014年 06月 06日 08:12
通用汽車因點火開關問題解僱15人
通
用汽車公司(General Motors Co.)首席執行長巴拉(Mary Barra)解僱了15名員工。此前她表示有份異常嚴峻的報告讓她深感不安，該報告闡述了為何召回那些點火開關有缺陷的車輛花了通用汽車11年時間。巴拉說，公司訓斥了另外五名與調查有關的員工。調查由美國前律師瓦盧卡斯(Anton Valukas)領導。點火開關失靈導致了諸多車禍和死亡事件。
通用汽車拒絕透露被解僱五人的姓名，僅證實稱其中包括工程師Raymond DeGiorgio和Gary Altman。巴拉說，這五人當中有超過一半為公司高管，但通用汽車法律總顧問Michael Millikin仍在公司效力。
巴 拉拒絕進一步披露為何DeGiorgio決定在2006年初更換點火開關，儘管他的上級知道開關存在問題，而且所有人都出於成本考慮決定再等一年再修正這 個問題。點火開關問題最初在2004年被發現，2005年通用汽車發佈了雪佛蘭科寶(Chevrolet Cobalt)。
Jeff Bennett / Mike Ramsey
承受安全問責壓力，通用接連召回故障汽車
, 2014年05月21日
Paul Sancya/Associated Press
2006年，在密歇根州奧賴恩鎮，一家通用汽車工廠外展示的龐蒂克G6車型。
周二，通用汽車(General Motors)又宣布了四起召回行動。今年迄今，通用汽車宣布召回了1350萬輛汽車，已是公司歷史上召回汽車最多的一年。
周二的召回行動涉及240萬輛轎車、卡車和運動型多功能
車。對於這家美國最大的汽車生產商來說，召回行動代表着非同尋常的巨大轉變。今年2月以來，該公司一直處於聯邦官員、汽車安全倡導人士和消費者的巨大壓力
之下，這是因為，在長達10年的時間裡，通用汽車都未能修復點火開關存在問題的車輛。通用汽車已經承認，這個缺陷與13人的死亡有關。
作為回應，公司已經在安全操作方面做出了大範圍調整，並且在更加積極地查找問題。公司今年召回汽車的累積數量，已遠遠大於去年召回的75.8萬輛，是去年國內銷量——近280萬輛——的四倍還多。目前，在任意時間點，美國的註冊汽車大約有2.5億輛。
不過，通用汽車最近在安全問題上採用的強勢出擊手法，並沒有讓一些最激烈的批評者感到滿意。
康涅狄格州的民主党參議員理乍得·布盧門撒爾(Richard Blumenthal)周二在採訪中說，「他們只是在控制損失，對因為他們長期掩蓋安全問題而引發的憤怒做出反應。」
由於通用汽車未能及時將汽車點火開關的缺陷告知政府官員，上周，美國交通部對其處以了3500萬美元（約合2.2億元人民幣）的罰款——已是法律允許的最高額度——並對其安全措施實施監管。
隨着州級和聯邦機構開展更多調查，這家汽車生產商目前迫切需要證明，自己提高了對汽車安全的重視程度。
通用汽車的首席執行官瑪麗·T·芭拉(Mary T. Barra)今年4月在國會的聽證會上說，公司打算迅速根除問題，對汽車進行修理。
「通用汽車的全體員工以及我本人都下定決心要設定新標杆，」芭拉說。
通用汽車已任命公司歷史上首位負責全球汽車安全事務的副總裁傑夫·博耶爾(Jeff Boyer)。公司還增加了35名產品調查員，研究保修索賠等數據，尋找以前可能未發現的汽車缺陷。
今年迄今，包括周二宣布的四起召回行動，通用汽車已經因為安全問題在美國發起29宗召回，涵蓋了十幾款車型和多種有缺陷的零部件。
對通用汽車來說，這是羞愧難當的經歷。2009年破產保護並獲得495億美元的聯邦救援款之後，通用汽車一直在宣傳公司的全面改進。
一些行業分析師稱，芭拉和公司承受的壓力起到了作用。
汽車業調研公司凱利藍皮書(Kelley Blue Book)的分析師埃里克·伊巴拉(Eric Ibara)說，「看到她兌現了證詞和新聞稿中的諾言，這讓人感到寬慰，但事實上，這反映了聯邦監管機構正在採取更強硬的立場。」
維修這些汽車需要很大一筆開銷。周二宣布召回的車輛需要2億美元的維修費，因此，通用汽車今年在安全措施上的總花費將達17億美元，會抹掉很大一部分利潤。
此外，儘管通用汽車的銷量沒有受到多大影響，但其汽車質量的聲譽已經遭受重創。
就在最近這次召回行動的同時，布盧門撒爾和來自佛羅里達州的共和党參議員林賽·格雷厄姆(Lindsey Graham)推出了一份提案，目的是使企業更難以封鎖產品可靠性案件中的法庭記錄。
今年的召回規模打破了通用汽車公司之前的記錄——2004年的1070多萬輛。
通用汽車周二表示，最新一輪召回的汽車中包括1300萬輛大型運動型多功能車。這些車的前座安全帶長期使用後容易老化和斷裂。
存在問題的車型是2009至2014年款的別克昂科雷(Enclaves)、雪佛蘭Traverse和GMC Acadias，以及2009至2010年款的土星Outlooks。
通用汽車沒有披露是否知曉與該問題有關的事故或人員受傷情況，但它告訴經銷商，在維修完成之前，不得銷售這些型號的新車或二手車。
第二起召回則涉及超過100萬輛的2007至2008年款的中型車，包括雪佛蘭邁銳寶(Malibu)、邁銳寶Maxx(Malibu Maxx)和龐蒂克G6轎車。這些車型的電纜問題可能導致司機難以換擋。
通用汽車表示，已經得知18起事故和一人受傷與該問題有關。
另外兩起召回行動的規模更小，但涉及剛剛上市的幾款新車型。
通用汽車稱，正在召回1402輛2015年款的凱迪拉克凱雷德(Escalades)和凱雷德加長版(Escalade ESV)。這兩款車型存在一處焊接問題，可能導致事故發生時只有部分安全氣囊啟動。
通用汽車還表示，將召回58輛重型雪佛蘭西爾維拉多(Silverado)和GMC西拉(Sierra)皮卡。這是規模最小的召回行動之一。兩種車型來自2015年款的產品系列，車上一個發電機的緊固件可能會鬆動，進而帶來火災風險。
投資者也注意到了通用汽車的種種問題。當天，整體股市下跌不到1%，但通用汽車的股價下挫了將近3.5%，至每股33.07美元。
今年以來，通用汽車的股價已下滑了將近20%。
翻譯：王湛A Flurry of Recalls at G.M. as Pressure Mounts
and May 21, 2014
General Motors issued four new recalls on Tuesday,
bringing its total for the year to 13.5 million, already the most in the
company’s history.
The recalls — including 2.4
million cars, trucks and sport utility vehicles involved in Tuesday’s
actions — represent an extraordinary about-face for the nation’s largest
automaker. Since February, G.M. has been under intense pressure from
federal officials, safety advocates and consumers for its decade-long
failure to fix cars with a defective ignition switch that G.M. has
linked to 13 deaths.
In response, it has made
broad changes to its safety practices and more aggressively identified
problems. Its mounting tally of safety actions has already far surpassed
the 758,000 vehicles that the company recalled in the United States
last year, and it is more than four times the nearly 2.8 million
vehicles it sold domestically last year. At any given time, about 250
million cars are registered in America.
But the newly aggressive approach to safety has not mollified some of G.M.’s toughest critics.
“They are doing damage
control and reacting to the outrage over their history of concealing
safety issues,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut,
said in an interview on Tuesday.
Last week, the
Transportation Department hit G.M. with a $35 million penalty, the
maximum allowed under law, and imposed oversight of the automaker’s
safety practices for neglecting to inform government officials of the
ignition-switch defect in a timely manner.
And with more state and
federal investigations underway, the automaker desperately needs to
demonstrate that it is taking vehicle safety more seriously than in the
past.
G.M.’s chief executive,
Mary T. Barra, said during congressional hearings in April that the
company was intent on swiftly rooting out problems with its vehicles and
repairing them.
“All of our G.M. employees and I are determined to set a new standard,” Ms. Barra said.
G.M. has named the
company’s first vice president in charge of global vehicle safety, Jeff
Boyer. It has also added 35 product investigators to examine warranty
claims and other data for vehicle defects that might not have been
detected before.
So far this year, the
company has issued 29 safety recalls in the United States, including the
four announced on Tuesday, covering dozens of models and a wide range
of defective parts.
It has been a humbling
experience for a company that has promoted its overall improvements
since going bankrupt and receiving a $49.5 billion federal bailout in
2009.
Industry analysts said the pressure on Ms. Barra and the company was having an effect.
“It is reassuring to see
that her actions match her testimony and press releases, but the fact is
that it is a reflection of a tougher stance being adopted by federal
regulators,” said Eric Ibara, an analyst with the auto-research firm
Kelley Blue Book.
The repair bills have been
costly as well. The recalls announced on Tuesday, which required a $200
million charge, brought the overall expense of G.M.’s safety actions
this year to $1.7 billion, wiping out much of its profit.
And while G.M.’s sales have not suffered, its reputation for vehicle quality has been badly tarnished.
The latest recall also came
as Senator Blumenthal and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of
Florida, introduced legislation that would make it harder for
corporations to seal court records in product-liability lawsuits.
This year’s recalls broke G.M.’s previous record for recalled cars, more than 10.7 million in 2004.
G.M. said on Tuesday that
its latest round of recalls included 1.3 million large S.U.V.s that had
front-seat safety belts that could wear out and break over time.
The vehicles with the problem are 2009-14 Buick Enclaves, Chevrolet Traverses and GMC Acadias, and 2009-10 Saturn Outlooks.
G.M. did not say whether it
knew of accidents or injuries associated with the issue, but it has
told its dealers they cannot sell new or used models of the vehicles
until repairs are made.
Another recall covers more
than a million midsize cars from the 2007-8 model years. The vehicles
include the Chevrolet Malibu, Malibu Maxx and Pontiac G6 sedans, and the
recall involves faulty cables that could make it difficult for drivers
to shift gears.
G.M. said it was aware of 18 crashes and one injury related to the problem.
The two other recalls were smaller, but they involved new models that had only recently gone on sale.
G.M. said it was recalling
1,402 Cadillac Escalades and Escalade ESVs from the 2015 model year for a
defective weld that could result in only partial deployment of air bags
in an accident.
And in one of the smallest
recalls on record, G.M. said it would recall 58 heavy-duty Chevrolet
Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups from its 2015 model lineup because
fasteners attached to a generator could become loose and potentially
cause fires.
The company’s troubles have
not gone unnoticed by investors. On a day when the broader stock market
fell less than 1 percent, G.M.’s shares fell nearly 3.5 percent, to
$33.07 a share.
G.M.’s stock price has declined nearly 20 percent this year.
Whether General Motors should take its recalled cars off the road is up to federal transportation authorities, a judge has ruled, marking a victory for the company as it faces a legal battle related to the recall of 2.6 million vehicles over faulty ignition switches
A U.S. judge said Thursday that recalled General Motors cars can stay on the road, a major victory for the company as it faces an uphill legal battle related to 2.6 million vehicles recently recalled over malfunctioning ignition switches.
The decision came in a lawsuit brought against them by a couple seeking compensation for the lost value of their recalled 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt. Their Cobalt was recalled along with millions of other GM vehicles after it was discovered the cars’ ignition switches can be inadvertently set to “off” while the car is being operated, disabling power steering and other features. The ignition switch problem has been linked to at least 13 deaths.
The couples’ lawsuit demanded “park it now” notices for every vehicle included in the recall, which would’ve forced owners of the affected cars to keep their vehicles off the road. GM opposed issuing such notices, claiming the car is safe if nothing is attached to the keyin the ignition and arguing that taking all affected cars off the road would be a logistical nightmare.
The judge in the case ruled that determining whether the cars need to be taken off the road is up to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Although the judge’s decision is a win for GM, it’s just one in a growing series of legal battles against the company for the ignition issue, which the company has reportedly known about for years.
Wide-Ranging Recall
By BILL VLASIC
The departures of General Motors’ chief spokesman and head Washington adviser, and its top human resources executive are the first major changes in the automaker’s senior management since a recall in February.
這種事， Alfred Sloan 會如何處理？
通
用汽車公司(General Motors Co.)首席執行長Mary Barra稱，該公司計劃在其產品開發團隊中設立一個全球產品整合部門 ( 這翻譯有點問題： global product integrity organization) ，這一部門將涵蓋該公司不久前成立的產品安全部門。今年2月以來，通用汽車公司因多種問題在全球範圍內累計召回700萬輛汽車，其中包括點火開關、剎車和其他問題。
通用汽車首席執行長Mary Barra稱，計劃在其產品開發團隊中設立一個名為global product integrity organization 的部門，該部門將涵蓋公司不久前成立的產品安全部門。
*****
Henry Ford is rightly credited with inventing the assembly line—and with it mass production. But it was his great rival at General Motors (GM), Alfred Sloan, who really invented modern professional management. Sloan organised his company into divisions that specialised in cars “for every purse and purpose” and he fashioned a managerial class that turned GM into the world’s biggest company. His 1964 book, My Years with General Motors, is a cool explanation of how he did it (“management has been my specialisation,” he wrote flatly). It is a book that puts subsequent business autobiographies to shame.
今天讀
GM's Opel Accelerates Its Path to Profitability1
My Years with General Motors By Alfred Sloan 我與通用汽車公司 台北：協志，1971
第18章海外的活動有併吞Opel公司的詳細決策分析
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/price-gm-recalls-advice-mary-barra/
暫時找不到作者
It is about as big a corporate crisis as anyone could imagine: a defective product that leads to deaths, denials and cover-ups, a sluggish corporate response to grieving families, and a government investigation that has raised its own questions of accountability. General Motors does not stand alone in the recall hall of shame, but a combination of its venerable brand and recent storyline — including a promising comeback from bankruptcy, now threatened — gives the revelations of the last few months a particularly powerful punch. What did GM know, who knew it and when?
As the wait for answers goes on, there is a company to run and a crisis to manage that could either cripple GM or empower it. Though several acts remain to be played out in this drama, experts in corporate governance and crisis management say that so far, GM and the woman in the hot seat, CEO Marry Barra, are doing a decent — but not stellar — job of managing the fallout.
“Mary Barra seems to fully embody the position of the CEO who is sorry. She recognizes that she has to pass on the [corporation’s] deepest regrets, and I think she’s been pretty convincing on that score,” says Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics Amy Sepinwall. “Also notable, she wants us to understand that GM recognizes the error of its ways to the point where it’s not the same company in some meaningful sense. I think that is a powerful trope. We are inclined to forgive sinners when they have changed their character to the extent that it is almost a rupture in their identity.”
GM has recalled 2.6 million cars, mostly Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn Ions, after revelations that a faulty ignition switch could shut down the engine, lock steering and power breaks, and disable airbags. The flaw has been linked to at least 13 deaths. Barra, who took the helm at GM in January and is the first female CEO of a major international automaker, was called before Congress to explain why the company spent a decade doing nothing about the problem. In one particularly shameful case, GM had threatened to go after a victim’s family for legal fees if they did not drop a lawsuit against the automaker, The New York Times reported.It’s a critical moment because the recall scandal comes just as GM was coming back to life, says David Vinjamuri, author of the book, Accidental Branding. “They had finally started to get the bankruptcy behind them, they have had some very well reviewed products … [and] they seemed to be firing on all cylinders,” he notes. “This is really a potential inflection point where they show that they are a company that can break the mold” in terms of how they handle a crisis, “or fall back into an old pattern.” That old pattern, Vinjamuri adds, would be choosing “to minimize the cost of the crisis rather than maximizing the value of the brand long term.”
Echoes of Exploding Pintos
Lawrence G. Hrebiniak, emeritus professor of management at Wharton, points out that recalls, cover-ups and threatening behavior by GM carry some historical resonance. “If you look at the auto industry, they don’t come across as clear, decisive and positive. In 1965, Ralph Nader wrote Unsafe at Any Speed [which documented car manufacturers’ resistance to adopting safety equipment, such as seat belts]. The auto industry not only denied [these accusations], they went as far as digging up dirt on Nader rather than facing the problem head on,” he notes. “Nader won a ton of money in a judgment against GM. Shortly after that, there was the [controversy involving the Ford] Pinto and the exploding fuel tank. There is a history here.”
“Mary Barra seems to fully embody the position of the CEO who is sorry.”–Amy Sepinwall
In the case of the Pinto, in which a rear-impact collision could result in an exploding fuel tank, it was discovered that an $11 shield could have diminished risk. The more recent GM case centered on a 57-cent part inside the cars’ ignition switches. In both instances, it seems companies made a particularly cold-hearted calculation — that settlements to families of victims would cost less than a recall. “As consumers and concerned citizens, we think this is not the right way to proceed even if it turns out that the bottom line is enhanced by paying money out in liability payments,” says Sepinwall. “Liability of course never fully compensates the family for the loss that occurs. There is a moral cost to the tragedy, and there really is no price tag assigned to that.”
GM, however, will end up paying for its transgressions many times over, and, at least at this early stage, the Detroit-based automaker is doing many things right, according to veteran crisis management experts and observers. “I do have a lot of respect and admiration for [Barra],” says John Paul MacDuffie, a Wharton management professor and longtime auto industry researcher. “I think she probably is, more than anyone else within GM, the right person to get them out of this crisis.”
MacDuffie points out that Barra, a GM lifer, has real auto-industry credibility that other recent GM CEOs have lacked. “In several of her assignments before this, she was a voice for breaking from the old GM ways: [She worked] in manufacturing, in HR, in product development, and then [was appointed] CEO,” he notes. “In a company where a lot of CEOs came up through the financial side, she came up through the car side.” This means Barra has the potential for changing, in reality and perception, GM’s reputation for emphasizing cost cutting above all else, MacDuffie adds.
Hrebiniak, however, thinks Barra could be presenting a stronger, more positive case for the company. “I feel sorry for her. She is stepping into a mess,” he says. “But she is just not offering positives and not fighting some of the charges strongly enough.” Barra could have said, for instance, that starting this summer, all of GM’s cars will come with 4G technology that will automatically communicate more early-warning mechanical problems directly to the company, Hrebiniak suggests.
Still, some metrics show that GM’s image is holding up in spite of the controversy. March figures for the automaker’s U.S. sales showed a 4.1% year-to-year increase. Boston-based social media analytics firm Crimson Hexagon examined several million Twitter messages with the terms “GM” and “recall” sent between February 7 and April 1, well into coverage of the scandal. It shows 42% neutral tweets and 58% negative ones.
Tweets sorted simply for mention of GM brands overall did not show significantly negative drift as the scandal unfolded, Crimson Hexagon found. Between January 1 and February 7, 3.7 million tweets about GM and its sub-brands were 26% positive, 71% neutral and 3% negative. From February 7 to April 1, 5.3 million Tweets showed up as 24% positive, 72% neutral and 4% negative. “At the brand level, we don’t actually see much difference between the two time periods, which suggests that the recalls aren’t hurting the brand overall,” says Crimson Hexagon’s Elizabeth B. Breese, senior content and digital marketing strategist.
But these samplings dipped into public sentiment just as Barra’s testimony before Congress was getting underway on April 1 and 2. Days later, Saturday Night Live led off its weekly broadcast with a spoof on Barra’s performance, showing her trying to roll her chair out of hearings in a comically evasive routine.
“Knowing people are looking askance at the fox guarding the henhouse, they should invite someone from the outside … who can sit with the committee and examine the data.”–Lawrence Hrebiniak
Meanwhile, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) yesterday levied a $28,000 fine on GM because of what it said was the company’s failure to provide information the government had requested about the recall. That information had been due on April 3, according to press reports. At the same time, the NHTSA itself is under investigation by a congressional committee for what some allege was its delayed response to complaints from consumers about the ignition switch.
The Buzz in Competitors’ Showrooms
“You can bet salesmen in Ford, Honda and Kia showrooms, and the dozens of other competitors GM has, are making comments, and those comments are going to have some impact,” states Gene Grabowski, senior strategist at public relations/crisis management firm Levick.
Furthermore, GM has a significant disadvantage compared to the gold standard in crisis management. In 1982, a 12-year-old girl in Elk Grove Village, Ill., became the first victim of cyanide-laced extra-strength Tylenol capsules. Seven people died in that product tampering case, and the culprit was never caught. Johnson & Johnson responded almost immediately with a massive recall: 31 million bottles as part of a total effort costing well over $100 million. The financial losses, however, were only short-term. Market share recovered after a year, and the company emerged as a hero. How did they do it? “They said the value of life was a lot more important than the business case. This was quick, decisive and wonderful action,” says Hrebiniak.
A strategy of this kind, however, requires that the entire organization focus on the long-term reputation and health of the company. Says Vinjamuri: “The instinct of a large corporation is self-preservation, and at a large public company, the CEO tends to be judged by market valuation in the short term. The decisions [then-J&J CEO James E. Burke] made are not the ones the in-house counsel and CFO are going to tell [a CEO] to do today because it potentially has a very big, immediate and unknown financial liability when you admit liability and actively recall.”
GM, which has more than 200,000 employees around the world, also lacks one key advantage that Tylenol had — an outside perpetrator as culprit, rather than what is now perceived as inside callousness. Tylenol was responding to a crime committed by someone else. On the other hand, GM perhaps has an advantage in that J&J did not have a woman as CEO. “As a speculative matter, I might say that compassion sounds more genuine coming from a woman,” says Sepinwall, who carries the thought one step further: “I would be really troubled if the board of directors saw this was coming down the pike [while choosing a new leader] and felt it would be better to have a woman as CEO.”
According to Grabowski, Barra did a “credible” job in front of Congress, although he points out that one goal of such hearings is for politicians to gain points for being tough. She missed an important messaging opportunity by bringing the staff with her that she did, he adds. “There are these older white men all around her, and as she is speaking about the new GM, these old white guys are scowling. The optics were wrong. I was very surprised that, in 2014, they would have missed something as obvious as that.”
“The instinct of a large corporation is self-preservation, and at a large public company, the CEO tends to be judged by market valuation in the short term.”–David Vinjamuri
What Barra did do, though, is bring news — something seemingly concrete — for the media to put in their headlines and in the leads of their stories: She announced that GM had engaged Kenneth Feinberg, who specializes in administering disaster funds to victims, although she did not offer anything specific about whether GM will establish such a fund.
“That’s what we teach people to do who go before a hearing – to have a bold stroke, because that way you can report something rather than getting beat up, and it gives people on the panel a reason to praise you,” says Grabowski. “You make an announcement, you show a full page ad of something you are doing, or you form a new blue ribbon panel.”
Barra has been criticized for not revealing all the facts of what led to the problems with the cars. “I heard a lot of ‘we’re-investigating-it,’ but I didn’t get a lot of real answers,” one father of a victim told The New York Times. But there are likely legal reasons for not saying more. “It’s so easy to sit on the sidelines and judge people under these pressure situations,” Grabowski notes. “In nearly every case I have seen, the best you can do is emerge from the crisis with an understanding among consumers that you managed the crisis as best you could.”
To be in business in the 21st century, he adds, “is to live in crisis — consumers understand that. If the company manages this crisis well, there is a good opportunity to build its GM brand in the future. Companies have done this. They can leverage the crisis as a positive for their reputation.”
Undoing Wrongs by Doing Good
Projecting the right message and actually doing the right thing are usually one and the same. Making sure this kind of scandal never happens again means changing the prevailing corporate culture, says Eric W. Orts, a Wharton professor of legal studies and business ethics. “What you need to do is look at the actual incentive structure. If someone raises a significant safety issue, you need to reward [that person] for making an ethical decision even though it’s going to cost the company a little bit of money.”
A system that ensures anonymity within the company for reporting problems can also help, he notes. And although this would represent a major change, companies could consider restoring a responsible corporate officer doctrine, which would make members of the corporate board financially — and even criminally — liable for events that happen on their watch. “We don’t have that in the law right now, but it would certainly change the board’s attitude,” Orts points out. “You have this view that has taken over the world — if all a corporation should do is maximize value, then that’s what you are going to get.”
Experts say GM is moving in the right direction in some areas, such as meeting with families of victims and hiring Feinberg. The company has also brought aboard crisis management veteran Jeff Eller for advice. But there are other options open to the company that will help determine whether this ends up being a major collision, or just a particularly nasty speed bump. GM is conducting an internal investigation, but such endeavors may not carry much credibility if not handled correctly.
“There are these older white men all around [Barra], and as she is speaking about the new GM, these old white guys are scowling.”–Gene Grabowski
“Knowing people are looking askance at the fox guarding the henhouse, they should invite someone from the outside … who can sit with the committee and examine the data,” Hrebiniak says. “There needs to be a perception of legitimacy, that it’s not a cover-up. Structurally, it would be good to turn around and add one or two people to the committee who are outsiders.” The team is currently being led by Tony Valukas, chairman of law firm Jenner & Block and a former U.S. Attorney, and by GM’s own general counsel, Michael Millikin.
GM has indicated that although it may be shielded from liability for actions that occurred before its 2009 bankruptcy, it could choose to compensate all victims and their families. That is a potentially powerful action, according to Vinjamuri. “The most loyal customer isn’t someone who never had a problem,” he notes. “It is the person who had a problem who was surprised with a solution that exceeded [his or her] expectations. So the crisis represents an opportunity.” GM should be compensating pre-bankruptcy victims, he adds, “because it is the right thing to do [and] people will remember it.”
GM could find a different way to compensate victims, something with a more altruistic ring to it than just paying out cash, adds Sepinwall: “Sometimes companies will have scholarship funds, or in Philip Morris’s case, have public service messages aimed at discouraging kids from smoking — some effort that seeks to do good beyond the most immediate costs of the wrong-doing.”
The company might also take a page from Toyota, notes MacDuffie. Faced with product flaws, Toyota began in 2009 a series of recalls — so many, in fact, that it may have started to have a paradoxical effect on public perception. “There was a time when recalls had negative associations,” MacDuffie says. “But Toyota decided to get in front of potential recalls, and for a while it seemed there was a new Toyota recall every few weeks. In the end, there may have been some desensitizing, some reframing of what this means, that if Toyota is doing a recall, that’s a good thing.” Toyota also arranged to keep service centers open later and compensated those businesses for doing so – moves that meant a lot to dealers and customers, MacDuffie adds. “To anyone from the outside, it was a sign that Toyota was taking it seriously.” Toyota on April 9 announced that it was recalling more than six million vehicles worldwide for five different defects that impact 27 different Toyota models, in addition to the company-built Pontiac Vibe and Suburu Trezia. No deaths or crashes have been linked to the defects, the company said, but at least two fires were found to be related to a defective starter.
Of course, putting things right does not ensure brand value in perpetuity. For all the praise Tylenol garnered after the 1982 recall, it received just as much criticism more recently after a moldy smell turned out to emanate from rogue substances mixing with Tylenol in manufacturing plants, causing nausea, stomach pain and other health problems. Several rounds of recalls followed. “We have young children,” says Vinjamuri, “and a lot of parents say they don’t trust Tylenol. It was unthinkable that anyone would have said that 10 years ago.”
沒有留言:
張貼留言