Caterina A.J. Parola
Communication Ethics and Law
Prof DeMoya
February 15, 2018
Volkswagen and Other Scandals: A Matter of Cold Apologies
By Caterina Parola
The German automotive company Volkswagen recently admitted experimenting the harmful effects of vehicles exhaust on animals and, allegedly, humans. The testing was done in 2014 here in the United States, at the Lovelace Respiratory Institute of Albuquerque, New Mexico. VW executed said testing on diesel fumes and polluted air on 25 healthy humans; they also engaged in cruel testing on macaque monkeys, who were left in airtight chambers and entertained by cartoons while breathing in diesel fumes. If that does not sound unethical enough, the study also turned out to be rigged, as the Volkswagen Beetle used in it had been equipped with a special software that emitted less fumes than a regular car. That put the company in the midst of a scandal that spread globally.
The story, which first appeared on a New York Times article published on January 25 of this year, shook people all around the world. Since then, Volkswagen issued a statement saying that the company distances itself from the experiments, and suspended chief lobbyist Thomas Steg. However, neither of these actions sounds like a sincere apology for the events stated above.
Laura Guitar, executive VP of crisis and issues at Rbb Communications, analyzed Volkswagen’s response for the Wall Street Journal; she first stated that “On its own, the suspension of Thomas Steg is a wholly insufficient response”. She also added that This scandal […] reflects a fundamental problem that is wider than either of the issues themselves. Together, they point to an absence of guiding moral and ethical principles within the company’s corporate culture at the time they occurred.” To conclude her analysis, she mentions what I have been seeing in corporate apologies for years, and still has not changed: “statements of condemnation and apology are far easier to produce than is meaningful change in an established corporate culture.”
It is not the first time, and it surely will not be the last, that companies issue a cold apology after a scandal, hoping that that will serve as a quick solution to their damaged reputation. The only goal of said apology is to merely dismiss the scandal itself and move on with their business. There is no promise of change, no real consequences, and definitely no honest resentment. And to me, this kind of response is more unethical than any unethical procedure a company could ever engage in.
How does that affect us? Why should we care? Most importantly, we should care because if we do not ask for change now, we will get used to this pointless vicious circle, where companies get caught engaging in unethical procedure, then apologize for their actions, and then proceed to do the same again, making sure not to get caught, this time. A cold apology never brings about change of any kind. Secondly, this should matter to us because we deserve more as consumers: we deserve honesty and transparency, and when that fails, we deserve a sincere apology and a change of policy of some sort. We should not settle for companies that simply sweep scandals under the rug and move on with their day. This is a vile form of mistreatment of consumers.
Almost all of the major corporate crises from 2017 featured cold apologies and lacked any sort of change in policy, procedure or regulation.
Consider the United Airlines crisis of the passenger that was forcibly removed from a flight after United failed to convince passengers to volunteer to give up their seat on an overbooked flight. After the incident went viral, United handled the crisis very poorly, with an insensitive apology from their CEO Oscar Muñoz, which came out several hours after the incident. That response actually caused more harm than good, feeding the backlash that had already been caused by the video. On top of that, United did not promise to shift their behavior in any way; as Mark Macias wrote for CNBC, “They need[ed] to tweak their policies quickly and train employees to know how to civilly defuse an overbooked situation before it escalates into an epic disaster like this”. Maybe a promise to change their policy would not have solved the issue right away, but it would have certainly helped more than an indifferent statement.
Think also of the Wells Fargo scandal, where the bank opened millions of accounts without the knowledge or permission of its customers, whose names these accounts were under. Wells Fargo also apologized in a cold manner, adding the monetary amount of their settlement and literally stating that “Wells Fargo reached these agreements consistent with our commitment to customers and in the interest of putting this matter behind us”.
Only now, in February 2018, a year and a half after the events, Wells Fargo has “entered into a consent agreement with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to improve risk management, compliance and oversight”, as stated on their website.
Volkswagen is no exception. Their apology was essentially made so that the company could sweep the issue under the rug. There was no promise to become a better company, or to re-gain the trust of its customers. Nothing.
One might say that after all, cold apologies work, so why should companies push out deep, sincere regrets when they are not needed? That is true especially when the issue lies in miscommunication rather than unethical behavior.
Do I think about the Kendall Jenner advertisement every time I buy a Pepsi? Sadly, I do not. But I sure wish I did, because Pepsi’s response to the backlash that came from that ad was defensive and certainly cold. As Forbes states here, “its misplaced apology was directed towards Kendall rather than the protesters, the [Black Lives Matter] movement and any viewers who were offended by the video, causing further backlash.” However, even though we did discuss the ad for a few days and were upset about it, here we are now, still buying Pepsi. The cold apology worked.
Nevertheless, I still believe that companies should push out better and sincerer apologies, because I believe that that is a matter of respect towards consumers. If you do not think that you owe your loyal customers an apology after you were involved in a scandal, you clearly do not value them. We, as consumers, should expect honesty from companies, and companies should be straightforward with us even when they miss the mark. That includes properly saying sorry.
While we cannot force companies to care about the ethics behind their business, we should expect honest apologies from them, and we can – and should – call them out when that does not happen.
We can also start asking for changes in policy. I believe companies should be required to issue a proposal for a change of policy after they’ve been the subject of a scandal that is linked to the company’s behavior. There is obviously no universal solution: each company must come up with their own, but I do think that requiring a proposal would change the approach that companies have to their cold, apologetic press release. In conclusion, as consumers, we should never settle: instead, we should always expect honesty, transparency, and respect.