A Retrospective on Missed Opportunities, Strategic Gaps, and Lessons for the Future
Between 2010 and 2025, Nissan found itself in a slow but steady downward spiral. While many headlines pointed to the Carlos Ghosn scandal or EV competition, the truth is more layered. Yes, external market shifts and leadership controversies mattered, but much of Nissan’s pain was self-inflicted. From product complacency to cultural blind spots, this chapter looks at what Nissan could—and arguably should—have done better to avoid losing its edge.
Overdependence on Carlos Ghosn's Leadership
Carlos Ghosn’s aggressive turnaround strategy in the early 2000s was undeniably effective. Under his watch, Nissan rebounded from near bankruptcy, increased global market share, and built a reputation for operational discipline. But what seemed like bold leadership soon became centralized control—with little room for internal dissent or long-term succession planning.
When Ghosn was arrested in 2018 on charges of financial misconduct, the fallout was seismic. Nissan’s stock plunged nearly 30% within months, employee morale eroded, and cracks in corporate governance were fully exposed.
📊 By FY2019, Nissan’s operating profit had fallen by 85% year-over-year, a clear indicator of the post-Ghosn leadership vacuum.
(Source: Nissan Annual Report 2019)
What they could have done:
- Create a leadership bench early on, with shared power among executives—not a one-man show.
- Strengthen internal governance mechanisms and board oversight to prevent unchecked authority.
- Encourage cultural openness between Japanese HQ and global stakeholders.
Aged Product Lineup and a Weak SUV/Pickup Strategy
Let’s face it—Nissan's U.S. lineup became stale. While competitors like Toyota and Ford were pushing boundaries with hybrid pickups and revamped SUVs, Nissan was still riding on decade-old designs. Take the Pathfinder and Frontier—they didn’t get major updates until around 2022, and by then, the market had moved on.
📉 In the U.S., Nissan’s SUV market share dropped from 10.6% in 2016 to just 7.9% in 2023, while Toyota gained ground with models like the RAV4 and Highlander.
(Source: Statista, JD Power Sales Data)
Worse, the Titan and Frontier struggled to compete with the Ford F-150 and Toyota Tacoma. Nissan’s lack of timely hybrid/powertrain options put them out of the race in fuel economy and towing power.
What they could have done:
- Refresh key models every 5 years, not every 10.
- Lean into hybrid and electric SUVs sooner—especially when rivals like the Toyota RAV4 Hybrid were breaking sales records.
- Tailor products for key markets, especially the U.S., where full-size trucks and crossovers dominate.
Failure to Capitalize on Early EV Leadership
Nissan launched the Leaf in 2010—well before the Tesla Model 3 even existed. Yet today, it’s Tesla and BYD that dominate headlines and market share. Nissan, meanwhile, let the Leaf stagnate without major battery range improvements or faster-charging capability for nearly a decade.
⚡ Leaf global sales hit 650,000 units by 2023. Respectable, yes—but compare that to Tesla's Model 3, which hit 2 million units in just six years.
(Source: Electrek, InsideEVs)
When Nissan finally introduced the Ariya EV in 2022, delays and a lack of marketing momentum limited its impact. And unlike GM or Hyundai, Nissan never invested in a dedicated EV platform until it was too late.
What they could have done:
- Reinvest Leaf profits into advanced battery R&D.
- Scale EV production capacity earlier (à la Tesla Gigafactories).
- Build a network of fast chargers or partnerships to rival Tesla’s Supercharger system.
Missed Opportunities Within the Renault-Nissan Alliance
On paper, the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance was brilliant—pooled R&D, shared platforms, and global synergy. But the structure was deeply flawed. Renault held 43% of Nissan, while Nissan had only 15% of Renault—with no voting rights. That imbalance bred tension, especially post-Ghosn.
By 2021, cross-company cooperation had nearly frozen. Shared platforms weren't effectively rolled out, EV strategies diverged, and both companies lost time and competitive advantage.
🧩 Analysts estimate the Alliance left over $5 billion in potential synergies on the table between 2018 and 2022 due to misalignment.
(Source: Bloomberg, Alliance Board Briefs)
What they could have done:
- Rebalance ownership structure to ensure mutual respect and commitment.
- Set up an independent alliance board to oversee collaboration with teeth.
- Align long-term EV and software roadmaps across all three companies.
Inflexible and Slow to React
Automotive giants must be agile in the 2020s. Unfortunately, Nissan was not. During the global chip shortage in 2021–2022, competitors adapted quickly by trimming low-margin models and prioritizing high-demand EVs. Nissan, meanwhile, faced inventory shortages, underutilized plants, and uneven global production.
🏭 Nissan’s factory utilization in Japan dropped to 65% in 2023, far below the industry average of 80%.
(Source: Nikkei Asia Manufacturing Report)
And while Hyundai, Ford, and GM poured billions into software-defined vehicles, Nissan lagged in adopting connected car platforms, app ecosystems, and OTA (over-the-air) updates.
What they could have done:
- Apply lean, modular production across global plants.
- Invest in software talent and user-centric UX features earlier.
- Build regional flexibility to shift supply based on demand.
Final Thoughts: Hindsight, But with Purpose
It’s easy to look back and say “should have.” But Nissan’s challenges weren’t rooted in bad luck—they were the result of missed foresight and internal rigidity. In many ways, the company was ahead of its time—early in EVs, early with globalization, early in alliance strategy. But poor execution, slow response, and over-centralized control turned these early advantages into missed opportunities.
Had Nissan moved faster, governed better, and innovated more aggressively, the company might have retained its spot in the global top three automakers. The good news? With the right changes, a comeback is still possible. But only if they act smarter—and act now.