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
icon
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? 

 

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.
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

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

Blurred answer
Knowledge Booster
Globalization
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.
Similar questions
Recommended textbooks for you
Principles Of Marketing
Principles Of Marketing
Marketing
ISBN:
9780134492513
Author:
Kotler, Philip, Armstrong, Gary (gary M.)
Publisher:
Pearson Higher Education,
Marketing
Marketing
Marketing
ISBN:
9781259924040
Author:
Roger A. Kerin, Steven W. Hartley
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education
Foundations of Business (MindTap Course List)
Foundations of Business (MindTap Course List)
Marketing
ISBN:
9781337386920
Author:
William M. Pride, Robert J. Hughes, Jack R. Kapoor
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Marketing: An Introduction (13th Edition)
Marketing: An Introduction (13th Edition)
Marketing
ISBN:
9780134149530
Author:
Gary Armstrong, Philip Kotler
Publisher:
PEARSON
MKTG 12:STUDENT ED.-TEXT
MKTG 12:STUDENT ED.-TEXT
Marketing
ISBN:
9781337407595
Author:
Lamb
Publisher:
Cengage
Contemporary Marketing
Contemporary Marketing
Marketing
ISBN:
9780357033777
Author:
Louis E. Boone, David L. Kurtz
Publisher:
Cengage Learning