CC BY
7FEATURES OF SHAPING THE COMPANY'S COMPETITIVENESS IN THE GLOBAL
AUTOMOTIVE MARKET
Svetlana N. Rastvortseva
National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), Russia. E-mail: srastvortseva@gmail.com
Sofiya A. Shchitova
National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), Russia. E-mail: sofiya.shchitova@mail.ru
Abstract. The dynamically changing conditions of doing business in the global market such as the economy reforming during a pandemic, the need to introduce high technologies in traditional industries, new promising players and development directions constantly demand a new level of the companies' competitiveness firmness. The comprehension of competitiveness factors formation and monitoring its changes dynamically allow companies promptly and successfully respond to emerging problems. The aim of this research is to offer a methodical approach to assessing the companies' competitiveness and testing it for Tesla in the global automobile market. To achieve this goal, (1) we have determined the theoretical foundations of the company's competitiveness, (2) classified assessment methods and proposed our own approach, (3) assessed the competitiveness of Tesla in the global automotive market, and (4) identified ways to increase the company's competitiveness in long-term perspective. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the proposed and practically tested methodological approach, including a financial and economic analysis of the company's activities with the sales assessment, assessment of the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the company, mapping of strategic groups of industry leaders, identifying the key factors of success and creating the profile of company competitiveness. In the course of the study, we applied methods of analysis of the financial and economic condition of the company, SWOT-analysis, mapping of strategic groups of companies and other methods. The experimental results of the author's methodical approach showed that it can be used to assess the components of the company's competitiveness in the market, identify significant external factors, determine the competitive position in the market, and lets us get full detailed information to make management decisions within the increasing competitiveness. This research not only contributes to the development of economic and management science, but can also be useful in the practical activities of companies.
Keywords: company competitiveness, company competitiveness analysis, competitive profile of a company, global automobile market, global electric vehicle market, Tesla Motors.
JEL codes: F23, L22, L62, M16
For citation: Rastvortseva, S., & Shchitova, S. (2020). Features of shaping the company's competitiveness in the global automotive market. Journal of regional and international competitiveness, (1), 71-82. Retrieved from http://jraic.com/index.php/tor/article/ view/10
Introduction
Over the past decades, the automotive industry has been facing global changes in production, introducing modernized technologies and evolving the business environment to a new level of innovation. Modern challenges such as climate change, instability in the global energy market, tougher competition are forcing manufacturers to take a fundamentally different approach to vehicle development, introduction and maintenance. It is in this industry that alternative energy technologies are most actively being introduced and new approaches in the production process are being developed.
The purpose of this study is to propose a methodological approach to assessing the competitiveness of the company and to test this approach for Tesla in the global automotive market.
The research structure is as follows. The theoretical foundations of the research and a bibliography on the company's competitiveness are presented in the first part. The second section of the article describes methodological approaches to assessment and presents the position of the authors. The results of the analysis of the competitiveness of Tesla are reflected in the third section. The results of the study, namely the proposed
directions for increasing the competitiveness of Tesla in the global automotive market, are shown in the fourth section of the article. The derivations and recommendations are given in conclusion.
Theoretical foundations of research and bibliography
Michael Porter viewed the competition of firms as the main success factor. It becomes possible to increase the efficiency of activities through innovation, productivity, corporate culture and the implementation of the chosen strategy in the course of the competition. The competition, in a broad way, is the ability of a certain object or subject to surpass the direct competitors under given conditions.
Also, the concept of competitiveness includes an object ability to withstand the onslaught of competition, perform competitive actions and develop a strategy for the company's sustainable development.
The company's competitiveness is formed as a result of its external and internal activities and the ability to adapt the changes of market conditions, operational efficiency and profitable sales of products on the market (Zavyalov, 2012). It must also have properties that give advantage for the subjects of economic competition (Zakharov, Zokin, 2004).
In the hierarchical structure of competitiveness according to G.L. Azoev, it is based on the competitiveness of the goods, and at the next level - the competitiveness of the enterprise.
He connects this property straight with its ability of effectively usage the available resources in a competitive environment. The levels of production development and the competitive products sales stand out as a compulsory condition for the enterprise's competitiveness. The enhancement of these characteristics is based on the permanent development of existing business processes and it leads to the emergence of competitive advantages in R&D, management, marketing, etc. According to the conclusions of G.L. Azoev, "the competitiveness of a company is the result of its competitive advantages across the entire spectrum of company management problems" (Azoev, 2012).
The company's competitiveness is strongly influenced by the industry and the type of market in which it actuates. The competitiveness formation factors can be divided into internal and external. The company's financial position, the efficiency of production and sales organization, promotion of goods on the market, and the products competitiveness we refer to internal ones. The economic development of the country, social sphere, political climate, legal restrictions and international relations are traditionally the External factors (Kanishcheva, Semchenko, 2015).
Figure 1. Competitive forces relevant to the global automotive market, by Porter
Source: compiled by the authors in Porter M. Competitive Strategy: A Competitive Industry Analysis Methodology. - Alpina Publisher, 2016
The traditional approach to determining a company's competitiveness can be called the allocation of five competitive forces by Michael Porter. This approach is considered to be unique, because it is acceptable for any business sector (Fig. 1).
Let us consider the competitive forces (according to Porter) in relation to the automotive industry. The first force is the threat of new players appearing. The barriers are high in the automotive industry and it means that new entrants should expect a response from established corporations, which reduces the possibility of successful business. Let us identify six main sources of barriers to entry into the industry. Economies of scale (1) are highly visible in the automotive industry. Companies often enter into trade and production agreements and organize strategic alliances to achieve economies of scale. Product differentiation (2) is typical for automobile companies, as each of them strives to produce a series of cars and constantly renews its "assortment" by developing new models. The need for capital (3) is relevant for the automotive industry due to the fact that the companies operating on the market can be classified as financially secured (both with their own and borrowed funds). Switching costs (4) are directly related to the product differentiation strategy. The development and production of vehicles with alternative fuel systems, for example, requires a significant investment. Access to wholesale and retail distribution channels (5) is better established in more experienced companies, which makes it much more difficult for new manufacturers to enter the market. Other cost barriers not related to scale (6), such as the availability of proprietary technologies, the favorable location of manufacturing enterprises, the accumulated experience of operating in the global market, are also more relevant to new players.
The market power of buyers is the second competitive force in the marketplace. This force is evident in the automotive business: from year to year, producers have perfected in the issue price and quality compliance, because the buyer can easily switch to a competitor brand product by the most "budget" and a quality car. Therefore, at this stage for automotive companies, it becomes important to develop car design, improve the quality of service and a high degree of loyalty to customers.
The third competitive force is the market power of suppliers. In the automotive industry, the market power of suppliers includes the fuel market. It does not have a direct, but an indirect impact on car consumers, encouraging them to make or refuse a purchase.
The fourth competitive force in the market is intra-industry competition. In the industry under consideration, there are a considerable number of automotive giants who have been fighting for the title of the best brand for decades.
The fifth competitive force in the market is the threat of the appearance of substitute goods. For cars running on gasoline, the substitute commodity is the electric car, despite the significant difference in cost. In addition, the strengthening of the environmental movement in recent years has significantly increased the demand for sustainable vehicles, which directly created difficulties for the auto industry, and forced many manufacturers to reorient some of their production.
With rapidly evolving technologies and growing competition, it becomes necessary for car companies not only to maintain their current level of competitiveness, but also to create new tools to successfully fight key competitors in the industry. In recent years, digital technologies have increasingly become such tools, the achievements in the development of which stimulate innovation, increase the efficiency of work and the sustainability of the prosperity of the industry in question. With the acceleration of the pace of business development, it becomes necessary to revise and modernize the key competitiveness tools. The main changes in the formation of competitive advantages of enterprises in the engineering industry are shown in Figure 2.
This figure examines the main directions of automobile companies' competitive advantages formation. The key ones are the rational use of the company's physical assets, sustainable development, improving the supply chain, improving logistics, monitoring labor productivity, developing innovations, caring for customers. As a result, the company comes to higher productivity, rational use of resources, lower costs and expenses, which directly stimulates the growth of competitiveness in the market. Let us define methodical approaches to assessing the company's competitiveness.
Methodological approaches to assessing a company's competitiveness
The companies' competitiveness, according to Porter (Porter, 1998) , is an advantage over their competitors in a certain industry. The firm receives these benefits under one of three conditions: it is able to generate and maintain profits at a level above the industry average; it manages to get the same results as its competitors, but at a lower cost; the firm benefits from differentiation in the industry. The term "sustainable competitive advantage" formally appeared when Porter proposed the main types of competitive strategies.
Figure 2. Directions of competitive advantages formation of automobile companies
Source: composed by authors from Tsvok D., Toczynska J. Digitalization as a tool for providing competitive advantages to enterprises in the machine-building industry, 2018
From a resource-based perspective, a company can gain a sustainable competitive advantage by taking advantage of tools and opportunities that are valuable, rare, complex and irreplaceable. Traditional sources, such as natural resources, technology, economies of scale, operational and industrial features, will help enable the company to create and maintain a sustainable competitive advantage, but only until they are copied or acquired by competitors (Barney, 1986 , 1995 ).
Based on the fact that innovation can be the key to creating a sustainable competitive advantage, individual scientists have proposed innovation as an estimated indicator of competitiveness (Turcotte, 2002).
Vichet Sum in his work offers as an appraisal indicator productivity, efficiency, differentiation, innovation and readiness for new opportunities and threats (Sum, 2009, р. 23).
Prescott and his co-authors define competitiveness as a system of three interconnected elements: competitive capacity, competitive efficiency, and competitive process. Competitive potential implies the amount of resources spent for production, competitive efficiency - efficiency of production (exit-to-cost ratio) in comparison with competitors, and the competitive process refers to the management of the company (Siudek, Zawojska, 2015).
Some authors propose to measure competitiveness through financial performance, i.e., assessing the ability of the company to create high profits and generate revenue, increase the productivity of factors of production, hire more employees, bring positive returns on invested capital, liquidity, debt, etc. (Kozená, Chládek, 2012). In the same way, the competitiveness of the firm can be assessed by comparing the ratio of the market value of the stock to the annual profit, which was received per share, market share.
In addition to quantitative indicators, quality indicators can be widely used in assessing the competitiveness of companies. Note that these methods are quite expensive and are used mainly by large companies. These include benchmarking (comparison with successful firms of the same industry), a method of a balanced system of indicators (assessment of financial performance, results of interactions with the client and the market, internal processes and prospects for the development and growth of these areas), the model of five competitive forces of Porter, EFQM Model Excellence (takes into account compliance with the principles of sustainable development, provision of high-level services to customers, and employees - proper working conditions), the model of Altman (Kozená, Chládek, 2012).
Let us take a closer look at some of the methods.
1. The price-to-profit method can be attributed to traditional methods of assessing competitiveness. This is the simplest method that can only be used for equity companies and companies operating in the same sector of the economy. The basis is the relationship between the market price (rate) of the stock and net earnings per share.
2. Altman's model. This is a bankruptcy model using a combination of multiple coefficients and their subsequent assessment using weights. Although this model is a little more complicated than the previous one, it is still based only on financial analysis. This model has existed in three variants since 1968, 1977 and 2002.
3. Benchmarking (modern trend) is a process of continuous improvement, based on comparing the processes or products of the organization with those players who are leading in the analyzed industry. In a global competition, this system process is a key tool for the company's survival.
4. A balanced system of indicators is an indicator system for evaluating a company's performance. Unlike all other methods, it assesses not only the current competitiveness of the company, but also connects individual indicators with strategic management. The main purpose of this method is to transform the company's vision and strategy for specific goals, indicators, tasks and measures.
5. The EFQM (European Quality Management Fund) model includes 9 main and 32 partial criteria for analysis. Individual criteria have their own weight, and it is important to note that they should only be treated as recommendations, not rules. Five of the main criteria recommend what approaches, methods and tools should be used in an organization to maximize its own results, while the remaining four criteria for results show that has already been achieved in all relevant areas. The basic idea of this concept is based on the assumption that the highest results can be achieved in the company only if the external customers are satisfied, their own employees are satisfied and the environment of the corporation is respected. The main criteria for the quality of the EFQM model include competent management, strategy, partnership, processes, and results for clients.
We offer the following approach to assessing the company's competitiveness. At the first stage, it is necessary to conduct a financial and economic analysis of activities on such indicators as the structure of assets and liabilities, absolute, current and fast liquidity, solvency of the company. At the second stage, it is necessary to characterize the company's sales in dynamics. To assess the actual position and strategic prospects of the company, it is necessary to conduct a SWOT analysis, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the company, as well as determine its development opportunities and emerging threats (Phase 3). Phase four involves mapping strategic groups of leading companies in a particular industry. The information obtained through this methodical approach will help to develop ways to improve the company's competitiveness in the industry and to make sound management decisions. The fifth phase will identify the key industry success factors for building a competitive profile of the surveyed company. The information obtained through this methodical approach will help to develop ways to improve the company's competitiveness in the industry and to make sound management decisions.
Testing Tesla's proposed methodical approach
The modern world can observe a lot of brilliant examples of fast-growing companies that surprise with their ability to compete with the world's leading corporations. One of them is the Tesla company car development. Founded only in 2003, in 17 years of operation it has been able to achieve leadership among the giants of the automotive market, existing in the industry for more than 100 years. The results of the main highlight figures of the financial and economic analysis of the company's activities (the first stage of the methodical approach) are presented in table 1.
After analyzing the key indicators, we can make the following conclusions. The volume of assets shows that Tesla has large funds to Finance its activities, and their constant increase indicates the high attractiveness of the Corporation for investors and customers. In the structure of liabilities, where the main share is occupied by long-term liabilities, capital leasing, deferred income and accounts receivable, there is also an obvious increase. In General, the indicators of assets and liabilities are in the middle range for the automotive industry. From the summary data of liquidity and solvency, it follows that the most difficult period for Tesla was the period from 2017 to 2018. The corporation had low liquidity ratios, which indicated the company's low ability to cope with short-term obligations. However, in general, the indicators under consideration do not go beyond the average range, which indicates the financial stability of the corporation.
Let us consider the nature of Tesla's sales for 2017-2019. (fig. 3).
Figure 3. The sales dynamics of Tesla cars by quarters for 2017 - 2019, units
Source: composed by authors from Annual report 2019/Q4. Tesla, 2020
Table 1 - Dynamics of Tesla's key performance indicators in 2010-2019
Indicator 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Assets, million USD 386.1 713.4 1114.2 2416.9 5849.3 8092.5 22664.1 28655.4 29655.4 34309
Including assets: Cash and cash equivalents, % 25.8 35.8 23.1 35.00 32.58 14.79 15.31 11.97 12.57 19.17
Restricted cash, % 19.1 3.29 2.19 0.12 0.31 0.28 0.48 0.55 0.66 0.75
Indicator 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Short-term marketable securities, % 0 3.51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Receivables, % Notes to consolidated financial statements 1.74 1.34 3.08 2.03 3.87 2.09 2.25 1.83 3.24 4.05
Products in stock, % 11.7 7.02 3.08 14.08 16.30 15.79 9.33 8.05 10.62 10.86
Deferred expenses and other current assets, % 2.81 1.32 0.97 1.14 1.62 1.55 0.88 0.95 1.25 2.18
Vehicle operating leases, % 2.06 1.65 1.15 15.82 13.11 22.14 14.14 14.64 7.13 7.48
Property, plant and equipment, % 29.7 41.8 63.3 30.56 31.27 42.06 27.00 35.65 38.65 31.79
Non-current cash and cash equivalents, % 1.26 1.13 0.59 0.27 0.19 0.39 1.21 1.57 1.36 0.82
Other assets, % 5.89 3.14 2.52 0.98 0.74 0.92 0.98 0.97 1.95 2.47
Solar power systems leased and to be leased, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 26.72 22.57 21.39 18.77
Intangible assets, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.70 1.25 1.20 1.64
Including liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities, % 6.46 6.18 15.40 8.53 8.99 8.29 7.49 7.85 9.86 10.01
Deferred income, % 0.96 0.38 0.22 5.65 4.16 6.24 1.86 1.93 1.13 1.74
Deposits and balances due to customers, % 3.98 6.43 6.23 3.38 2.21 1.76 1.62 1.63 1.42 1.09
Liabilities on ordinary shares, % 0.79 0.62 0.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capital lease liabilities, % 0.10 0.27 0.64 0.43 0.19 0.20 2.95 3.30 3.75 4.36
Non-current liabilities, % 9.30 19.4 20.30 12.13 20.69 16.36 14.56 18.01 16.85 17.45
Other non-current liabilities, % 1.59 1.05 1.13 6.09 5.68 10.28 4.61 4.65 4.86 3.98
Equity capital, % 26.8 15.7 5.60 13.80 7.83 6.75 11.60 8.07 8.82 9.92
Non-current liabilities and capital leases, % 50 50 50 50 50.25 50.13 55.30 54.57 53.30 51.45
Financial ratios: Absolute liquidity, ratio 0.56 0.52 0.2 0.48 0.39 0.17 0.2 0.15 0.16 0.2
Current liquidity, ratio 2.8 1.9 1 1.9 1.5 1 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.1
Quick liquidity, ratio 1.2 1.5 0.4 1.3 1 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7
Source: calculated from: Tesla annual reports 2010-2019
The best-selling models are the Model 3, Model X, Model S. Exactly these cars sales Tesla registered
a record revenue of 24.58 billion dollars. compared to $21.46 billion in 2018. It is also worth to note the significant growth in the sale of cars from 17.63 billion dollars. $19.95 billion. In addition, if in 2019 Tesla sold 367.5 thousand electric cars, by 2020 the company plans to overcome the threshold of 500,000 electric vehicles sold.
It is important to note that the growth in revenue in 2019 had a positive impact on the increase in vehicle shipments worldwide. So, by measuring the main indicators, we get the following: after 4 quarters of 2019, GAAP gross profit was 4.1 billion, operating income - 359 million, net income - 105 million, free cash flow -1.1 billion, operating cash flow less capital expenditures - 1 billion.
Let us conduct a SWOT analysis (the third stage of the methodical approach) of Tesla for further research of competitiveness and identification of recommendations for its improvement (Fig. 4).
The company strengths (S) 51. Advanced patented technologies (which include car design, transmission technology, battery development technology) 52. Quality products in terms of exceptional vehicle performance 53. Unique electric vehicle design 54. Good reputation among customers and positive press reviews 55. External attractiveness of the company for investors 56. Growing demand for Tesla cars 57. Tesla is considered America's best employer The company's weaknesses (W) W1. Growing but limited brand recognition among mass market consumers W2. Insufficient production capacity does not allow to take orders from all comers W3. A very limited number of charging stations for electric vehicles in many countries around the world W4. Lack of mass production
Opportunities for the company (O) 01. Growing demand in the electric vehicle market 02. High barriers to entry into the automotive market for other participants 03. Raising consumer awareness of the environmental benefits of using electric vehicles 04. Rapid rise in the cost of gasoline, forcing consumers to increasingly consider electric vehicles 05. A growing number of international incentives to maintain and develop infrastructure for electric vehicles 06. Possibility of expanding demand in connection with the release of the car "Model 3" Threats to the company (T) T1. A significant increase in the number of competitors in the production of electric vehicles due to the retraining of many of the world's leaders in the auto industry T2. A growing number of electric vehicle replacements (i.e. gasoline-powered hybrids) T3. Prospects for a sharp short-term decline in the price of oil, which may impede the transition of consumers to electric vehicles T4. Breakthrough of competitors related to the development of alternative energy sources (hydrogen vehicles) T5. Manufacture of defective vehicles T6. Disruption of supplies due to lack of materials
Figure 4. Tesla SWOT Analysis Matrix
Source: composed by authors
At the fourth stage of assessing the competitiveness of Tesla, it is necessary to carry out a comparative analysis with direct competitors in the automotive industry. It is important to understand that many leaders of the automotive industry, such as Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, have exceptional characteristics and are the best sellers, but the cars of these brands are not direct competitors for Tesla. Only companies that directly produce electric vehicles will participate in the comparative analysis. Thus, having built a map of strategic groups, we get the following area of direct competitors (Fig. 5).
BMW, Volkswagen, Ford, KIA, Chevrolet, and Nissan are the direct competitors for the analyzed Tesla corporation. Each company has a good ranking position for 2019 in the overall ranking. None of the
companies falls below the 10th place in the rating table for 2019. However, these companies mostly focus on gasoline-powered vehicles production. In addition, each of them has been working in the automotive industry longer than Tesla. Therefore, it is rational to compare electric vehicles offered by each of the listed companies in the automotive market. For the convenience of conducting a comparative analysis, statistical data on electric vehicles for each of the proposed brands were selected, on their basis a table of key success factors was compiled (the fifth stage of the methodology for assessing the company's competitiveness). To identify the highest quality car brand, the weights of each key factor were calculated. The data are presented in Table 2.
o &
u
o
c/5 <
CO >>
Mazda Honda
Infiniti • MercedesBenz
• Toyota *__
V ro Iks wagen _4
Nissan « RMW .Ford • KIA Lexus
• Tesl¡ • Chevrolet a
0,5 1 1,5
Electric vehicles
2,5
3,5 Cars
4,5
Figure 5. Map of strategic groups of companies leading the automotive industry
Source: composed by authors from electric vehicle manufacturers and companies, 2019
After analyzing the electric vehicles of various companies, we can conclude that Tesla is ahead of the competition in all characteristics, with the exception of the cost of an electric vehicle. However, we will explain this by the costliest production and high quality. The last stage of the methodology of assessing the company's competitiveness is the compilation of a competitive profile for the company (Fig. 6).
Table 2 - Key success indicators of Tesla companies and its competitors
Indicator Weight Tesla Model 3 Nissan Leaf Chevrolet Bolt EV Ford Focus Electric Volkswagen e-Golf KIA Soul EV BMW i3
Test drive 0.3 5 4 3 2 4 4 2
Speed 0.2 5 4 4 3 3 3 3
Travel distance 0.2 5 3 3 1 2 3 1
Cost 0.15 2 5 3 5 2 4 3
Key Features 0.1 5 4 5 4 3 4 3
Appearance 0.05 5 3 3 2 3 4 4
Amount including weights 1 4.55 3.9 3.4 2.65 2.95 3.6 2.35
Source: technical characteristics of the companies discussed above
Source: composed by authors from Table 2
Figure 6. Tesla's competitive profile
It becomes obvious that in the production of electric vehicles Tesla has surpassed its competitors in most of the parameters considered. In addition, when considering the premium segment of the automotive market, which includes both electric vehicles and automobiles, Tesla also has a leading position in sales. So, in 2018, Tesla became the record holder for Model 3 electric car sales in the United States, beating competitors such as Lexus, Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Acura.
Results
The carried out analysis using the methodology for assessing the competitiveness of the Tesla company allows us to determine the main directions of increasing competitiveness.
In our opinion, the key direction here is the company's innovative development. Tesla differentiates his strategy in two directions. The first of these focuses on the company's image. The strategy is to produce sensational projects, the development of which has not yet been dealt with by any of the market players. The Roadster 2.0 and Cybertruck electric vehicles are examples of such projects (Ferr, Dyer, 2020). These models of electric vehicles are not widely used and have very limited demand. Their sale is not able to bring significant profits, since production is costly. Despite this, Tesla every year develops this production strategy to improve its image.
Besides the best performance, Tesla pays a lot of attention to the presentation of new products. To attract new investors, Elon Musk, the founder of the company, immediately shows the product in physical form, avoiding classic presentations. Tesla works closely with the media, holding large-scale presentations for them and thereby providing additional advertising for its products (Ferr, Dyer, 2020). Thus, this direction of Tesla's business development concentrates production capabilities on improving the corporation's image, on advertising innovative products and on attracting additional investments.
The second innovative direction of the company's activity is aimed at the development of Tesla's main products, which generate the main income. These include the S, 3, X, Y electric vehicles, which are inferior in design and performance to the Roadster 2.0 and Cybertruck electric vehicles, but are mass-market products. It is from the production of these models that Tesla's main revenue is generated. It is important to note that at a relatively low cost compared to Category 1 EVs, mass-market models also have performance that greatly
outperforms the competition. So, "Model S" and "Model 3" have an acceleration time to 100 km / h 5.9 seconds. and 5.6 sec. respectively. Therefore, it is important for the company to occupy the niche of the most innovative electric vehicles .
Thus, such a competitive strategy aims to transform the automotive industry and striving for development. (such a competitive strategy aims to transform the automotive industry and to development striving)
Conclusion
Thusly we see that at the global automotive market a maintaining of high level competitiveness is a strategical priority for companies. The proposed assessment methodology will allow to absolve the increase direction but not only to identify the internal and external components of the company's competitiveness.
Acknowledgement: We would like to thank the students of the Department of World Economy at the National Research University Higher School of Economics for their participation in the work on defining competitiveness at different levels of economic activity, especially Daria Myasnikova, Elvira Gerbekova, Maxim Gershman, Nikolai Svistunov; the reviewers of the «Journal of regional and international competitiveness» for their critical response to the article and their recommendations.
References
1. Azoev, G. L. & Chelenkov, A. P. (2012). Konkurentnye preimushchestva firmy: uchebnoe posobie. Moscow: OAO «Tipografiya «NOVOSTI». (in Russian)
2. Zav'yalov, P. S. (2012). Marketing in schemes, figures, tables. Moscow: INFRA-M. (in Russian)
3. Zaharov, A. N., Zokin, A. A. (2004). Company competitiveness: essence, assessment methods, improvement mechanisms. Biznes i banki, (1-2), 26-31 (in Russian)
4. Kanishcheva A. V. & Semchenko I.V. (2015). Company competitiveness improvement factors. Innovacionnaya ekonomika: perspektivy razvitiya i sovershenstvovaniya, 1(6). (in Russian)
5. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors: with a New Introduction. The Free Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.au/books?id=QN0kyeHXtJM C&pg=PR16&dq=intitle:Competitive+Strategy+Michael+Porter&cd=1&source=gbs_api%5Cnpapers2:// publication/uuid/03E8AAB4-AB47-4209-80C2-A4FFDCD1BC8A
6. Ferr, N. & Dajer, D. (2020). Tesla Lessons. Harvard Business Review Rossiya. Retrieved from https:// hbr-russia.ru/innovatsii/upravlenie-innovatsiyami/823320 (in Russian)
7. Barney, J. (1995). Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 49-61.
8. Barney, J. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656-665.
9. Binkiewicz, N., Chen J. & Czubakowski, M. (June 4, 2008). Tesla Motors. Unpublished document. Retrieved from https://docplayer.net/20647928-Tesla-motors-norbert-binkiewicz-justin-chen-matt-czubakowski-june-4-2008.html
10. Flachenecker, F. & Kornejew, M. (2019). The causal impact ofmaterial productivity on microeconomic competitiveness and environmental performance in the European Union (p. 90). Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 21(1), 87-122.
11. Kozená, M. & Chládek, T. (2012). Company competitiveness measurement depending on its size and field of activities (p. 1085). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 1085-1090.
12. Mangram, M. E. (2012). The globalization of Tesla Motors: a strategic marketing plan analysis. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(4), 289-312.
13. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77-90.
14. Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy (p. 80). Harvard business review, 86(1), 78-93.
15. Siudek, T. & Zawojska, A. (2014). Competitiveness in the economic concepts, theories and empirical
research. Oeconomia, 13(1), 91-108. Retrieved from http://www.oeconomia.actapol.net/pub/13_1_91.pdf
16. Sum, V. (2010). The impact of training and its integration in the firm's business strategies on the firm's competitiveness. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 71(2-A), 631. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2010-99150-431&login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site
17. Thomas, V. J. & Maine E. (2019). Market entry strategies for electric vehicle start-ups in the automotive industry-Lessons from Tesla Motors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 653-663.
18. Tsvok, D. & Toczynska, J. (2018). Digitalization as a tool for providing competitive advantages to enterprises in the machine-building industry Economics, Entrepreneurship, Management, 1(5), 23-30.
19. Turcotte, J. (2002). New evidence on the determinants of training in Canadian business locations. Quebec, Canada: Human Resources Development Canada
© Svetlana N. Rastvortseva, Sofiya A. Shchitova
Received 24.09.2020
Accepted 11.11.2020
