This paper explores the competitive dynamics of the elevator industry, focusing on how major firms such as Otis, KONE, and Schindler have pursued aggressive acquisition strategies to consolidate market share. Drawing on the history of Otis Elevator's mergers across Europe, Asia, and North America, the paper examines whether acquisitions in a service-sector industry tend to benefit the acquiring firm, the acquired firm, or both. It also considers the circumstances under which smaller companies may welcome or resist takeovers, and what broader economic conditions — particularly downturns — mean for the viability of small competitors in a maturing industry.
The paper demonstrates the use of an industry case study to evaluate competing strategic outcomes. Rather than asserting a single conclusion, it poses a two-sided research question — whether buyers or sellers benefit more from acquisitions — and builds toward an answer by tracing Otis's documented acquisition history as evidence of successful consolidation strategy.
The paper opens with an abstract that introduces the research problem and central questions. The introduction establishes the theoretical frame (evolve-or-die competitive logic) and transitions into the specific case of Otis Elevator. Historical evidence of Otis's global acquisitions is then presented to illustrate the practical application of acquisition strategy. The paper is positioned as an early-stage argument, with later sections expected to address the economic trade-offs for smaller firms and the relative benefits of friendly versus hostile takeovers.
The history of business in almost every industry follows a recognizable pattern: initial diversification, as a number of different firms enter a new field and attempt to establish themselves through their particular blend of skills and innovations, followed by a maturation phase in which a relatively small number of firms become dominant. In many industries, a handful of firms rise to a position of prominence and even near-monopoly status. The elevator industry is currently undergoing such a contraction in the number of active firms, as the sector's leaders — Otis, KONE, and Schindler — are engaged in buying up smaller firms across the United States.
In some cases, the smaller and medium-sized firms are eager to be acquired by companies that can offer their workers better compensation and that can provide prestige and financial backing. Other smaller companies have been taken over through a financial version of force majeure — through the process of hostile takeovers.
This research examines whether it is overall more advantageous, in the current economic environment, to be in the position of buying or selling a company engaged in a service industry — a sector of the economy that is especially vulnerable to economic uncertainty. Are small companies likely to benefit from being taken over, even through a hostile takeover? Or are larger firms more likely to benefit from acquiring smaller firms through either friendly or hostile means?
The primary rule within the world of business has always been the same as in the natural world: evolve or die. Businesses are always engaged either in the process of constantly changing to meet shifting market conditions or are losing — or about to lose — market share to their competitors. In the constant push to remain competitive and to increase productivity, quality, and market share, companies and their leaders have a number of organizational tools at their disposal.
One of these is the takeover. If a firm cannot compete successfully against another company, it can simply acquire it and fold it into its own operations. This requires capital or the ability to borrow it, but the cost of acquisition is often worth it. Although some acquisitions end up being costly failures for the parent company, acquisitions are generally beneficial to the acquiring firm in a world where small companies are increasingly less able to compete independently.
The process of larger companies solidifying their market position through acquiring smaller ones is happening at a dramatic rate in the elevator industry today. Otis Elevator has recently purchased a number of smaller firms in an attempt to consolidate its position as the leading elevator company in the United States, and perhaps in the world. The relatively weak financial position of many of these smaller companies — weakened further by the current economic downturn — has led to a wave of acquisitions that Otis hopes will strengthen its overall market standing. Whether this will prove beneficial over the long term is one of the key questions this paper addresses.
There are certainly business risks involved in a strategy based on acquisition, but Otis has demonstrated that it can pursue this strategy with a high degree of success over several decades. After Otis acquired the French elevator firm Ascinter in 1964, other mergers followed in Germany, Portugal, Austria, Scandinavia, Switzerland, and Spain — a total of 30 by 1970. An association among Otis, Sumitomo, and Matsushita to form Nippon Otis in Japan followed. Since then, there have been joint ventures in China and Russia to penetrate today's emerging markets, and the acquisition in Korea in 1999 that formed Otis-LG — the largest acquisition in Otis's 150-year history.
In some cases, the smaller and medium-sized firms targeted for acquisition are eager to be taken over by companies that can offer better compensation packages for their workers and that can provide financial stability and prestige to the smaller firm. Other smaller companies have been taken over through a financial version of force majeure — through the process of hostile takeovers. The distinction between these two modes of acquisition carries significant implications for the workforce, management, and long-term integration outcomes.
The service sector is particularly susceptible to economic uncertainty, and the elevator industry is no exception. Smaller firms operating in this space often lack the capital reserves, credit access, and diversified revenue streams that larger competitors possess. During periods of economic downturn, these structural disadvantages are amplified, leaving smaller companies exposed to cash flow problems, reduced contract volumes, and the inability to invest in maintenance infrastructure or technological upgrades.
The broader question of whether buyers or sellers benefit most from consolidation in the elevator industry remains complex. While acquiring firms like Otis clearly gain market share, geographic reach, and economies of scale, the fate of smaller acquired firms depends heavily on the terms of acquisition, the health of the parent company, and the economic environment at the time of the deal. As the history of mergers and acquisitions across industries demonstrates, success is never guaranteed — but in a maturing market, the pressure to consolidate or be consolidated is relentless.
You’re 83% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.