Michelin gyárbezárások: Stratégia vagy vezetői kudarc?

When Michelin’s press release landed in November 2024, it read like a controlled move in a long-term industrial plan: two French factories - Cholet and Vannes - to close by early 2026, affecting 1,254 employees.

Just a year earlier, the company had already announced the end of production at three German sites: Karlsruhe, Trier, and part of Homburg. All in the name of “competitiveness” and against a backdrop of rising pressure from budget tyre imports.

But outside the press room, the mood was anything but strategic. In France, workers walked out. In Germany, regional leaders demanded answers. And in the background, suppliers and customers began bracing for real disruption.

This wasn’t just about tyres. It was a test of leadership - in execution, not just intention.

Scene 1: The Press Room

Michelin delivered a structured and sober announcement. The company outlined its plan to realign production and shift volumes to Vitoria (Spain), Épinal (France), Cuneo (Italy), and Olsztyn (Poland). It aimed to reduce costs and had already booked a €425 million provision.

What was stated:

• Asian imports were undercutting pricing.
• The closing sites were no longer competitive.
• Michelin needed to consolidate capacity.

What wasn’t stated:

• Why competitiveness had eroded in the first place.
• Whether local teams had the tools or mandate to adapt.
• How customer continuity would be protected.

Scene 2: The Line Walk

Step onto the floor of a late-life European tyre plant and the picture comes into focus quickly. You see the signs:

• The product mix hasn’t shifted with the market.
• Automation investments were delayed, then scaled back.
• Maintenance is reactive. Parts are ordered late, and downtime gets absorbed.
• Experienced workers are managing three roles. Training logs haven’t been updated in a year.
• Scrap is up. Changeovers take too long. And nobody can explain the margin on last week’s output.

These aren’t anomalies. They’re the cumulative signals of execution falling behind.

Scene 3: The Transfer Map

On paper, it looks clean: shift production to stronger, more efficient sites. But in reality, multi-country transfers are a minefield.

Semi-finished goods don’t flow the same way. Transport lanes need renegotiation. Buffer stocks collapse under small forecast errors. Customers that were once serviced in three days now wait six.

And in week twelve, someone finally asks: what’s our new OTIF?

This is where companies like CE Interim step in — to lead cross-border transfer execution from the inside. Once the legal plan wraps up and operations start to wobble, interim leaders step in with hands-on control to steady shipments, safeguard quality, and rebuild customer trust.

Scene 4: The Works Council Briefing

For every production site being closed, there’s a town hall where reality hits. Employees want clarity. Works councils want negotiation. Leadership needs credibility.

In places like Cholet or Karlsruhe, these meetings are not new. But the stakes are higher now. A good plan can still collapse if the social package is vague or the redeployment story isn’t real.

Execution here isn’t just HR. It’s leadership under pressure. And it sets the tone for how the brand is remembered after the gates shut.

Scene 5: The Key Account Conversation

While the cameras focus on job losses, key customers are having a different conversation.

Service levels are dipping. Credits are rising. The rep is rotating. And the QBR slides are missing half the margin logic.

This is the hidden battlefield where confidence is won or lost. Interim commercial leaders are often deployed here too — to anchor account relationships, rebuild trust, and ensure transitions don’t trigger silent churn.

Strategy vs Leadership: What Really Shaped the Outcome?

Yes, Europe is expensive. Yes, imports reshaped the market. And yes, on paper, the decision to consolidate made sense.

But in Homburg, the mix didn’t shift. In Trier, the automation wave never came. In Cholet, high-value production still ran on outdated lines, and everyone knew those lines were struggling.

A closures aren’t only a reflection of global pressures - they’re a reflection of decisions that could have come earlier, been braver, or hit the floor with more force.

Counterfactuals That Matter

What if Homburg had shifted to premium truck tyres five years earlier?

What if Trier had received the same automation wave as Cuneo in 2019?

What if Cholet had piloted mixed-model cell lines when volume dropped in 2022?

These aren’t fantasy scenarios. Leaders saw feasible decisions but failed to make them, or didn’t push them through in time.

So, Strategy or Leadership?

It’s both. Strategy explains the “why.” Leadership explains the “when,” the “how well,” and the “at what cost.”

The best footprint strategies still demand brave, early, on-the-ground execution. Without it, decisions get made late, when value is already leaking.

A Note to the Next Board

If you’re reviewing sites, looking at energy curves, or questioning scale, pause and ask:

• Are we really measuring productivity drift?
• Do we know which customer relationships will wobble first?
• Have we waited too long for the perfect transformation leader?

Execution is where the story plays out.

When leadership gaps appear — whether in production, transfers, or communication — firms like CE Interim embed seasoned operators who don’t need ramp-up time. They take over fast, fix what still has value, and protect your plan from becoming a statistic.

Because at some point, every footprint strategy becomes an execution test.