Who is Toyota?
Feb 8th, 2010 • Posted in: Commentaryby Rushworth M. Kidder
Last Saturday, my wife and I happened to bicycle past an elegantly designed and immaculately landscaped car dealership, a usually thriving place that’s been selling Toyotas in South Florida since 1968. That afternoon it was packed with vehicles — and empty of customers. On a patch of grass under a palm tree near the entrance, a lone salesman, sleeves rolled up and tie slightly askew, sat atop a picnic table, his feet on the bench. As we passed by, he slowly opened his cell phone and stared dejectedly at the screen as though seeking a sign that something — anything — was happening. Apparently, there were no messages.
As the nation awaits this week’s congressional hearings, the non-message that’s slowly building is one of distrust and dismay that Japan’s sterling automotive manufacturer — the envy of the world, really, and the benchmark that Detroit sought madly to match — could have fallen into such confusion. Last fall’s recall focused on accelerator pedals that get caught under floor mats. The current recall centers on accelerator pedals that stick. A lawsuit from Michigan contends that the 77-year-old driver of a 2005 Toyota Camry was killed when, in 2008, her car suddenly accelerated out of control and hit a tree — a pattern similar to that of a Lexus that raced uncontrollably into a crash in San Diego in August. Now comes word that the company’s signature green car, the Prius hybrid, has braking problems in its latest models and will need a recall as well.
To the public, all of this smacks of a pattern. It’s not as though one recall were for transmissions, another for headlights, and a third for suspensions. Toyota’s problems are all of a piece: They each involve uncontrollable speed. Yet the company seems to be approaching them piecemeal — and reluctantly. Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda, grandson of the founder, has been nearly invisible in the entire process. Nor have his executives telegraphed a clear, forceful message that recognizes the appearance of a pattern and either confirms or dispels that interpretation. As a result, it appears that some root cause, as yet undiscovered, may be lurking beneath the surface.
Little wonder customers are wary. Their concerns go beyond the obvious questions about whether their car can be fixed. They’re asking whether Toyota really understands what’s happening — and whether the company truly is serious about fixing not only its cars but its reputation. In effect, they’re asking the ultimate — and fundamentally moral — question: Who are these people, and what kind of company is this?
This week’s hearings, done right, can raise some important questions:
- When did Toyota first know about these problems, and did they act immediately and forcefully to remedy them? Problems requiring a recall sometimes come to light slowly, of course. But given the mission-critical nature of this problem — uncontrollable speed — did they get out ahead of it fast enough? Or did they respond only because U.S. Transportation secretary Ray LaHood and his National Highway Traffic Safety Administration arm-twisted them into action?
- What should a Toyota driver do with his or her car? Last Wednesday the blunt-spoken Mr. LaHood gave a congressional panel an answer: “Stop driving it,” he said, “and take it to a Toyota dealer.” When that answer sent shares of Toyota stock spiraling still further into decline, LaHood recalibrated his remarks. But his answer may have been the most honest advice so far, inconvenient though it was.
- What if someone keeps driving an unrepaired Toyota and gets into an accident involving an acceleration problem: Will they be liable for ignoring warnings and driving an unsafe vehicle? How serious, in other words, is this issue — and who bears responsibility for it? Will Toyota step forward and own the problem? Or will they let some of their customers take some of the blame?
In the end, questions like these will help us understand Toyota’s corporate culture. Are they committed to integrity or simply to excellence? The former is a moral and ethical position that has to do with their views of responsibility, fairness, and honesty. The latter is an economic and strategic position that focuses on beating the competition. The two are intertwined, but where, in this company, does the primary weight fall? Does it seek integrity only as a pathway to excellence and the competitive advantage that brings? Or does it seek excellence as an essential expression of its true integrity?
Congressional questioners would do well to ask Toyota executives the following question: “We know you are committed to maintaining an excellent, competitive company with a strong bottom line, but not at the expense of X. In your company, what is X?” Where, in other words, will Toyota not go — where will it draw the moral line in the sand? — in pursuit of its goals? The company’s answers — or, perhaps, lack of answers — may send the clearest message yet about who Toyota really is.
©2010 Institute for Global Ethics
Find this and previous weeks’ commentaries online as a podcast titled Ethicast™ now available on iTunes. Subscribe today!
Print This Story
Email This Story
Dear Mr Kidder For the first time ever I find that one of your articles seems to lack objectivity. Perhaps the media here in Australia does not cover this issue well, or perhaps it can look at it more objectively than the American media. All that I have read here indicates that Toyota, at the highest level, has instigated investigations into the incidents and is concerned about the problems identified. I cannot believe that Toyota, with an exceptional record of engineering quality and concern for safety, would not take these issues seriously. Perhaps more time is needed to gain perspective before writing about the subject as you have. I do hope the American media has not perniciously targeted Toyota because of its success in taking market share from American automobile manufacturers.
John Oxley
PS I am sure that I will continue to enjoy your ethical insights. One swallow does not make a summer!
Dear Dr. Kidder: If it is acceptable to submit a response to a response, it seems clear to me that your article’s approach is more Socratic than subjective. There is little, if anything, that condemns, as your questions probe the issues to explore the juxtaposition of economics and ethics. Perhaps the suggestion that your article “…perniciously targeted Toyota because of its success in taking market share from American automobile manufacturers.” is a reflection of a bias from down under.
P.S. Not only does one swallow not make a summer, neither does one swallow make a comprehensive ethical diet.
There may be an ethical question in Toyota’s problems, but probably not the one you have identified. This is principally a legal, financial and public relations problem. Despite Toyota’s claims to have identified a technical solution to the sticking accelerator problem, I would wager that no one at Toyota really believes accelerators are sticking and causing runaway autos. Runaway acceleration has been an issue for decades, and engineers have never found a clear, technical cause. The most likely cause is driver errors, but lawyers and the “victims” refuse to accept this explanation. The dilemma for Toyota is that it is very poor public relations to simple assert that the problem lies with drivers, not their cars, and refuse to take action. However, if they admit to a technical flaw they open themselves to billions in lawsuits from everyone who ever had an accident while driving a Toyota product. So the dilemma is deciding between taking aggressive action to “solve” what is most probably a “phantom” problem because it’s good public relations, and opening themselves up to expensive recalls and lawsuits. The premise you base your ethical considerations on is that we cannot trust big corporations — they will default to greed at the expense of doing right by their customers in every instance if not forced by government regulations to do otherwise. This is simply false. In today’s enlightened era, it is literally suicide for a company to behave in that way, so they universally cultivate a “customer first” attitude. The problem is that, as a society, we are much too quick to panic over issues that do not warrant such fears. This fear is abetted by the ever-circling pack of lawyers eager to extort big legal claims from deep-pocketed corporations. There are numerous examples of bogus health scares from recent history: silicon breat implants, high voltage power lines, brain cancer caused by cell phone radiation, chemicals sprayed on apples, vaccines that are supposed to cause autism, and the list goes on. We never seem to learn from any of these cases. Drivers involved in accidents have tried to blame a sticking accelerator for decades. The only dilemma for Toyota is how to secure good public relations without excessive cost.
I concur with Mr. Oxley’s comments. I find the blatant abuse of Toyota by the media and the Obama admin/LaHood to be questionable at best.(Saying something and then retracting it, still puts it out there!) The American car co’s have had such horrific problems in recent years…and now that they are gov’t owned – their “go for the jugular” toward Toyota makes me wonder about their motive? Could we see a side-by-side comparison, over say the last ten years of recall problems with the top 5 car co’s??? I would wager that Toyota scores way above the others.
Actually, Jeanine, for the past five years Toyota’s recall record has been pretty lousy directly correlated to its rise in market share. Most consumers expect Toyota to sail through these choppy waters and emerge unscathed. Breck captures the quandary faced by Toyota, and any auto maker. Most of the highest profile recalls, debacles, whatever you want to call them in the recent past (Audi, Suzuki, Firestone, Crown Victoria) were later found to be driver related or outright fraud.