance[M]. New York: Free Press, 1985: 33-61.
[8] Kaplinsky, R. Globalization, Poverty and Inequality: Between a Rock and a Hard Place[M]. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005: 102-135.
[9] Arthur WB.Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events[J]. Economic Journal,1989,99:116-131.
[10] Douglass C.North.Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. [M]London: Cambridge University Press,1990.
[11] Arthur, WB (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116-131.
[12] David, PA (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 332-337.
[13] Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147-162.
[14] Jacobides, MG, Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255-2276.
[15] Henderson, RM, & Clark, KB (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-30.
[16] Teece, DJ (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
[17] Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools, and standard-setting. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 1(1), 119-150
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Highlights in Business, Economics and Management

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.







