You are Sanne Verhoeven, director of strategy at Maasvliet Mobility Systems in Rotterdam. Your three largest customers want 8% to 12% off in 120 days, your costs run 30% to 40% above the Asian benchmark, and this week tariffs and export controls repriced the borders you use. Before any footprint is drawn, you have to say which work is allowed to leave the country.
The situation
Maasvliet, founded in 1994, makes electric drivetrains, battery-management systems and charging electronics for commercial vehicles. It employs 3,100 people, books EUR 780 million of revenue and earns 9%, about EUR 70 million of operating profit. Its engineering is not the problem: European manufacturing and back-office costs run 30% to 40% above the Asian benchmark.
On 10 June 2026 the letter arrived. The three customers who buy 61% of what you make, about EUR 476 million, want 8% to 12% off at renewal or they will place a second source with an Asian rival. That is EUR 38 to 57 million of contribution against 70 of operating profit. The board wants a plan, by 8 October, that recovers at least EUR 45 million a year of recurring cost.
Maasvliet has tried this before. In 2019 it moved battery-pack assembly, cell balancing included, to a contract manufacturer abroad: quality defects followed, the proprietary design was copied and, by the company's estimate, gross margin fell 6 to 8 points over two years. The work came back in 2022. You drafted the memo that closed that programme, and two of the four executives who will sign your plan voted for it. Nobody agrees on what failed: the vendor, the country, the activity or the move itself.
This week trade counsel added something that did not exist in 2019: a tariff swing against the wrong footprint can add 6% to 10% to landed cost, and an export-control listing can close a lane rather than reprice it. On the table are the back office, power-electronics assembly, testing, after-sales, and cell balancing with its battery-management software.