The reason is: if this reflects on "making more money" they will do it and fight to make it look right until they are challenge on court, as a result probably the fines will be lower than the earnings related to how they did it.
Edit: there is nothing wrong with moving positions to a another country.
[0]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01...
[0]http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/link-dupont-teflon-cancer-26060...
[0]http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/resources/Factsheets/A_DU...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodaikanal_mercury_poisoning
The reason behind this reason is that as long as consumers keep demanding cheaper products, companies will continue looking for ways to lower their costs. Just take a look at poultry farms, they are living hells, but people don't seem to mind it as long as they can buy 6 chicken nuggets for 99 cents.
We can't have the cake and eat it too, we have to decide whether we want companies to be responsible or if we want to pay less for the products and services we consume.
I'd have no problem with actually competing price vs. quality but the problem is with legislative/judicial challenges to things like environmental laws and consumer protection.
We simply don't punish enough those who willingly shit on the commons to make a buck (and consumers are often in the dark about the quality of their goods), and so those who have large investments in these vehicles use some that money to influence/corrupt the regulatory and legislative bodies to prevent their cash flow from being stopped.
Just wait till TPP is signed and ratified...
The penalties for doing this need to be:
(1) Confiscation of individual wealth, and (2) Prison
Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company?
Why should they be rewarded for hurting us?
How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions?
I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities.
I definitely think that they should be tied more closely together if we want something like market forces to help resolve the problems at hand instead of paying people to effect NO change (or effectively random change).
The shareholders who appoint the board who appoints the CEO.
> Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company?
No CEO has 100% control of their company.
> Why should they be rewarded for hurting us?
You should have picked better. Like any employer, you are responsible for the ultimate cost of the actions of your employees. The title doesn't magically change that.
> How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions?
You should have the Board fire the CEO if you believe the CEO is the problem. It isn't like shareholders have no recourse.
Ultimately, the Board/shareholders are the CEO's boss. The buck stops there as far as who is responsible for employing everyone at the company [including the CEO]. Simply because you want a scapegoat doesn't change where the power rests.
> I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities.
Yes, shareholders push for profits before other factors and have abrogated their civil responsibility by not picking differently.
Instead, shareholders pick people that they think will maximize their personal wealth.
Similarly, the C-suite is heavily compensated in stock and destruction and/or value loss of said stock impacts their personal financial decision directly. If you truly are concerned, you can always "lock" stock compensation for N years to keep the CEO from selling it so short sighted decisions will bite them on the ass even after they left their post.
Targeting the shareholders in civil suits will encourage better/more defensive CEO choices and other board decisions.
Direction stems from the top and the top is the Board [elected by shareholders] and not the CEO. Pretending otherwise is simply ignorance.
what specifically do you propose? I am genuinely interested. Who should do what?
If it doesn't hurt, they won't learn.
I don't think anyone would argue that there isn't a certain size of corporation over which there are more disadvantages than advantages (to society at least).
I have never got my head around people who buy these vechicles filled with gadgets, and expect these gadgets to last for more than a few seasons. (I know this is offtopic, and the discussion is about emmissions and cheaters, but if customers realized just how hard it is to get these sporty vechicles to run terrific at all times right--while being essentially choked by a plethora of smog devices. Well they might not be so picky.)
I've sold cars. I've worked as a mechanic. I'm not going to spout off a lot of advice, but there's some things I feel should be said:
1. If buying used, forget about that "I need to bring my mechanic by, before I buy." That's used car lot advice. Not private sale advice. Bring cash if you wanted good deal. The better cars evaporate pretty quick.
2. Forget about all the gadgets. Roll up your own windows. A good heater on a used car is nothing more than an engine that's running hot, or the thermostat is missing or stuck. Look for vechicles that are built well. A used Toyota is a safe bet.
3. Early on learn a little about auto mechanics. Over a lifetime, you will be suprised how much you save. With today's three propriariary, computer cars--well it's more difficult, but then again, you have the Internet.
4. When buying a vechicle research the drivetrain, and engine. Is the drivetrain time tested? Is the engine reliable?
5. Forget about color, sear heaters, all the gadgets. They just Break down. My father's quote on electric Windows, "The day I can't roll down my own windows--take me out of my misery." My father was old school though. He always had an older vechicle, with enough modifications to outrun the State police--if needed. A Mickey's beer between his leg, and a lit Carleton in his lips. Car security was a kill switch running between the secondary wire on the distributer, and a switch in the cab, and a claw hammer behind the seat. Times were definetly different back then.
We already are not picky. We've been used to buying crap for the last few decades, when companies realized they don't have to care about quality. Between planned obsolescence and skimping on manufacturing & QA, there are almost no good-quality products available on market. Everything is designed to be as bad as possible while still being sellable.
Yes, making quality things is hard, but it's not that hard. And, curiously, it has been done before - products manufactured more than few decades ago were much better than their current equivalents - be it shoes, furniture, or appliances like washing machines, microwave ovens or electric kettles. Many still use those products of the past today. Companies started making crap products on purpose, and I believe that we absolutely should be much more picky and demanding than we're now. The only reason this shit flies is because we can't coordinate well enough to push back.
The problem hasn't existed yet when you bought the car?
For example, we didn't know that, until a few years ago, Subarus were prone to cracked head gaskets. We only learned that after it happened to us and the mechanic told us it was very common. Armed with new search terms, Google confirmed what the mechanic said.
42% of Forester's are returned for engine problems [1]
28% of Subaru Legacy's too [2]
For both models it is the most frequent category of failure
The legacy is still no.86 in the reliability stakes though [3]
[1] http://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search/236
And despite hundred of pages of online forum discussion about this particular problem.
And, mind you, it's not just them, I think the auto-industry needs to be kicked, hard, and repeatedly until they start behaving with a notch more honesty.