Item 1. Business (Continued)

Retail Sales, Industry Volume, and Market Share

Retail sales, industry volume, and market share in each region and in certain key markets within each region during the past three years were as follows:

			Retail Sales (a)																		Industry Volume (b)																		Market Share (c)
			(in millions of units)																		(in millions of units)																		(as a percentage)
			2018						2019						2020						2018						2019						2020						2018						2019						2020
United States			2.5						2.4						2.0						17.7						17.5						14.9						14.1		%				13.8		%				13.7		%
Canada			0.3						0.3						0.2						2.0						2.0						1.6						14.7						14.6						15.1
Mexico			0.1						0.1						—						1.5						1.4						1.0						4.8						4.4						4.0
North America			2.9						2.8						2.3						21.5						21.1						17.6						13.4						13.2						13.2
Brazil			0.2						0.2						0.1						2.6						2.8						2.1						9.2						8.1						6.8
Argentina			0.1						0.1						—						0.8						0.5						0.3						12.1						11.4						9.7
South America			0.4						0.3						0.2						4.5						4.3						3.1						8.3						7.2						6.2
United Kingdom			0.4						0.4						0.2						2.8						2.7						1.9						13.7						13.0						12.9
Germany			0.3						0.3						0.2						3.8						4.0						3.3						7.9						8.3						7.4
EU20 (d)			1.4						1.3						1.0						17.7						17.9						13.7						7.6						7.4						7.1
Turkey			0.1						—						0.1						0.6						0.5						0.8						10.9						10.1						12.4
Europe			1.5						1.4						1.1						19.0						19.2						15.1						7.6						7.3						7.2
China (e)			0.8						0.6						0.6						26.7						26.1						25.2						2.9						2.2						2.4
Australia			0.1						0.1						0.1						1.2						1.1						0.9						6.0						6.0						6.5
India			0.1						0.1						0.1						4.4						3.8						2.8						2.2						2.0						1.7
ASEAN (f)			0.1						0.1						0.1						1.7						1.8						1.3						6.6						5.9						5.3
Russia			0.1						—						—						1.8						1.8						1.5						2.9						1.6						0.9
International Markets Group			0.5						0.4						0.3						22.5						21.2						17.5						2.2						1.9						1.7
Global / Total Company			6.0						5.5						4.5						94.2						91.9						78.5						6.3		%				6.0		%				5.8		%

---

(a)Retail sales represents primarily sales by dealers and is based, in part, on estimated vehicle registrations; includes medium and heavy trucks.

(b)Industry volume is an internal estimate based on publicly available data collected from various government, private, and public sources around the globe; includes medium and heavy trucks.

(c)Market share represents reported retail sales of our brands as a percent of total industry volume in the relevant market or region.

(d)EU20 markets are United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, and Switzerland.

(e)China includes Taiwan; China market share includes Ford brand and JMC brand vehicles produced and sold by our unconsolidated affiliates.

(f)ASEAN includes Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.

U.S. Sales by Type

The following table shows U.S. retail sales volume and U.S. wholesales segregated by truck, sport utility vehicle (“SUV”), and car sales. U.S. retail sales volume reflects transactions with (i) retail and fleet customers (as reported by dealers), (ii) government, and (iii) Ford management. U.S. wholesales reflect sales to dealers.

			U.S. Retail Sales												U.S. Wholesales
			2019						2020						2019						2020
Trucks			1,243,136						1,102,097						1,285,859						953,165
SUVs			830,471						749,583						816,933						712,623
Cars			349,091						193,064						309,413						160,449
Total Vehicles			2,422,698						2,044,744						2,412,205						1,826,237

Item 1. Business (Continued)

MOBILITY SEGMENT

The Mobility segment primarily includes development costs for Ford’s autonomous vehicles and related businesses, Ford’s equity ownership in Argo AI (a developer of autonomous driving systems), and other mobility businesses and investments (including Spin, a micro-mobility service provider). Effective January 1, 2021, the costs and benefits related to Ford’s enterprise connectivity activities included in the Mobility segment will be reported in the Automotive segment.

FORD CREDIT SEGMENT

The Ford Credit segment is comprised of the Ford Credit business on a consolidated basis, which is primarily vehicle-related financing and leasing activities.

Ford Credit offers a wide variety of automotive financing products to and through automotive dealers throughout the world. The predominant share of Ford Credit’s business consists of financing our vehicles and supporting our dealers. Ford Credit earns its revenue primarily from payments made under retail installment sale and finance lease (retail financing) and operating lease contracts that it originates and purchases; interest rate supplements and other support payments from us and our affiliates; and payments made under dealer financing programs.

As a result of these financing activities, Ford Credit has a large portfolio of finance receivables and operating leases which it classifies into two portfolios—“consumer” and “non-consumer.” Finance receivables and operating leases in the consumer portfolio include products offered to individuals and businesses that finance the acquisition of our vehicles from dealers for personal and commercial use. Retail financing includes retail installment sale contracts for new and used vehicles and finance leases (comprised of sales-type and direct financing leases) for new vehicles to retail and commercial customers, including leasing companies, government entities, daily rental companies, and fleet customers. Finance receivables in the non-consumer portfolio include products offered to automotive dealers. Ford Credit makes wholesale loans to dealers to finance the purchase of vehicle inventory, also known as floorplan financing, as well as loans to dealers to finance working capital and improvements to dealership facilities, finance the purchase of dealership real estate, and finance other dealer vehicle programs. Ford Credit also purchases receivables generated by us and our affiliates, primarily related to the sale of parts and accessories to dealers and certain used vehicles from daily rental fleet companies. Ford Credit also provides financing to us for vehicles that we lease to our employees.

Ford Credit does business in the United States and Canada through business centers. Outside of the United States, Europe is Ford Credit’s largest operation. Ford Credit’s European operations are managed primarily through its United Kingdom-based subsidiary, FCE Bank plc (“FCE”). Within Europe, Ford Credit’s largest markets are the United Kingdom and Germany.

See Item 7 and Notes 10 and 12 of the Notes to the Financial Statements for a detailed discussion of Ford Credit’s receivables, credit losses, allowance for credit losses, loss-to-receivables ratios, funding sources, and funding strategies. See Item 7A for a discussion of how Ford Credit manages its financial market risks.

We routinely sponsor special retail financing and lease incentives to dealers’ customers who choose to finance or lease our vehicles from Ford Credit. In order to compensate Ford Credit for the lower interest or lease payments offered to the retail customer, we pay the discounted value of the incentive directly to Ford Credit when it originates the retail finance or lease contract with the dealer’s customer. These programs increase Ford Credit’s financing volume and share. See Note 2 of the Notes to the Financial Statements for information about our accounting for these programs.

We have a Second Amended and Restated Relationship Agreement with Ford Credit, pursuant to which, if Ford Credit’s managed leverage for a calendar quarter were to be higher than 11.5:1 (as reported in its most recent periodic report), Ford Credit could require us to make or cause to be made a capital contribution to it in an amount sufficient to have caused such managed leverage to have been 11.5:1. No capital contributions have been made pursuant to this agreement. In a separate agreement with FCE, Ford Credit has agreed to maintain FCE’s net worth in excess of $500 million. No payments have been made pursuant to that agreement.

Ford Credit files periodic reports with the SEC that contain additional information regarding Ford Credit. The reports are available through Ford Credit’s website located at www.fordcredit.com/investor-center and can also be found on the SEC’s website located at www.sec.gov.

The foregoing information regarding Ford Credit’s website and its content is for convenience only and not deemed to be incorporated by reference into this Report nor filed with the SEC.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

CORPORATE OTHER

Corporate Other primarily includes corporate governance expenses, interest income (excluding interest earned on our extended service contract portfolio that is included in our Automotive segment) and gains and losses from our cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities and other investments, and foreign exchange derivatives gains and losses associated with intercompany lending. Corporate governance expenses are primarily administrative, delivering benefit on behalf of the global enterprise, and are not allocated to specific Automotive business units or operating segments. These include expenses related to setting and directing global policy, providing oversight and stewardship, and promoting the Company’s interests.

Effective January 1, 2021, (i) cash and other centrally managed corporate assets reported in the Automotive segment will be realigned to Corporate Other, and (ii) certain corporate governance expenses that benefit the global enterprise reported in the Automotive segment will be reported as part of Corporate Other.

INTEREST ON DEBT

Interest on Debt consists of interest expense on Automotive and Other debt.

GOVERNMENTAL STANDARDS

Many governmental standards and regulations relating to safety, fuel economy, emissions control, noise control, vehicle recycling, substances of concern, vehicle damage, and theft prevention are applicable to new motor vehicles, engines, and equipment. In addition, manufacturing and other automotive assembly facilities are subject to stringent standards regulating air emissions, water discharges, and the handling and disposal of hazardous substances. The most significant of the standards and regulations affecting us are discussed below:

Vehicle Emissions Control

U.S. Requirements - Federal and California Tailpipe Emission Standards. Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) have established motor vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions standards that become increasingly stringent over time. Thirteen states have adopted California’s light-duty standards, and other states may join them. Both federal and California regulations also require motor vehicles to be equipped with on-board diagnostic (“OBD”) systems that monitor emission-related systems and components. In addition, light- and medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines must be certified by EPA prior to sale in the United States and by CARB prior to sale in California and the relevant states. Canada accepts EPA certification. Compliance with emissions standards, OBD requirements, and related regulations can be challenging and can drive increased product development costs, warranty costs, and vehicle recalls.

CARB is in the process of adopting new emissions regulations applicable to model year 2024 heavy-duty engines, and EPA has announced that it intends to adopt more stringent heavy-duty standards as well. These rules are likely to include more stringent emissions standards as well as new requirements affecting durability testing, warranty, and OBD. CARB has also begun to develop new light-duty emissions standards expected to include a more stringent fleet-average emissions standard and add other new emissions limits. These new rules are expected to impose increased challenges and costs on the development of light-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines.

Compliance with automobile emissions standards depends in part on the widespread availability of high-quality and consistent automotive fuels that the vehicles were designed to use. Legislative, regulatory, and judicial developments related to fuel quality at both the national and state levels could affect vehicle manufacturers’ warranty costs as well as their ability to comply with vehicle emissions standards.

The California vehicle emissions program also includes requirements for manufacturers to produce and deliver for sale zero-emission vehicles (“ZEVs”). The current light-duty vehicle ZEV regulation, which uses a system based on credits that can be banked and carried forward, mandates substantial annual increases in the production and sale of battery-electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid vehicles through the 2025 model year. At that time, the regulation will require credits equating to 22 percent of a manufacturer’s California light-duty vehicle sales volume. California has also instituted ZEV regulations aimed at medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, beginning with the 2024 model year. These medium- and heavy-duty rules, which could entail significant costs and compliance challenges, include complex warranty and recall requirements for some vehicle configurations. Compliance with ZEV rules depends on market conditions as well as the availability of adequate infrastructure to support vehicle charging.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

European Requirements. European Union (“EU”) directives and related legislation limit the amount of regulated pollutants that may be emitted by new motor vehicles and engines sold in the EU. Regulatory stringency has increased significantly since 2014 when Stage VI emission standards were introduced. Since then, a laboratory test cycle for CO2 and emissions was implemented in 2017, followed by the introduction of on-road emission testing using portable emission analyzers (Real Driving Emission or “RDE”). These on-road emission tests are in addition to the laboratory-based tests. The divergence between the regulatory limit that is tested in laboratory conditions and the allowed values measured in RDE tests will ultimately be reduced to zero as the regulatory demands increase. The costs associated with complying with these requirements are significant, and following the EU Commission’s indication of its intent to accelerate emissions rules in its road map publication “EU Green Deal” as well as the EU sustainable mobility action plan, the challenges will continue. In addition, the Whole Vehicle Type Approval (“WVTA”) regulation has been updated to increase the stringency of in-market surveillance. Moreover, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, we may be subject to diverging requirements in our European markets, which could increase vehicle complexity and duties.

There is an increasing trend of city access restrictions for internal combustion engine powered vehicles, particularly in European cities that do not meet air quality limits. The access rules being introduced are developed by individual cities based on their specific concerns, resulting in rapid deployment of access rules that differ greatly among cities. The speed of implementation of access rules may directly influence customer vehicle residual values and choice of next purchase, and there is a risk that these rules may result in the need for customers to retrofit their vehicles with emission after-treatment systems. In an effort to support the Paris Accord, some countries are adopting yearly increases in CO2 taxes, where such a system is in place, and publishing dates by when internal combustion powered vehicles may no longer be registered, e.g., Norway in 2025 and the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in 2030.

Other National Requirements. Many countries, in an effort to address air quality and climate change concerns, are adopting previous versions of European or United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (“UN-ECE”) mobile source emission regulations. Some countries have adopted more advanced regulations based on the most recent version of European or U.S. regulations. For example, the China Stage VI emission standards, based on European Stage VI emission standards for light duty vehicles, U.S. evaporative and refueling emissions standards, and CARB OBD II requirements, incorporate two levels of stringency for tailpipe emissions. Level one (VI(a)) was implemented in July 2020, and the more stringent level two (VI(b)) is slated for implementation in July 2023. The government has encouraged the more economically developed cities to pull-ahead implementation. The earliest implementation of VI(a) began in July 2019, with a few areas, such as Shanghai and Guangdong province, implementing VI(b). China Stage VII emission regulations are currently under consideration, and the Ministry of Ecology and Environment has advised that the Stage VII regulations will have more stringent limits on pollutant emissions and will establish limits for greenhouse gas (primarily CO2) tailpipe emissions.

Canadian criteria emissions regulations are largely aligned with U.S. requirements; however, the existing ZEV regulations in Quebec and those published in British Columbia in July 2020 are more stringent than those in place in California.

Elsewhere, there is a mix of regulations and processes based on U.S. and EU standards. Not all countries have adopted appropriate fuel quality standards to accompany the stringent emission standards adopted. This could lead to compliance problems, particularly if OBD or in-use surveillance requirements are implemented.

Global Developments. In recent years, EPA and CARB have increased their focus on the use of “defeat devices.” Defeat devices are elements of design (typically embedded in software) that improperly cause the emission control system to function less effectively during normal on-road driving than during an official laboratory emissions test, without justification. They are prohibited by law in many jurisdictions, and we do not use defeat devices in our vehicles.

Regulators around the world continue to scrutinize automakers’ emission testing, which has led to a number of defeat device settlements by various manufacturers. EPA is carrying out additional non-standard tests as part of its vehicle certification program. CARB has also been conducting extensive non-standard emission tests, which in some cases have resulted in certification delays for diesel vehicles. In the past, several European countries have conducted non-standard emission tests and published the results, and, in some cases, this supplemental testing has triggered investigations of manufacturers for possible defeat devices. Testing is expected to continue on an ongoing basis. In addition, plaintiffs’ attorneys are pursuing consumer class action lawsuits based on alleged excessive emissions from cars and trucks, which could, in turn, prompt further investigations by regulators.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Vehicle Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Standards

U.S. Requirements - Light-Duty Vehicles. Federal law requires that light duty vehicles meet minimum corporate average fuel economy (“CAFE”) standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”). Manufacturers are subject to substantial civil penalties if they fail to meet the CAFE standard in any model year, after taking into account all available credits for the preceding five model years and expected credits for the three succeeding model years. The law requires NHTSA to promulgate and enforce separate CAFE standards applicable to each manufacturer’s fleet of domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars, and light-duty trucks.

EPA also regulates vehicle greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions under the Clean Air Act. Because the vast majority of GHGs emitted by a vehicle are the result of fuel combustion, GHG emission standards are similar to fuel economy standards. Thus, NHTSA and EPA coordinate with each other on their fuel economy and GHG standards, respectively, to avoid potential inconsistencies.

Since the 2012 model year, EPA and NHTSA have jointly promulgated harmonized GHG and fuel economy regulations under what came to be known as the “One National Program” (“ONP”) framework. California, which had promulgated its own state-specific set of GHG regulations, agreed that compliance with the federal program would satisfy compliance with its own GHG requirements, thereby avoiding a patchwork of potentially conflicting federal and state GHG standards. ONP has required manufacturers to achieve increasingly stringent year-over-year standards.

ONP was envisioned to continue at least through the 2025 model year. The ONP rules provided for a mid-term evaluation process under which, by April 2018, EPA and NHTSA would re-evaluate the standards for model years 2022-2025 in order to ensure that they are feasible and optimal in light of intervening events. As a result of the mid-term evaluation process, the federal government issued a rule that significantly reduced the stringency of 2021-2026 fuel economy and GHG standards. The federal government also took the position that California’s vehicle GHG standards are preempted by federal law, together with other states that opted-in to California’s standards. California, which continues to assert its authority to regulate vehicle GHGs and has challenged in court the federal government’s preemption actions, took steps to withdraw from ONP and plans to return to enforcing its own state-specific GHG standard if it prevails in the litigation that is underway. The federal government’s revised fuel economy and GHG standards rule is also being challenged in court by a coalition of states and non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”).

The litigation over both standards and preemption, with uncertain outcomes, creates difficulty for purposes of Ford’s future product planning. One plausible outcome is a “bifurcated” scenario in which California, along with the 13 states that have adopted California’s GHG standards, enforce one set of rules, while a different set of rules applies in the rest of the country. Such an outcome would impose a layer of complexity on Ford’s product planning, testing, certification, and distribution activities. In an effort to avoid such an outcome and mitigate the current regulatory uncertainty, Ford reached an agreement with California on a set of terms for an alternative framework. Under this framework, Ford will meet a designated set of standards on a national basis in lieu of the California regulatory program. This framework enables Ford to continue its product planning on a nationwide basis, and it is also consistent with Ford’s environmental goals. Ford finalized its agreement with California in August 2020, and other states that opted into the California standards indicated they would respect the agreement.

While the California agreement helps mitigate the current regulatory uncertainty, it does not resolve all potential risks or litigation outcomes. The new presidential administration may re-evaluate the stringency of fuel economy and GHG standards and/or reinstate California’s authority to enforce its own GHG standards. Ford would face increased costs and complexity if the federal standards are revised to be more stringent than the California agreement. If any federal or state agency imposes and enforces fuel economy and GHG standards that are misaligned with market conditions, Ford would likely be forced to take various actions that could have substantial adverse effects on our sales volumes and results of operations. Such actions likely would include restricting offerings of selected engines and popular options; increasing market support programs for Ford’s most fuel-efficient vehicles; and ultimately curtailing the production and sale of certain vehicles, such as high-performance cars, utilities, and/or full-size light trucks in order to maintain compliance.

U.S. Requirements - Heavy-Duty Vehicles. EPA and NHTSA have jointly promulgated GHG and fuel economy standards for heavy-duty vehicles (generally, vehicles over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating) through the 2027 model year. In Ford’s case, the standards primarily affect heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, plus vocational vehicles such as shuttle buses and delivery trucks. As the heavy-duty standards increase in stringency, it may become more difficult to comply while continuing to offer a full lineup of heavy-duty trucks.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

European Requirements. The EU regulates passenger car and light commercial vehicle CO2 emissions using sliding scales with different CO2 targets for each manufacturer based on the respective average vehicle weight for its fleet of vehicles first registered in a calendar year, with separate targets for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. A penalty system applies to manufacturers failing to meet the individual CO2 targets. Pooling agreements between manufacturers to utilize credits are possible under certain conditions, and we have entered into such pooling agreements in order to comply with fuel economy regulations without paying a penalty and to enable other manufacturers to benefit from our positive CO2 performance. For “multi-stage vehicles” (e.g., Ford’s Transit chassis cabs), the base manufacturer (e.g., Ford) is fully responsible for the CO2 performance of the final up-fitted vehicles. The initial target levels get significantly more stringent every five years (2020, 2025, 2030), requiring significant investments in propulsion technologies and extensive fleet management forcing low CO2 emissions. Delayed launches, supply shortages, or lower demand for low CO2 emission vehicles, as well as a limited charging infrastructure, can trigger compliance risks.

The EU Commission is investigating the introduction of Real Driving CO2 and Life Cycle Assessment elements, and heavy-duty vehicles are addressed in separate regulations with analogous requirements and challenges. As discussed above, the EU Commission has announced a “Green Deal” that is likely to trigger more stringent requirements for CO2 emissions and other regulated emissions and include recycling and substance restrictions. The announcement also included a pull ahead of revision dates for the CO2 fleet regulation. The EU Commission targets net climate neutrality by 2050 and a more ambitious 2030 interim target (a 50-55% instead of 40% CO2 reduction compared to 1990).

Outside of the EU, the United Kingdom and Switzerland have introduced similar rules. Ford faces the risk of advance premium payment requirements for both passenger cars as well as for light commercial vehicles due to, for example, unexpected market fluctuations and shorter lead times impacting average fleet performance.

The United Nations developed a technical regulation for passenger car emissions and CO2. This world light duty test procedure (“WLTP”) is focused primarily on better aligning laboratory CO2 and fuel consumption figures with customer-reported figures. The introduction of WLTP in Europe started in September 2017 and requires updates to CO2 labeling, thereby impacting taxes in countries with a CO2 tax scheme as well as CO2 fleet regulations for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles. Costs associated with new or incremental testing for WLTP are significant.

Some European countries have implemented or are considering other initiatives for reducing CO2 vehicle emissions, including fiscal measures and CO2 labeling to address country specific targets associated with the Paris Accord. For example, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, among others, have introduced taxation based on CO2 emissions. The EU CO2 requirements are likely to trigger further measures.

Other National Requirements. The Canadian federal government regulates vehicle GHG emissions under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In October 2014, the Canadian federal government published the final changes to the regulation for light-duty vehicles, which maintain alignment with U.S. EPA vehicle GHG standards for the 2017-2025 model years. The revised U.S. EPA standards were automatically adopted in Canada by reference for the 2022-2025 model years; however, Canada is also undertaking a mid-term evaluation of the standards for the 2022 model year and beyond, the outcome of which remains uncertain and may be influenced by U.S. actions. The Canadian federal government is expected to conclude the mid-term evaluation in the first quarter of 2021. The heavy-duty vehicle and engine GHG emissions regulations for the 2021 model year and beyond were published in May 2018 and are in line with U.S. requirements, subject to any change in those requirements under the new U.S. presidential administration.

The China fuel consumption requirement uses a weight-based approach to establish targets, specifies year-over-year target reductions, and requires mandated volumes of New Energy Vehicle (“NEV”), i.e., plug-in hybrids, battery electric vehicles, or fuel cell vehicles, credits. The requirement is for NEV credits to be at least 14%, 16%, and 18% of the annual ICE vehicle production or import fleet volume in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively. China’s 2020 fuel consumption industry fleet average was set at 5.0L/100km and lowers to 4.0L/100km by 2025 based on the New European Driving Cycle (“NEDC”) system. The government is projecting further fuel consumption reductions in 2030 and is targeting 3.2L/100km. The fuel efficiency targets and NEV mandate will impact the costs of vehicle technology in the future.

As discussed below in Item 1A. Risk Factors under “Ford may need to substantially modify its product plans to comply with safety, emissions, fuel economy, autonomous vehicle, and other regulations,” a production disruption, stop ship, lower than planned market acceptance of our vehicles, or other intervening events may cause us to modify our product plans or, in some cases, purchase credits in order to comply with fuel economy standards.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Vehicle Safety

U.S. Requirements. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the “Safety Act”) regulates vehicles and vehicle equipment in two primary ways. First, the Safety Act prohibits the sale in the United States of any new vehicle or equipment that does not conform to applicable vehicle safety standards established by NHTSA. Meeting or exceeding many safety standards is costly and has continued to evolve as global compliance and public domain (e.g., New Car Assessment Programs (“NCAPs”), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (“IIHS”)) requirements continue to evolve, are increasing in demands, and lack harmonization globally. As we expand our business priorities to include autonomous vehicles and broader mobility products and services, our financial exposure has increased. Second, the Safety Act requires that defects related to motor vehicle safety be remedied through safety recall campaigns. A manufacturer is obligated to recall vehicles if it determines the vehicles do not comply with a safety standard. Should we or NHTSA determine that either a safety defect or noncompliance issue exists with respect to any of our vehicles, the cost of such recall campaigns could be substantial.

European Requirements. The EU has established vehicle safety standards and regulations and is likely to adopt additional or more stringent requirements in the future, especially in the areas of access to in-vehicle data and autonomous vehicles.

The European General Safety Regulation (“GSR”) introduced UN-ECE regulations, which will be required for the European Type Approval process. The GSR includes the mandatory introduction of multiple active and passive safety features, including cybersecurity requirements for new vehicle models in 2022 and for all registrations in 2024. EU regulators also are focusing on active safety features, such as lane departure warning systems, electronic stability control, and automatic brake assist.

Other National Requirements. Globally, governments generally have been adopting UN-ECE based regulations with minor variations to address local concerns. Any difference between North American and UN-ECE based regulations can add complexity and costs to the development of global platform vehicles, and we continue to support efforts to harmonize regulations to reduce vehicle design complexity while providing a common level of safety performance; several on-going bilateral negotiations on free trade can potentially contribute to this goal.

Safety and recall requirements in Brazil, China, India, and Gulf Cooperation Council countries also may add substantial costs and complexity to our global recall practice. Brazil has set mandatory fleet safety targets, and penalties are applied, if these levels are not maintained, while a tax reduction may be available for over-performance. In Canada, regulatory requirements are currently aligned with U.S. regulations; however, under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Minister of Transport has broad powers to order manufacturers to submit a notice of defect or non-compliance when the Minister considers it to be in the interest of safety. In China, a new mandatory Event Data Recorder regulation that is more complex than U.S. requirements has been released, and in China, Malaysia, and South Korea, mandatory e-Call requirements are being drafted. E-Call is mandatory in the UAE for new vehicles beginning with the 2021 model year.

New Car Assessment Programs. Organizations around the world rate and compare motor vehicles in NCAPs to provide consumers and businesses with additional information about the safety of new vehicles. NCAPs use crash tests and other evaluations that are different than what is required by applicable regulations, and use stars to rate vehicle safety, with five stars awarded for the highest rating and one for the lowest. Achieving high NCAP ratings, which may vary by country or region, can add complexity and cost to vehicles. Similarly, environmental rating systems exist in various regions, e.g., Green NCAP in Europe. In China, C-NCAP has a stringent rating structure to decrease the number of five-star ratings. Further, the China Insurance Auto Safety Index (similar to IIHS) has been implemented, with higher standards for passenger and pedestrian protection and driver assistance technologies.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

HUMAN CAPITAL RESOURCES

People Strategy and Governance

Caring for each other through valuing diversity, embracing inclusion, celebrating success, encouraging new thinking, supporting each other through change, and winning as a team is a key element of our plan to drive long-term business success. Ford maintains an Executive People Forum consisting of the CEO and top leadership team that meets multiple times a month with a specific focus on people and organizational topics that will enable and accelerate delivery of the business plan. Key topic areas include our Enterprise People Strategy, Diversity & Inclusion, Organizational Fitness and Workforce Planning, and Leadership Development and Culture.

Our Board of Directors and Board committees provide important oversight on certain human capital matters, including items discussed at the Executive People Forum. The Compensation Committee maintains responsibility to review, discuss, and set strategic direction for various people-related business strategies, including our compensation and benefit programs, leadership succession planning, culture, diversity and inclusion, and talent development programs. The Sustainability and Innovation Committee is responsible for discussing and advising management on maintaining and improving sustainability strategies, the implementation of which create value consistent with the long-term preservation and enhancement of shareholder value and social well-being, including human rights, working conditions, and responsible sourcing. The collective recommendations to the Board and its committees are how we proactively manage our human capital and care for our employees in a manner that is consistent with our Ford values.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

At Ford, we believe that creating a Culture of Belonging for all our employees is foundational to our success and morally the right thing to do. Ford offers 11 Employee Resource Groups (“ERGs”) that represent various dimensions of our employee population, including racial, ethnic, gender, religious, sexual orientation and gender identity, ability, and generational communities with chapters throughout the world, in addition to Diversity and Inclusion (“D&I”) Councils in every region. Our ERGs and D&I Councils are instrumental in providing a voice to our globally diverse workforce and to help us better understand the employee experience.

In 2020, we conducted a comprehensive Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) Audit in the United States with plans for a global rollout in 2021. The purpose of the audit, which included qualitative data, quantitative data, and deep ethnography, is to accelerate our efforts to improve the employee experience and cultivate a culture of belonging. As a result of this effort, we have taken several concrete steps, including initiating a monthly CEO DEI Forum with top leadership and embedding DEI into our corporate strategy and governance with clear objectives for progress established for every senior leader. Several additional actions are planned for the first half of 2021 that will demonstrate our commitment to transparency, inclusion, and the important role that our People Leaders will play in further enhancing our culture of belonging. Our diversity statistics include the following as of December 31, 2020 (based on self-reporting at the date of hire): 27.7% of our salaried employees worldwide are females (excludes certain employees in Europe in accordance with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation); 25.1% of our total salaried and hourly employees in the United States are females; and 34.4% of our total salaried and hourly employees in the United States are minorities.

Talent Attraction, Growth, and Capability Assessment

In an environment where many employees are no longer bound to physical locations, where and how we source our talent is evolving. From a growth perspective, we are focusing on several key segments vital to our success (e.g., software, electrification, and data science). We have added a substantial number of employees to our salaried workforce since January 2020 to support these emerging areas of the business. From a capability perspective, we are leveraging best practices in assessments and talent management to strengthen our current capabilities and future pipeline while reinforcing a culture of belonging, empowerment, and innovation. Further, we are also creating targeted learning experiences, democratizing learning and career development opportunities across the organization, and empowering employees to design their own career paths with skill development targeted for the roles of today and the future. Finally, the extent to which our People Leaders are equipped to care for, inspire, and empower our people plays a vital role in our strategy, and we are committed to helping our leaders strengthen these capabilities with dedicated learning paths and non-traditional learning opportunities.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Employee Health and Safety

Nothing is more important than the health, safety, and well-being of our people, and we work hard to achieve world-class levels of safety year-over-year, through the application of policies and best practices. We maintain a robust safety culture to reduce workplace injuries, supported by effective communication, reporting, and external benchmarking. We hold regular talks and events on key safety issues, including reporting all injuries, hazards, and near-misses, to prevent recurrences. We also participate in multi-industry groups, within and outside the automotive sector, to share safety best practices and collaborate to address common issues.

Our Safety Record

Any loss of life or serious injury in the workplace is unacceptable and deeply regretted. We did not have any fatal incidents at any of our facilities in 2020. Another key safety indicator, our global lost-time case rate (“LTCR”), decreased from 0.39 in 2019 to 0.31 in 2020. LTCR is defined as the number of cases where one or more working days is lost due to work-related injury/illness per 200,000 hours worked.

Ford Motor Company also embarked on a complex journey to address the people and business implications of the COVID-19 pandemic, including how we support and protect our employees, the communities where we operate, and our Company assets. After idling our manufacturing facilities, our priority was to create the COVID-19 Business Resumption Plan, i.e., “The Return-To-Work Playbook.” The Return-To-Work Playbook is our corporate guideline and aligns with recommendations from the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and country and local health departments. The Playbook’s core objective is to protect our employees and provide a safe work environment. The main elements of the Playbook include:

• Guidelines and requirements for completion of a daily health check survey

• Guidelines for temperature scanning prior to entering facilities

• Guidelines for appropriate use and application of Personal Protective Equipment

• Guidelines and recommendations for social distancing inside and outside of workstations

• Cleaning and disinfecting workstations and common areas

• Guidelines supporting handwashing methods and frequency

• Placement strategy for hand sanitizer stations

We will continue to be vigilant and proactive in our efforts to effectively manage the COVID-19 pandemic.

Employee Wellbeing Initiatives

Our global, holistic approach to wellbeing encompasses the financial, social, mental/emotional, physical, and professional needs of our employees. Foundational to our wellbeing philosophy is providing a broad array of resources and solutions to educate employees and build capability and support for meeting individual wellbeing needs and goals. Our wellbeing program is an integral part of our total rewards strategy as we work to address business and employee challenges through a multi-channel approach that provides our diverse populations and global regions flexibility and choice to meet their specific needs.

We use data driven insights gathered through surveys, focus groups and claims data to prioritize our wellbeing programs. Through our wellbeing offerings, e.g., Work from Home support and enhanced childcare and parental resources, we provide employees the resources they need to achieve their own sense of wellbeing and build an environment where employees and People Leaders care for each other as we deliver the business objectives.

Item 1. Business (Continued)

Employee Sentiment Strategy

We leverage our ask/listen/observe framework to understand employee sentiment at Ford. This approach is a holistic and consistent methodology that enables us to understand how employees are feeling in real time and act accordingly. Our measurement focuses on several areas that are key to our business: Employee Mental and Emotional Wellbeing, Health & Safety (including our COVID-19 safety protocols), Employee Experience, Culture, Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, Leadership, and Strategic Alignment. Our efforts to drive change in these areas are paying off. We surveyed our employees during 2020 after the onset of the pandemic; 91% of the respondents, which were primarily salaried employees, indicated that Ford’s response to the pandemic helped them do what is best for their health and family. A critical element of our measurement program is ensuring that data ends up in the hands of those who are best positioned to drive meaningful change. To this end, leaders at all levels have access to dashboards with data from their teams and organizations, as well as personalized next step recommendations embedded into action planning tools. Our measurement approach is also used to inform our areas of focus as an organization and to evaluate the effectiveness of talent initiatives across the enterprise.

Employment Data

The approximate number of individuals employed by us and entities that we consolidated as of December 31 was as follows (in thousands):

			2019						2020
North America			99						101
South America			10						8
Europe			46						43
China (including Taiwan)			3						4
International Markets Group			15						14
Total Automotive			173						170
Ford Credit			7						6
Mobility			3						2
Corporate and Other			7						8
Total Company			190						186

The reduction in employees in 2020 is primarily a result of our global redesign efforts, partially offset by the addition of employees to increase production in certain facilities and the addition of employees in growth areas, including software, electrification, and data science.

Substantially all of the hourly employees in our Automotive operations are represented by unions and covered by collective bargaining agreements. In the United States, approximately 99% of these unionized hourly employees in our Automotive segment are represented by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (“UAW” or “United Auto Workers”). At December 31, 2020, approximately 58,000 hourly employees in the United States were represented by the UAW.

ITEM 1A. Risk Factors.

We have listed below the material risk factors applicable to us grouped into the following categories: Operational Risks; Macroeconomic, Market, and Strategic Risks; Financial Risks; and Legal and Regulatory Risks.

Operational Risks

Ford and Ford Credit’s financial condition and results of operations have been and may continue to be adversely affected by public health issues, including epidemics or pandemics such as COVID-19. We face various risks related to public health issues, including epidemics, pandemics, and other outbreaks, including the global outbreak of COVID-19. The impact of COVID-19, including changes in consumer behavior, pandemic fears and market downturns, and restrictions on business and individual activities, has created significant volatility in the global economy and led to reduced economic activity. There have been extraordinary actions taken by international, federal, state, and local public health and governmental authorities to contain and combat the outbreak and spread of COVID-19 in regions throughout the world, including travel bans, quarantines, “stay-at-home” orders, and similar mandates for many individuals to substantially restrict daily activities and for many businesses to curtail or cease normal operations. To the extent cases surge in any locations, stringent limitations on daily activities that may have been eased previously could be reinstated in those areas. Further, if new strains of COVID-19 develop or sufficient amounts of vaccines are not available, not widely administered for a significant period of time, or otherwise prove ineffective, the impact of COVID-19 on the global economy, and, in turn, our financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations could be material.

Consistent with the actions taken by governmental authorities, in late March 2020, we idled our manufacturing operations in regions around the world other than China, where manufacturing operations were suspended in January and February before beginning to resume operations in March. By May 2020, taking a phased approach and after introducing new safety protocols at our plants, we resumed manufacturing operations around the world.

The economic slowdown attributable to COVID-19 led to a global decrease in vehicle sales in markets around the world. As described in more detail below under “Industry sales volume in any of Ford’s key markets can be volatile and could decline if there is a financial crisis, recession, or significant geopolitical event,” a sustained decline in vehicle sales would have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, and cash flow.

The predominant share of Ford Credit’s business consists of financing Ford and Lincoln vehicles, and the duration or resurgence of COVID-19 or similar public health issues may negatively impact the level of originations at Ford Credit. For example, Ford’s suspension of manufacturing operations, a significant decline in dealer showroom traffic, and/or a reduction of operations at dealers may lead to a significant decline in Ford Credit’s consumer and non-consumer originations. Moreover, a sustained decline in sales could have a significant adverse effect on dealer profitability and creditworthiness. Further, COVID-19 has had a significant negative impact on many businesses and unemployment rates have increased sharply from pre-COVID-19 levels. Ford Credit expects the economic uncertainty and higher unemployment to result in higher defaults in its consumer portfolio, and prolonged unemployment is expected to have a negative impact on both new and used vehicle demand.

The global economic slowdown and stay-at-home orders enacted across the United States disrupted auction activity in many locations, which adversely impacted and caused delays in realizing the resale value for off-lease and repossessed vehicles. Although auction performance has improved, future or additional restrictions could have a similar adverse impact on Ford Credit. For more information about the impact of higher credit losses and lower residual values on Ford Credit’s business, see “Ford Credit could experience higher-than-expected credit losses, lower-than-anticipated residual values, or higher-than-expected return volumes for leased vehicles” below.

As described in more detail below under “Ford and Ford Credit’s access to debt, securitization, or derivative markets around the world at competitive rates or in sufficient amounts could be affected by credit rating downgrades, market volatility, market disruption, regulatory requirements, or other factors,” the volatility created by COVID-19 adversely affected Ford Credit’s access to the debt and securitization markets and its cost of funding, and any volatility in the capital markets as a result of a surge in cases of COVID-19, new outbreaks, or for any other reason could have an adverse impact on Ford Credit’s access to those markets and its cost of funding.

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

The full impact of COVID-19 on our financial condition and results of operations will depend on future developments, such as the ultimate duration and scope of the outbreak (including any potential future waves and the success of vaccination programs), its impact on our customers, dealers, and suppliers, how quickly normal economic conditions, operations, and the demand for our products can resume, and any permanent behavioral changes that the pandemic may cause. For example, in the event manufacturing operations are again suspended, fully ramping up our production schedule to prior levels may take longer than the prior resumption and will depend, in part, on whether our suppliers and dealers have resumed normal operations. Our automotive operations generally do not realize revenue while our manufacturing operations are suspended, but we continue to incur operating and non-operating expenses, resulting in a deterioration of our cash flow. Accordingly, any significant future disruption to our production schedule, whether as a result of our own or a supplier’s suspension of operations, could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations. Further, government-sponsored liquidity or stimulus programs in response to COVID-19 may not be available to our customers, suppliers, dealers, or us, and if available, may nevertheless be insufficient to address the impacts of COVID-19. Moreover, our supply and distribution chains may be disrupted by supplier or dealer bankruptcies or their permanent discontinuation of operations.

The COVID-19 pandemic may also exacerbate other risks disclosed in our 2020 Form 10-K Report, including, but not limited to, our competitiveness, demand or market acceptance for our products, and shifting consumer preferences.

Ford is highly dependent on its suppliers to deliver components in accordance with Ford’s production schedule, and a shortage of key components, such as semiconductors, can disrupt Ford’s production of vehicles. Our products contain components that we source globally from suppliers who, in turn, source components from their suppliers. If there is a shortage of a key component in our supply chain, and the component cannot be easily sourced from a different supplier, the shortage may disrupt our production. For example, the automotive industry is facing a significant shortage of semiconductors. With up to fifty modules on a vehicle, we and our competitors who need integrated circuits are experiencing various levels of semiconductor impact. The semiconductor supply chain is complex, and a constrained wafer capacity is occurring deep in the chain. Global semiconductor makers allocated more capacity to meet surging demand for consumer electronics during the COVID-19 pandemic as automotive OEMs experienced industry-wide plant closures. At the same time, wafer foundries that support chipmakers have not invested enough in recent years to increase capacities to the levels needed to support demand from all of their customers. Wafers have a long lead time for production, in some cases up to 30 weeks, which further exacerbates the shortage. When global automakers resumed vehicle production in 2020 – even more quickly than some expected – semiconductor supplies became further strained. A combination of these factors, including increased demand for consumer electronics, automotive shutdowns due to COVID-19, the rapid recovery of demand for vehicles, and long lead times for wafer production, is contributing to the shortage of semiconductors. A shortage of semiconductors or other key components can cause a significant disruption to our production schedule and have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Ford’s long-term competitiveness depends on the successful execution of its Plan. We previously announced our plan for the global redesign of our business, pursuant to which we are working to turn around automotive operations, compete like a challenger, and capitalize on our strengths by allocating more capital, more resources, and more talent to our strongest business and vehicle franchises. We plan to do so by becoming more customer centric, embracing technology, and adopting processes that emphasize simplicity, speed and agility, efficiency, and accountability. The restructurings involved in turning around our automotive operations have resulted in charges that have had an adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations, and we expect to incur additional charges in the future. Moreover, such restructuring actions may subject us to potential claims from employees, suppliers, dealers, or governmental authorities or harm our reputation. In addition, to further improve our business and overall competitiveness, we are attempting to leverage relationships with third parties, including various alliances and joint ventures as discussed below under “Ford may not realize the anticipated benefits of existing or pending strategic alliances, joint ventures, acquisitions, divestitures, or new business strategies.” Further, significant changes to our long-term business model in various regions may be necessary should they prove to be unviable. If we are not successful in executing the Plan or are delayed for reasons outside of our control, we may not be able to materially lower costs in the near term, improve our competitiveness in the long term, or realize the full benefits of our global redesign actions, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

Ford’s vehicles could be affected by defects that result in delays in new model launches, recall campaigns, or increased warranty costs. Government safety standards require manufacturers to remedy defects related to vehicle safety through safety recall campaigns, and a manufacturer is obligated to recall vehicles if it determines that the vehicles do not comply with a safety standard. NHTSA’s enforcement strategy has shifted to a significant increase in civil penalties levied and the use of consent orders requiring direct oversight by NHTSA of certain manufacturers’ safety processes, a trend that could continue. Should we or government safety regulators determine that a safety or other defect or a noncompliance exists with respect to certain of our vehicles prior to the start of production, the launch of such vehicle could be delayed until such defect is remedied. The cost of recall and customer satisfaction actions to remedy defects in vehicles that have been sold could be substantial, particularly if the actions relate to global platforms or involve defects that are identified years after production. For example, NHTSA and the automotive industry are currently engaged in a study of the safety of approximately 56 million Takata desiccated airbag inflators in the United States. Of these, approximately three and a half million of the inflators are in our vehicles. Should NHTSA determine that the inflators contain a safety defect, Ford and other manufacturers could potentially face significant incremental recall costs. Our recent experience recalling about three million Takata airbag inflators with a different design resulted in us incurring a charge of $610 million in our fourth quarter 2020 results. Further, to the extent recall and customer satisfaction actions relate to defective components we receive from suppliers, our ability to recover from the suppliers may be limited by the suppliers’ financial condition. We accrue the estimated cost of both base warranty coverages and field service actions at the time a vehicle is sold, and we reevaluate the adequacy of our accruals on a regular basis. In addition, from time to time, we issue extended warranties at our expense, the estimated cost of which is accrued at the time of issuance. For additional information regarding warranty and field service action costs, including our process for establishing our reserves, see “Critical Accounting Estimates” in Item 7 and Note 25 of the Notes to the Financial Statements. If warranty costs are greater than anticipated as a result of increased vehicle and component complexity, the adoption of new technologies, or otherwise, such costs could have an adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. Furthermore, launch delays, recall actions, and increased warranty costs could adversely affect our reputation or market acceptance of our products as discussed below under “Ford’s new and existing products and mobility services are subject to market acceptance and face significant competition from existing and new entrants in the automotive and mobility industries.”

Ford may not realize the anticipated benefits of existing or pending strategic alliances, joint ventures, acquisitions, divestitures, or new business strategies. We have invested in, formed strategic alliances with, and announced or formed joint ventures with a number of companies, and we may expand those relationships or enter into similar relationships with additional companies. These initiatives typically involve enormous complexity and we may not be able to complete anticipated transactions, the anticipated benefits of these transactions may not be realized, or the benefits may be delayed. For example, we may not successfully integrate an alliance or joint venture with our operations, including the implementation of our controls, systems, procedures, and policies, or unforeseen expenses or liabilities may arise that were not discovered during due diligence prior to an investment or entry into a strategic alliance, or a misalignment of interests may develop between us and the other party. Further, to the extent we share ownership, control, or management with another party in a joint venture, our ability to influence the joint venture may be limited, and we may be unable to prevent misconduct or implement our compliance or internal control systems. In addition, implementation of a new business strategy may lead to the disruption of our existing business operations, including distracting management from current operations. Results of operations from new activities may be lower than our existing activities, and, if a strategy is unsuccessful, we may not recoup our investments in that strategy. Failure to successfully and timely realize the anticipated benefits of these transactions or strategies could have an adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Item 1A. Risk Factors (Continued)

Operational systems, security systems, and vehicles could be affected by cyber incidents and other disruptions. We rely on information technology networks and systems, including in-vehicle systems and mobile devices, some of which are managed by suppliers, to process, transmit, and store electronic information that is important to the operation of our business and our vehicles. Despite security measures, we are at risk for interruptions, outages, and compromises of: (i) operational systems (including business, financial, accounting, product development, consumer receivables, data processing, or manufacturing processes); (ii) facility security systems; and/or (iii) in-vehicle systems or mobile devices, whether caused by a cyber attack, security breach, or other reasons, e.g., a natural disaster, fire, or overburdened infrastructure system. Such incidents could materially disrupt operational systems; result in loss of trade secrets or other proprietary or competitively sensitive information; compromise the privacy of personal information of consumers, employees, or others; jeopardize the security of our facilities; affect the performance of in-vehicle systems; and/or impact the safety of our vehicles. This risk exposure rises as we continue to develop and produce vehicles with increased connectivity. Moreover, we, our suppliers, and our dealers have been the target of cyber attacks in the past, and such attacks will continue and evolve in the future, which may cause cyber incidents to be more difficult to detect for periods of time. Our networks and in-vehicle systems, sharing similar architectures, could also be impacted by the negligence or misconduct of insiders or third parties who have access to our networks and systems. We continually employ capabilities, processes, and other security measures designed to reduce and mitigate the risk of cyber attacks; however, such preventative measures cannot provide absolute security and may not be sufficient in all circumstances or mitigate all potential risks. Moreover, a cyber incident could harm our reputation and/or subject us to regulatory actions or litigation, and a cyber incident involving us or one of our suppliers could impact production.

Ford’s production, as well as Ford’s suppliers’ production, could be disrupted by labor issues, natural or man-made disasters, financial distress, production difficulties, or other factors. A work stoppage or other limitation on production could occur at Ford’s or its suppliers’ facilities for any number of reasons, including as a result of labor issues, including disputes under existing collective bargaining agreements with labor unions or in connection with negotiation of new collective bargaining agreements, absenteeism, public health issues (e.g., COVID-19), stay-at-home orders, or in response to potential restructuring actions (e.g., plant closures); as a result of supplier financial distress or other production constraints, such as limited quantities of components, including but not limited to semiconductors, or raw materials, quality issues, or other difficulties; as a result of a natural disaster (including climate-related physical risk); or for other reasons. Many components used in our vehicles are available only from a single or limited number of suppliers and, therefore, cannot be re-sourced quickly or inexpensively to another supplier (due to long lead times, new contractual commitments that may be required by another supplier before ramping up to provide the components or materials, etc.). Such suppliers also could threaten to disrupt our production as leverage in negotiations. In addition, when we undertake a model changeover, significant downtime at one or more of our production facilities may be required, and our ability to return to full production may be delayed if we experience production difficulties at one of our facilities or a supplier’s facility. Moreover, as vehicles, components, and their integration become more complex, we may face an increased risk of a delay in production of new vehicles. Regardless of the cause, our ability to recoup lost production volume may be limited. Accordingly, a significant disruption to our production schedule could have a substantial adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations and may impact our strategy to comply with fuel economy standards as discussed below under “Ford may need to substantially modify its product plans to comply with safety, emissions, fuel economy, autonomous vehicle, and other regulations.”

Ford’s ability to maintain a competitive cost structure could be affected by labor or other constraints. Substantially all of the hourly employees in our Automotive operations in the United States and Canada are represented by unions and covered by collective bargaining agreements. These agreements provide guaranteed wage and benefit levels throughout the contract term and some degree of income security, subject to certain conditions. These agreements may restrict our ability to close plants and divest businesses. A substantial number of our employees in other regions are represented by unions or government councils, and legislation or custom promoting retention of manufacturing or other employment in the state, country, or region may constrain as a practical matter our ability to sell or close manufacturing or other facilities.

Ford’s ability to attract and retain talented, diverse, and highly skilled employees is critical to its success and competitiveness. Our success depends on our ability to continue to recruit and retain talented and diverse employees who are highly skilled in engineering, software, technology (including digital capabilities and connectivity), and marketing and sales, among other areas. Competition for such employees is intense, and the loss of existing employees or our inability to recruit new employees, particularly with the introduction of new technologies, could have a substantial adverse effect on our business.