The lessons we must learn from Volkswagen
The Volkswagen scandal has revealed many things. On the one hand, that we cannot allow systems that incentivize companies to focus on profits at any cost, particularly when we are talking about public health and the future of the planet. That all may sound idealistic, but so far all we have heard from Volkswagen are excuses and attempts to further obfuscate the outrageous offenses the company has committed and that are going to have, and must have, huge repercussions.
What can be said about the world’s biggest carmaker announcing a freeze on all non-essential projects until the economic impact of the emissions-cheating scandal has been fully assessed? What does it mean at the moment of the most important moments of technological change in the motor industry that the planet’s leading brand is putting a hold on innovation? The impact of fines, compensations, lawsuits and implementing new policies will be huge — in some cases cars will probably have to be replaced entirely — , along with fewer resources to invest in certain projects (the terms “essential” and “non-essential” are key here in the context of the company’s survival. And that is without taking into account the company’s reputation.
But perhaps we’re being a little naïve here: at bottom, this situation is very similar to what has happened in politics. It’s very hard to demand honesty from the people who run society when it has been shown time and again that most people would also succumb to the temptations of corruption.
I’m not making excuses for corruption, but as we’ll see in the case of Volkswagen, there are some similarities in our attitude to wrongdoing in both areas.
- “They are picking on Volkswagen; all carmakers do this, but they have gone after them because this is a trade war.” No, no, and no. There are makes that cheat some parts of the tests carried out on their vehicles, but this is a sustained lie, carried out over many years, carefully thought out, and designed to give Volkswagen a competitive advantage and that has put millions of vehicles on the road, and that quite simply has no precedent. Defending Volkswagen on the basis that other companies would do the same is unjustifiable.
- “Now they’ll overhaul my car and it will lose its performance… can I refuse?” Sorry? You need further proof that you are poisoning the air, and even then you’d prefer to keep your car so you can get away from the traffic lights more quickly? Have you ever thought about your priorities?
- “Too big to fail”. We would rather keep jobs even if they are making things that poison us. This is pretty much the Spanish government’s position: “Okay, Volkswagen was doing what it was doing, but let’s hope it doesn’t think about reducing its investments in Spain”… Again, a priorities rethink is very much needed.
- “Diesel motors last longer and are more efficient”. Of course, and they also poison the planet and make life difficult for those of use who live in the city, contributing to severe lung disease and even cancer rates. The elephant in the room here is that we need a full reset and to ban certain technologies on the basis of their environmental impact, but most people throw their hands up when you suggest this. Quite simply, nobody is ready to listen to the truth, which is that the internal combustion engine has taken the planet to its limits. In reality, a huge number of people prefer a more durable engine that costs less to refill, even if this means poisoning the planet and its inhabitants. In the end, the real winners here are the electric car and ride-sharing, the only way to reduce emissions. Companies like Tesla will benefit as it produces cheaper and cheaper electric cars, investing its profits to keep cars on the straight and narrow: in the United States owning an electric car is now a status symbol, way above running a Ferrari. That is the idea, but nobody seems willing to take the next step. If you want a better idea of what I’m talking about, read this wonderfully ironic article written by the Tesla owners’ association of Sweden.
- “Pollution everywhere… but I continue to travel by car.” Using public transport, ride sharing, or electric vehicles gives me range anxiety. We can call our road worthiness tests a kind of indirect tax, but they do at least serve to detect and correct some excessive emissions. It’s clear: if when we start our car in the morning a huge cloud of black smoke comes out of the exhaust, the first thing we do is make sure we get to work, then, if there’s time, we might take it to the garage. Comfort and short-term thinking always win out over the truly important questions.
- “What happened at Volkswagen is not a failure of Corporate Social Responsibility: it is just an isolated case. My company is fantastic, green, and would never do anything like this.” Right. What’s the point of laws against murder, because me and my family would never do anything like that. What this case shows is that under no circumstances can these kind of questions be dealt with on a self-regulation basis. Corporate goals and those of CSR have to properly aligned and carried out different. If you work in CSR and still haven’t given any thought as to how to improve systems that have clearly failed, you need to think about changing your profession, for your own good and that of the planet.
The corrective measures taken at Volkswagen need to be exemplary and far reaching. They must address every aspect, and constitute major reparation for the damage that has been incurred, even though we know that some of the harm done cannot be undone. But above all, the Volkswagen crisis should be a reminder that we need to rethink many of our priorities: as citizens, as inhabitants of the planet, or simply as the rational beings we like to think we are.
(En español, aquí)
