ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 2.4 Corporate Governance Failures at Volkswagen In 2015, Volkswagen admitted to installing "defeat devices" on at least 11 million vehicles with diesel engines. These devices enabled the cars to pass emis- sion tests, even though the engines actually emitted pollutants up to 40 times above what is allowed in the United States. Current estimates are that it will cost the company at least €7 billion to cover the cost of repairs and lawsuits. Although management must have been involved in approving the use of cheating devices, the Volkswagen supervisory board has been unwilling to accept any responsibility. Some board members even questioned whether it was the board's responsibility to be aware of such problems, stating “matters of technical expertise were not for us" and “the scandal had noth- ing, not one iota, to do with the advisory board." Yet governing boards do have a responsibility to be well informed, to provide oversight, and to become involved in key decisions and actions. So what caused this cor- porate governance failure? Why is this the third time in the past 20 years that Volkswagen has been embroiled in scandal? The key feature of Volkswagen's board that appears to have led to these issues is a lack of independent directors. However, before explaining this in more detail it is important to understand the German governance model. German corporations operate two-tier gover- nance structures, with a management board, and a sepa- rate supervisory board that does not contain any current executives. In addition, German law requires large com- panies to have at least 50 percent supervisory board representation from workers. This structure is meant to provide more oversight by independent board members and greater involvement by a wider set of stakeholders. In Volkswagen's case, these objectives have been effectively circumvented. Although Volkswagen's super- visory board does not include any current management, the chairmanship appears to be a revolving door of for- mer senior executives. Ferdinand Piëch, the chair dur- ing the scandal, was CEO for 9 years prior to becoming ©Vytautas Kielaitis/Shutterstock chair in 2002. Martin Winterkorn, the recently ousted CEO, was expected to become supervisory board chair prior to the scandal. The company continues to elevate management to the supervisory board even though they have presided over past scandals. Hans Dieter Poetsch, the newly appointed chair, was part of the management team that did not inform the supervisory board of the EPA investigation for two weeks. VW also has a unique ownership structure where a single family, Porsche, controls more than 50 percent of voting shares. Piëch, a family member and chair until 2015, forced out CEOS and installed unqualified family members on the board, such as his former nanny and current wife. He also pushed out independent-minded board members, such as Gerhard Cromme, author of Germany's corporate governance code. The company has lost numerous independent directors over the past 10 years, leaving it with only one non-shareholder, non- labor representative. Although Piëch has now been removed, it is unclear that Volkswagen's board has solved the underlying problem. Shareholders have seen billions of dollars wiped away and the Volkswagen brand tarnished. As long as the board continues to lack inde- pendent directors, change will likely be slow.

ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 2.4 Corporate Governance Failures at Volkswagen In 2015, Volkswagen admitted to installing "defeat devices" on at least 11 million vehicles with diesel engines. These devices enabled the cars to pass emis- sion tests, even though the engines actually emitted pollutants up to 40 times above what is allowed in the United States. Current estimates are that it will cost the company at least €7 billion to cover the cost of repairs and lawsuits. Although management must have been involved in approving the use of cheating devices, the Volkswagen supervisory board has been unwilling to accept any responsibility. Some board members even questioned whether it was the board's responsibility to be aware of such problems, stating “matters of technical expertise were not for us" and “the scandal had noth- ing, not one iota, to do with the advisory board." Yet governing boards do have a responsibility to be well informed, to provide oversight, and to become involved in key decisions and actions. So what caused this cor- porate governance failure? Why is this the third time in the past 20 years that Volkswagen has been embroiled in scandal? The key feature of Volkswagen's board that appears to have led to these issues is a lack of independent directors. However, before explaining this in more detail it is important to understand the German governance model. German corporations operate two-tier gover- nance structures, with a management board, and a sepa- rate supervisory board that does not contain any current executives. In addition, German law requires large com- panies to have at least 50 percent supervisory board representation from workers. This structure is meant to provide more oversight by independent board members and greater involvement by a wider set of stakeholders. In Volkswagen's case, these objectives have been effectively circumvented. Although Volkswagen's super- visory board does not include any current management, the chairmanship appears to be a revolving door of for- mer senior executives. Ferdinand Piëch, the chair dur- ing the scandal, was CEO for 9 years prior to becoming ©Vytautas Kielaitis/Shutterstock chair in 2002. Martin Winterkorn, the recently ousted CEO, was expected to become supervisory board chair prior to the scandal. The company continues to elevate management to the supervisory board even though they have presided over past scandals. Hans Dieter Poetsch, the newly appointed chair, was part of the management team that did not inform the supervisory board of the EPA investigation for two weeks. VW also has a unique ownership structure where a single family, Porsche, controls more than 50 percent of voting shares. Piëch, a family member and chair until 2015, forced out CEOS and installed unqualified family members on the board, such as his former nanny and current wife. He also pushed out independent-minded board members, such as Gerhard Cromme, author of Germany's corporate governance code. The company has lost numerous independent directors over the past 10 years, leaving it with only one non-shareholder, non- labor representative. Although Piëch has now been removed, it is unclear that Volkswagen's board has solved the underlying problem. Shareholders have seen billions of dollars wiped away and the Volkswagen brand tarnished. As long as the board continues to lack inde- pendent directors, change will likely be slow.

Principles Of Marketing

17th Edition

ISBN:9780134492513

Author:Kotler, Philip, Armstrong, Gary (gary M.)

Publisher:Kotler, Philip, Armstrong, Gary (gary M.)

Chapter1: Marketing: Creating Customer Value And Engagement

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 1.1DQ

See similar textbooks

Related questions

Question

Review Illustration Capsule 2.4 and discuss the factors responsible for corporate governance failures at Volkswagen. What could they have done differently to ensure good corporate governance?

Transcribed Image Text:ILLUSTRATION CAPSULE 2.4 Corporate Governance Failures at Volkswagen In 2015, Volkswagen admitted to installing "defeat devices" on at least 11 million vehicles with diesel engines. These devices enabled the cars to pass emis- sion tests, even though the engines actually emitted pollutants up to 40 times above what is allowed in the United States. Current estimates are that it will cost the company at least €7 billion to cover the cost of repairs and lawsuits. Although management must have been involved in approving the use of cheating devices, the Volkswagen supervisory board has been unwilling to accept any responsibility. Some board members even questioned whether it was the board's responsibility to be aware of such problems, stating “matters of technical expertise were not for us" and “the scandal had noth- ing, not one iota, to do with the advisory board." Yet governing boards do have a responsibility to be well informed, to provide oversight, and to become involved in key decisions and actions. So what caused this cor- porate governance failure? Why is this the third time in the past 20 years that Volkswagen has been embroiled in scandal? The key feature of Volkswagen's board that appears to have led to these issues is a lack of independent directors. However, before explaining this in more detail it is important to understand the German governance model. German corporations operate two-tier gover- nance structures, with a management board, and a sepa- rate supervisory board that does not contain any current executives. In addition, German law requires large com- panies to have at least 50 percent supervisory board representation from workers. This structure is meant to provide more oversight by independent board members and greater involvement by a wider set of stakeholders. In Volkswagen's case, these objectives have been effectively circumvented. Although Volkswagen's super- visory board does not include any current management, the chairmanship appears to be a revolving door of for- mer senior executives. Ferdinand Piëch, the chair dur- ing the scandal, was CEO for 9 years prior to becoming ©Vytautas Kielaitis/Shutterstock chair in 2002. Martin Winterkorn, the recently ousted CEO, was expected to become supervisory board chair prior to the scandal. The company continues to elevate management to the supervisory board even though they have presided over past scandals. Hans Dieter Poetsch, the newly appointed chair, was part of the management team that did not inform the supervisory board of the EPA investigation for two weeks. VW also has a unique ownership structure where a single family, Porsche, controls more than 50 percent of voting shares. Piëch, a family member and chair until 2015, forced out CEOS and installed unqualified family members on the board, such as his former nanny and current wife. He also pushed out independent-minded board members, such as Gerhard Cromme, author of Germany's corporate governance code. The company has lost numerous independent directors over the past 10 years, leaving it with only one non-shareholder, non- labor representative. Although Piëch has now been removed, it is unclear that Volkswagen's board has solved the underlying problem. Shareholders have seen billions of dollars wiped away and the Volkswagen brand tarnished. As long as the board continues to lack inde- pendent directors, change will likely be slow.

Expert Solution

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTION Check out a sample Q&A here

Knowledge Booster

Learn more about

Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, marketing and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.