Why didn't Geely acquire Volvo's technology after the acquisition?

[LeBrielle]

Geely has acquired 100% of Volvo's shares, which means Geely has the right to use all of Volvo's engine technologies; however, Volvo and Geely operate independently in terms of brand management and technology development. The reasons why Geely did not obtain the technology are as follows: 1. Brand positioning: There is a concern about lowering Volvo's premium status and level, as Geely is positioned as a mid-to-low-end brand in the domestic market, while Volvo is positioned as a mid-to-high-end brand. To maintain their respective brand positions, direct technology sharing was avoided. 2. Integration costs: Integration costs would increase. Currently, Geely has already established its own system, which is completely different from Volvo's. If Geely were to adopt Volvo's older platforms for car production, it would require significant investment in vehicle development and production line modifications, along with a lengthy time commitment. This would, in turn, cause Geely to lose its cost advantage. Therefore, Geely did not hastily adopt Volvo's platforms.

[OTaylor]

I've been in the automotive industry for quite some time, and this situation is mainly due to strict technology protection. After Geely acquired Volvo, they didn't directly obtain the core technologies. Things like patents and safety systems are locked under intellectual property rights, and Geely didn't dare to tamper with them to avoid legal risks. Volvo's premium brand positioning requires independence—if its technologies were shared with Geely's mainstream models, it would ruin the brand's value. They collaborated on shared platforms, such as developing new cars using the CMA architecture, and learned some design techniques, but core technologies couldn't be transferred. It's like buying a car that you can drive but can't disassemble the engine. In the long run, Geely gains experience through engineer exchanges, but substantial technology transfer must follow agreements step by step to avoid conflicts.

[LaMia]

From a business perspective, I believe this was mutually agreed upon in the contract. The acquisition agreement between Geely and Volvo stipulated that Volvo would maintain independent operations, with core R&D data not freely accessible. This safeguards competitive market advantages—Geely could only absorb partial knowledge through collaboration, while critical technologies like electrification systems or engine know-how remained restricted. In practice, the two parties established joint R&D centers to share experience, but intellectual property couldn't be freely exchanged, as that would erode Volvo's value. Such strategic balances are common in corporate mergers; Geely gained supply chain management expertise without accessing core technologies. Policy regulations further complicate matters—Europe's stringent protections make technology transfers exceptionally difficult.

[Milton]

I've conducted similar case studies, and the key issue lies in cultural integration. Volvo's Swedish background emphasizes safety and caution, while Geely's Chinese approach leans towards aggressiveness and speed, leading to employee incompatibility that affects knowledge sharing. Technology transfer requires team collaboration, but differences in values slow down the process, making it difficult for Geely to directly access core technologies. This internal barrier delays the learning progress, so Geely can only gradually acquire knowledge through cooperation, such as safety testing methods. In reality, corporate mergers always require time like this—without cultural alignment, technology cannot be fully obtained.