Breaking news

Volkswagen’s Cost-Cutting Plan Faces Scrutiny As Traditional Methods Clash with Bold Promises

Volkswagen’s recent cost-cutting agreement, hailed as crucial for its survival amidst increasing competition and declining demand, leans heavily on the company’s longstanding tradition of collaboration between management and workers. However, this approach has sparked concerns among investors about the company’s ability to meet its ambitious targets, including reducing capacity and cutting 35,000 jobs.

The deal, which was reached just before Christmas, aims to tackle the company’s challenges, with workers and unions now engaging in discussions at factories across Germany to clarify the details. According to company sources, each plant will be given its cost-reduction target, with mixed teams of managers and labor representatives working together to devise strategies that enhance productivity. These targets will be reviewed quarterly, and if any interim milestones are missed, new negotiations may be necessary.

This method aligns with Volkswagen’s history of compromise and cooperation, but it also raises questions about its effectiveness in driving the required changes. The model avoids a top-down restructuring approach that might have been more decisive but could have led to unrest or strikes.

Investors have been left underwhelmed by the deal, with Volkswagen shares trading below the levels seen in October, before a sharp decline in quarterly profits. Analysts like Patrick Hummel from UBS believe the market needs to see concrete plans for long-term profitability, with a focus on how the cost-cutting measures will impact the company’s bottom line in the next two years.

Capacity Reductions And Plant Closures Remain Uncertain

As the deal progresses, questions persist about how Volkswagen will reduce its workforce and production capacity. Unions have been informed that the company is considering closing three to four plants, though Volkswagen has declined to confirm specific closures. The final agreement does include the closure of two factories: one in Dresden by 2025, and another in Osnabrueck by 2027. However, both sites may be repurposed for alternative uses, with potential new investors involved.

The company’s Zwickau plant, which produces electric vehicles, will lose one production line but will receive investment in a new recycling facility, which is set to begin operations in 2027. These new investments, however, are contingent on meeting cost-cutting goals, as Volkswagen’s finance chief Arno Antlitz made clear in recent comments to investors.

The company has also identified capacity reductions at its Wolfsburg headquarters, where two production lines will be cut. While Volkswagen has stated that the deal will result in savings of €15 billion over the “medium term,” investors remain uncertain about how this approach compares to the more direct route of plant closures.

Job Cuts Remain A Major Challenge

Another pressing concern is how Volkswagen will achieve its target of shedding 35,000 jobs. While the company previously promised to cut 30,000 jobs in 2016, its workforce size has remained largely stable due to new hires in other areas. The current plan to meet the target relies on not replacing retiring employees and offering voluntary early or partial retirement options. A clause in the deal guarantees jobs until 2030, a concession won by unions after Volkswagen canceled a previous job guarantee agreement in September.

Despite the uncertainties surrounding the cost-cutting plan, some analysts believe that Volkswagen’s CEO, Oliver Blume, has done well in navigating the complexities of dealing with unions and local politicians, who have significant influence over the company’s decisions. Moritz Kronenberger, portfolio manager at Union Investment, notes that although the deal may appear underwhelming, it represents deeper cuts than many had anticipated.

Blume’s leadership is under scrutiny. As Kronenberger points out, “Blume remains the right CEO, but the company’s cost structure must look very different in two years. Volkswagen needs to prove it’s ready for the future and can continue to produce attractive products.” For now, Blume’s ambitious promises have left him both vulnerable and accountable as Volkswagen seeks to secure its future in a rapidly changing industry.

When AI Agents Start Shopping For Your Clothes: Fashion’s Agentic Commerce Challenge

Agentic AI can book your flight and reorder your coffee. But fashion shopping runs on browsing, inspiration, and bodies that don’t come in standard sizes. That combination is proving far harder for autonomous agents to crack.

The Promise Meets Its Hardest Category

Late last year, we covered how agentic commerce is reshaping global transactions. The illustration was crisp: tell an AI to find the cheapest red-eye flight from Singapore to Tokyo under $500, and it searches, compares, books, and pays. Done. The entire purchase happens inside a single conversation.

Flights are standardized products. A seat is a seat. A price is a price. The agent’s job is clear, the criteria measurable, the outcome binary. But what happens when the AI agent needs to buy you a dress for a wedding in Mykonos?

Fashion is where agentic commerce runs into a wall. And the reasons go deeper than most industry commentary acknowledges.

Fashion Is A Browsing Category, Not A Searching Category

81ad1994 a113 4680 bcf5 ce0391de0487

When someone shops for electronics, they typically know the product. “Samsung Galaxy S26, 256GB, best price.” The intent is specific, the comparison is numerical, and an AI agent can handle it without breaking a sweat.

Fashion works differently. Most consumers don’t know what they want when they start shopping for clothes. They browse. They scroll. They stumble onto a jacket they didn’t know existed and suddenly rethink the entire outfit. This isn’t a flaw in how people shop. It’s the point.

Academic research confirms what anyone who has ever spent 40 minutes on a fashion app already knows: online clothing shopping is dominated by what researchers call “diversive exploration” — browsing for enjoyment and discovery, distinct from goal-directed search. The behavior is hedonic, not utilitarian. People don’t just want the product. They want the process.

The numbers back this up. According to McKinsey’s State of Fashion 2026 report, shopping-related searches on generative AI platforms grew 4,700% between 2024 and 2025, with AI supporting “inspiration and product comparison” — especially in fashion, where choice abounds. Consumers are using AI to discover, not to delegate. A separate Bain & Company study from April 2026 found that 44% of US online buyers now start their journey in an LLM or split between AI and traditional search. But in fashion specifically, 46% use AI for “discovering new products and getting inspired,” while usage drops sharply as activities move closer to checkout and payment.

An AI agent can book a flight autonomously because the consumer’s intent is clear. In fashion, the intent is often vague, “something for summer”, or absent: “I’m just looking.” You can’t delegate browsing to an agent. Browsing is the experience.

Even When You Know Exactly What You Want

Suppose a consumer does have a specific goal. They want a pair of Camper Pelotas in size 42. Straightforward enough for an AI agent, right?

Not quite.

A size 42 in Camper is not a size 42 in Nike, which is not a size 42 in Adidas. There is no universal sizing standard in fashion. Every brand calibrates differently, and some brands are inconsistent across their own product lines. An AI agent that confidently orders the “right” size has roughly a coin-flip chance of getting it wrong in certain categories. European fashion return rates hover between 25% and 40%, with size and fit issues accounting for more than half of all returns, according to Statista and European e-commerce industry data. In Germany, the practice of “bracketing”, ordering three sizes of the same item to try at home, pushes online fashion return rates above 44%.

Then there’s the visual dimension. A flat product photo in an AI chat window doesn’t replicate what happens when a consumer sees a shoe alongside ten alternatives on a comparison grid. Context matters. Styling matters. The way a sandal looks next to a linen dress matters. Pinterest’s visual search technology has driven a 387% revenue increase for participating merchants, and visual search users convert at rates 73% higher than text-based searchers, according to industry data tracked by eCommerce Times. Platforms like Spangle are proving that AI-powered visual personalization lifts revenue per visit by up to 50%.

There’s a final paradox. Price comparison absolutely works in fashion — the same branded shoe can differ by 30% across retailers. But consumers also compare across products. “Do I want the Camper or the Clarks?” That requires visual side-by-side browsing, and current AI agents can’t replicate it well. They’re designed to return a result, not to facilitate a process.

e4533ba5 70c3 49b1 8fb9 41e1e1747859

The Infrastructure Gap

For AI agents to operate autonomously in fashion, they need structured, real-time data: normalized product attributes, cross-retailer pricing, size mapping, availability signals, and brand reliability scores. This infrastructure barely exists.

Consider how hard this is even in simpler categories. Cyprus’s government-backed e-Kalathi grocery comparison platform launched with the goal of transparent supermarket price tracking. Within months, the Cyprus Consumer Association flagged accuracy problems — pricing inconsistencies, incomplete product coverage, misleading comparisons. And that’s groceries, where a bottle of milk is a bottle of milk.

Fashion is orders of magnitude harder. Product feeds arrive in dozens of incompatible formats. A “navy blue slim-fit cotton shirt” from one retailer might be listed as a “dark blue fitted cotton top” from another — same product, entirely different data. Normalizing that across thousands of products from dozens of retailers requires purpose-built AI pipelines. Stylino, a Cyprus-based fashion price comparison engine, processes feeds from 65+ retailers and uses AI to match and deduplicate over 385,000 products into a single searchable catalogue. Building that kind of data layer took months of custom engineering — and it’s the sort of plumbing that agentic commerce will eventually need to function in fashion.

On the visual side, companies like Aiuta are using AI to generate styled product imagery and virtual try-on experiences, addressing the content bottleneck that currently limits how well any automated system can present fashion to consumers. These building blocks, structured data, visual content, size intelligence, will eventually form the infrastructure layer that agents plug into. But we’re early.

The Likely Sequence

Fashion won’t leap from browsing to fully autonomous purchasing. The transition will happen in stages, and each stage suits a different kind of AI intervention.

First, consumers browse and discover. This is visual, emotional, and social. It won’t be delegated to an agent anytime soon, because delegation defeats the purpose. Second, AI helps compare prices and availability across retailers — this is already happening and provides genuine value. Third, AI monitors price drops, tracks wish lists, and sends alerts when a saved item goes on sale. Useful, but still decision-support rather than decision-making. Fourth, AI executes purchases on known, pre-approved items: reorders, basics, and items the consumer has bought before in the right size.

Only that last step is truly “agentic.” And it applies primarily to commodity fashion: underwear, socks, a replacement white t-shirt, not to the discovery-driven shopping that accounts for most fashion spending. McKinsey’s European agentic commerce research confirms this sequencing: AI is being adopted first as a “decision-support layer, compressing research, comparison, and synthesis,” with usage declining as activities move closer to execution.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth for the agentic commerce narrative: the fitting room is where most fashion decisions actually happen. It’s physical. It’s emotional. Sometimes it involves a friend outside the curtain saying, “absolutely not.” AI agents are exceptional at finding you the cheapest red-eye to Tokyo. They are not standing in that fitting room mirror with you. The agent who wins in fashion won’t be the one who buys for you. It’ll be the one that helps you see better: more options, better prices, smarter comparisons, while you keep making the call.

Aretilaw firm
The Future Forbes Realty Global Properties
Uol
eCredo

Become a Speaker

Become a Speaker

Become a Partner

Subscribe for our weekly newsletter