Founded in 1970. Established by spinning off the automotive division of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, the company developed overseas markets with the Pajero and Lancer. After falling into a management crisis following a recall cover-up scandal, the company joined the Nissan-Renault Alliance to pursue reconstruction.
1970
Strategic Decision
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation established
The fate of alliance dependence foreshadowed by the 'unequal treaty'—recurring dynamics with foreign capital
1971
Chrysler acquired equity stake
1971Chrysler acquired equity stake
1977
Okazaki Factory established
1977Okazaki Factory established
1978
Four-wheel vehicle production commenced at Toyo Koki (Pajero manufacturing)
1978Four-wheel vehicle production commenced at Toyo Koki (Pajero manufacturing)
1978
Chrysler fell into financial crisis
1978Chrysler fell into financial crisis
1979
Shiga Factory established
1979Shiga Factory established
1980
Collaboration with Mitsubishi Corporation on overseas sales
1980Collaboration with Mitsubishi Corporation on overseas sales
1982
SUV 'Pajero' launched
1982SUV 'Pajero' launched
1985
Joint venture basic agreement with Chrysler dissolved
1985Joint venture basic agreement with Chrysler dissolved
1985
U.S. local production entity established as a joint venture with Chrysler
1985U.S. local production entity established as a joint venture with Chrysler
1988
Listed on the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange
1988Listed on the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange
1994
Sexual harassment civil lawsuit at U.S. subsidiary
1994Sexual harassment civil lawsuit at U.S. subsidiary
1995
Toyo Koki acquired (Gifu Factory launched; Pajero manufacturing)
1995Toyo Koki acquired (Gifu Factory launched; Pajero manufacturing)
1997
Thai subsidiary made a consolidated subsidiary
1997Thai subsidiary made a consolidated subsidiary
1998
Workforce reduction in U.S. operations
1998Workforce reduction in U.S. operations
2000
Alliance with DaimlerChrysler formed
2000Alliance with DaimlerChrysler formed
2001
Vice president referred to prosecutors for recall cover-up
2001Vice president referred to prosecutors for recall cover-up
2001
Early retirement program offered
2001Early retirement program offered
2003
Mitsubishi Fuso sold
2003Mitsubishi Fuso sold
2004
Second recall cover-up discovered
2004Second recall cover-up discovered
2004
Financial condition deteriorated; management crisis
2004Financial condition deteriorated; management crisis
2005
Alliance with DaimlerChrysler dissolved
2005Alliance with DaimlerChrysler dissolved
2008
Local production in Australia terminated
2008Local production in Australia terminated
2015
Local production in North America terminated
2015Local production in North America terminated
2016
Strategic alliance agreement concluded with Nissan
2016Strategic alliance agreement concluded with Nissan
2021
Fell into net loss
2021Fell into net loss
2021
Pajero Manufacturing passenger car factory closed
2021Pajero Manufacturing passenger car factory closed
2024
Management integration of Nissan, Honda, and Mitsubishi Motors announced
2024Management integration of Nissan, Honda, and Mitsubishi Motors announced
View Performance
RevenueMitsubishi Motors:Revenue
Non-consol. | Consolidated (Unit: ¥100M)
¥2.8T
Revenue:2024/3
ProfitMitsubishi Motors:Net Profit Margin
Non-consol. | Consolidated (Unit: %)
5.5%
Margin:2024/3
View Performance
PeriodTypeRevenueProfit*Margin
1972/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income---
1973/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income---
1974/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income---
1975/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income---
1976/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income---
1977/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income---
1978/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income---
1979/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income¥875B¥16B1.7%
1980/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income¥903B¥14B1.5%
1981/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income¥1.1T¥8B0.7%
1982/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income¥1.1T¥13B1.2%
1983/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income¥1.1T¥13B1.1%
1984/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income¥1.2T¥6B0.4%
1985/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income¥1.4T¥7B0.4%
1986/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income¥1.6T¥25B1.6%
1987/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income¥1.6T¥14B0.9%
1988/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income¥1.8T¥11B0.6%
1989/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income---
1990/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income---
1991/3Non-consol. Revenue / Net Income---
1992/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥3.1T¥30B0.9%
1993/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥3.2T¥26B0.8%
1994/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.9T¥6B0.1%
1995/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥3.4T¥13B0.3%
1996/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥3.5T¥13B0.3%
1997/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥3.7T¥12B0.3%
1998/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥3.7T-¥102B-2.8%
1999/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥3.5T¥6B0.1%
2000/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥3.3T-¥23B-0.7%
2001/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥3.3T-¥278B-8.5%
2002/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥3.2T¥11B0.3%
2003/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥3.9T¥37B0.9%
2004/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.5T-¥215B-8.6%
2005/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.1T-¥475B-22.4%
2006/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.1T-¥92B-4.4%
2007/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.2T¥9B0.3%
2008/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.7T¥35B1.2%
2009/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.0T-¥55B-2.8%
2010/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥1.4T¥5B0.3%
2011/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥1.8T¥16B0.8%
2012/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥1.8T¥24B1.3%
2013/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥1.8T¥38B2.0%
2014/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.1T¥105B4.9%
2015/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.2T¥177B8.1%
2016/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.3T¥198B8.7%
2017/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥1.9T-¥46B-2.5%
2018/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.2T¥120B5.4%
2019/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.5T¥146B5.8%
2020/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.3T-¥26B-1.2%
2021/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥1.5T-¥312B-21.5%
2022/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.0T¥74B3.6%
2023/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.5T¥169B6.8%
2024/3Consolidated Revenue / Net Income¥2.8T¥155B5.5%
Disclaimer
Japan Corporate History & Strategy uses Google Analytics, provided by Google LLC, to improve quality. Information held by visitors (IP address, visited URL, referrer URL, visit timestamp, and device information) is transmitted to Google LLC. This website is compiled from publicly available information by an individual developer and represents personal views. We do not guarantee accuracy, completeness, or timeliness. The developer assumes no liability for any damages arising from the use of information on this website.
1970
4

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation established

The fate of alliance dependence foreshadowed by the 'unequal treaty'—recurring dynamics with foreign capital

The 'U.S. Distribution Agreement' concluded at the time of Mitsubishi Motors' founding imposed severe constraints: sales limited to two-door vehicles and exclusive distribution in the North American market. While it was rational self-defense on Chrysler's part, it also structurally blocked Mitsubishi Motors' overseas growth. The pattern of management being swayed by the power dynamics with an alliance partner was reproduced in the later relationship with DaimlerChrysler, representing a challenge that runs through Mitsubishi Motors' history and was already embryonic at the time of its founding.

BackgroundExpansion of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries' automotive business and Chrysler's entry into Japan

In the late 1960s, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries' automotive division handled a wide range of passenger cars, trucks, and buses, but was at a disadvantage in passenger car sales volume compared to Toyota and Nissan. Expanding the automotive business required massive capital investment and sales network development, and operating as a division within Mitsubishi Heavy Industries had limitations in terms of rapid decision-making and raising external capital.

Meanwhile, the major U.S. automaker Chrysler was exploring entry into the Japanese market. In the 1960s, GM of the U.S. had partnered with Isuzu Motors and Ford of the U.S. with Mazda (Toyo Kogyo), making it a priority for Chrysler as well to expand its business through a partnership with a Japanese manufacturer. The interests of both parties aligned, and in May 1969, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Chrysler agreed on a joint venture partnership in the automotive business.

DecisionAutomotive division spun off from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries; launched as a joint venture

In April 1970, 'Mitsubishi Motors Corporation' was established as a subsidiary of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. In June of the same year, the company received the automotive divisions (Mizushima, Nagoya, Kyoto, and Kawasaki plants) from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and commenced operations. In 1971, Chrysler acquired 15% of Mitsubishi Motors shares, and the management structure was established as a joint venture between Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Chrysler.

In fiscal year 1972, immediately after its founding, domestic sales shares were 6.6% for passenger cars, 11.4% for trucks, and 22.2% for buses, with strengths in large commercial vehicles (34.6% for heavy-duty trucks, 37.3% for large buses). In the passenger car market, the company was far behind Toyota and Nissan, and overseas expansion leveraging the sales network of joint venture partner Chrysler was positioned as the key to growth.

Result'Unequal treaty' constrained growth in the North American market

However, the joint venture framework contained serious constraints for Mitsubishi Motors. Under the 'U.S. Distribution Agreement' concluded with Chrysler, Mitsubishi Motors accepted indefinite conditions of 'sales of two-door vehicles only' and 'exclusive distribution by Chrysler' in the U.S. market. Exports of its mainstay four-door compact cars were blocked, and the company was unable to build its own sales network.

For Chrysler, it was a rational contract that used Mitsubishi Motors as a foothold for entering Japan while ensuring the Japanese company would not compete in the North American market. For Mitsubishi Motors, however, it was a constraint described as an 'unequal treaty' that became a barrier to business expansion in North America. This contract continued until its revision in 1981 and was a factor in the deterioration of relations with Chrysler from the outset of the alliance. President Kubo Tomio stated, 'We should abandon alliances that tie us down too much,' and the structural problem of management being constrained by the power dynamics with a joint venture partner would be repeated in the later alliance with DaimlerChrysler.

The fate of alliance dependence foreshadowed by the 'unequal treaty'—recurring dynamics with foreign capital

The 'U.S. Distribution Agreement' concluded at the time of Mitsubishi Motors' founding imposed severe constraints: sales limited to two-door vehicles and exclusive distribution in the North American market. While it was rational self-defense on Chrysler's part, it also structurally blocked Mitsubishi Motors' overseas growth. The pattern of management being swayed by the power dynamics with an alliance partner was reproduced in the later relationship with DaimlerChrysler, representing a challenge that runs through Mitsubishi Motors' history and was already embryonic at the time of its founding.

TestimonyKubo Tomio (President, Mitsubishi Motors)

When I came to this company, the two companies (note: Mitsubishi Motors and Chrysler) were in a state of considerable mutual distrust. The mutual distrust had reached an extreme. After that, we made efforts to capitalize on the merits of the alliance, and at present, the relationship is extremely good in spirit. However, one problem is that Chrysler holds exclusive distribution rights for our products in North America, Africa, Central America, and other regions. They have also become serious about selling, and sales volumes have increased considerably, but...

The thing is, U.S. manufacturers will have no choice but to shift toward smaller cars for energy conservation. Then in the 1980s, Chrysler will naturally put effort into selling its own compact cars, which could impact our car sales in the U.S. market. On this point, we need to revise the contract and somehow find a way to sell our own cars in the United States. (...)

We should abandon alliances that tie us down too much. The environment is constantly changing, so looking 10, 20, 50 years ahead, we should conclude non-exclusive contracts. It would cause problems if I pointed out each instance, but frankly speaking, there are quite a few disadvantageous alliances within the Mitsubishi Group as well. (...)

GM is superior to Chrysler in areas like development. So I think the benefits Isuzu gained from partnering with GM were greater than what we gained from partnering with Chrysler.

Source1978/7/31 Nikkei Business
TimelineMitsubishi Motors Corporation established — Key Events
5/1969Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Chrysler formed a joint venture alliance
4/1970Mitsubishi Motors Corporation established as a joint venture (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Chrysler)
6/1970Automotive division transferred from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
1971
Chrysler acquired equity stake
1977
Okazaki Factory established
1978
Four-wheel vehicle production commenced at Toyo Koki (Pajero manufacturing)
1978
Chrysler fell into financial crisis
1979
Shiga Factory established
1980
Collaboration with Mitsubishi Corporation on overseas sales
1982
SUV 'Pajero' launched
1985
Joint venture basic agreement with Chrysler dissolved
1985
U.S. local production entity established as a joint venture with Chrysler
1988
Listed on the First Section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange
1994
Sexual harassment civil lawsuit at U.S. subsidiary
1995
Toyo Koki acquired (Gifu Factory launched; Pajero manufacturing)
1997
Thai subsidiary made a consolidated subsidiary
1998
Workforce reduction in U.S. operations
2000
Alliance with DaimlerChrysler formed
2001
Vice president referred to prosecutors for recall cover-up
2001
Early retirement program offered
2003
Mitsubishi Fuso sold
2004
Second recall cover-up discovered
2004
Financial condition deteriorated; management crisis
2005
Alliance with DaimlerChrysler dissolved
2008
Local production in Australia terminated
2015
Local production in North America terminated
2016
Strategic alliance agreement concluded with Nissan
2021
Fell into net loss
2021
Pajero Manufacturing passenger car factory closed
2024
Management integration of Nissan, Honda, and Mitsubishi Motors announced
Back to Home