Gwangju Auto Parts Companies Stress Urgent Need to Foster Local Talent

Gwangju Human Resources Committee Surveys 130 Companies
158 Personnel Needed... Salary Conditions Pose Challenges
More Than Half Not Considering Transition to Future Vehicles
"Lower Parts Prices... Foster Local Talent"

Gwangju Chamber of Commerce and Industry Exterior View

Automotive parts companies in the Gwangju region are experiencing a manpower shortage, highlighting the need for tailored support to foster local talent and prevent talent outflow.

According to a survey conducted in the second half of last year by the Gwangju Regional Human Resources Development Committee targeting 130 automotive parts companies in Gwangju, the number of personnel needed by these companies was 158. By job function, 36.7% were in research and development, 31.0% in production, and 17.8% in testing, evaluation, and quality.

Companies in the Gwangju automotive parts sector are experiencing manpower gaps due to conditions such as salary. The main reasons for the manpower shortage were: difficulty meeting applicants' requirements such as salary (33.8%), difficulty finding applicants with the necessary competencies (33.1%), lack of applicants (18.5%), and outflow of existing personnel due to turnover or resignation (10.8%).

The number of personnel requiring training (education) was also around 411. By job function, this included production (43.8%), research and development (18.0%), and testing, evaluation, and quality (12.1%).

More than half (59.2%) of responding companies were not considering diversification in preparation for the future automobile market. "Diversification" refers to expanding into new product lines (such as parts development for electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, and autonomous vehicles) or markets (automotive-related services) beyond the traditional internal combustion engine automobile manufacturing business.

The main reason for not pursuing diversification was uncertainty about business prospects due to intensified competition (25.9%), followed by difficulties in securing funds (19.0%), lack of information (13.8%), difficulties in securing technology (10.3%), and difficulties in developing sales channels (10.3%). Additionally, 10.3% of companies believed that the impact of transitioning to future vehicles would be minimal for the time being.

The Gwangju Regional Human Resources Development Committee analyzed that automotive parts companies in Gwangju are facing significant challenges due to a lack of continuous training to improve understanding of electric vehicle technologies for both new and existing employees, and a lack of systematic education and training related to new technologies and eco-friendly technology development for research and development personnel.

In addition, companies stated that policies are needed to support price reductions for parts, provide more flexible basic conditions required by companies (such as moving into advanced industrial complexes), and offer tailored support to foster and retain local talent.

Accordingly, the Gwangju Regional Human Resources Development Committee, together with Honam Vocational School and Korea Polytechnics, has already established four regular electric vehicle training courses this year and plans to continue developing and providing practical, customized training courses needed by companies through ad hoc programs.

Lee Huyeong, Secretary-General of the Gwangju Regional Human Resources Development Committee, said, "In the first half of last year, it seemed as if the era of electric vehicles was imminent, but from the second half, the so-called 'chasm phenomenon' of electric vehicles appeared rapidly, changing the market atmosphere. Now is the last opportunity to prepare for the transition to future vehicles," adding, "The Gwangju Regional Human Resources Development Committee will continue to develop and provide regionally customized training courses and contribute to job creation in the Gwangju area."

Meanwhile, looking at the responding companies by cooperation stage, 26.9% were first-tier suppliers, 44.6% were second-tier suppliers, 7.7% were third-tier suppliers, and 2.3% were fourth-tier suppliers. A total of 71.5% of all responding companies were first- or second-tier suppliers.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.