How can VW be held to account for the dieselgate scandal?

There are VW Group car owners here who have reported they are quite happy with their vehicles and the remedial work. Those who are not are free to pursue their claims.

I wonder why we have not seen the same demands for owners of Indesit/Whirlpool dryers whose lives were said to be directly at risk?

I think if any general action needs to be pursued – and it may be underway – it should be to recover any loss of VED and income tax revenue to the government together with a penalty for potential damage to health from excessive NOx emissions. The latter might be difficult to quantify.

I am all in favour of people being compensated [their choice – not compulsorily] if they have suffered actual loss or physical harm. But being deceived is not in either category. It is an outrage on society and society should have the benefit of any relief plus exact a penalty on the company’s directors, relevant senior managers, and shareholders [through devaluation of their stock by the reduction of profits and dividends]. Whether the German government has any liability would be an interesting question as well.

I’m not sure about who was deceived in practice. If the issue is NOx, this is not something an ordinary consumer would have considered when buying, as far as I know; the NOx figure is not advertised, is it? That doesn’t mean there has not been deceit; there clearly has. But it seems to me it was the regulatory authorities who approved the vehicle(s) for sale that were deceived, and they who should be exacting retribution.

If, however, the deceit was on CO₂ emissions (and thus mpg) then this would directly affect some consumers when they were making a choice of vehicle; the purpose of such figures is to allow comparisons to be made between vehicles on the same basis.

I expect that most people assume that products are manufactured according to current regulations and standards. Those who have bought cars that don’t comply have been deceived, in my opinion.

Quite right, Malcolm. This largely depends on how much time and effort we want put into grinding every issue down into fine dust and then identifying a person responsible for each grain. For instance, it could be argued that the regulatory authorities did not ensure an adequate method for detecting and preventing misuse of the testing process, but somewhere along the line, with audited quality assurance procedures presumably in place, we have to trust the honesty and integrity of major companies. VW itself was probably more deceived than any other body and has suffered massive costs and reputational damage. I have not kept closely in touch with this issue so I have not heard whether any internal disciplinary processes have led to any sanctions against personnel.

I agree with you, Wavechange. The question is, to what extent can, or should, we monetise deceit? In a consumer society there is an enormous amount of ‘deceit’ – but that doesn’t mean we have to take it for granted and put up with it. Appropriate regulations and consumer protection controls, exercised by society on behalf of individuals, are probably the best ways to mitigate it and deter further attempts.

Some criticise “business” as if they were the only perpetrators of deceit. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital? Contaminated blood and the NHS?….. Seems to me this is down to people rather then organisations. Is covering up dangerous personal and institutional failings and mistakes, preventing “correction”, not in a similar or worse league?

I believe the debate about deceit and evasiveness in State and LA run institutions suggests that we tolerate too much sneakiness in general, but the problem is possibly exacerbated when you realise that Business does it simply to make more money. Those in the NHS and other state-run operations are normally engaging in these peccadilloes either to meet targets or to cover their own backs. That is, in effect, what separates the state-run from the privately owned.

Now, it’s perfectly possible to argue deceit of any sort is wrong, but it’s also possible to argue deceit in the pursuit of personal wealth is far worse than in simply attempting to avoid getting a bad report.

Patrick Taylor says: Today 14:21
Most people are aghast at any cover-ups or double dealing where ever it is practised.

Hmmm. I’d argue that many will appear incensed when they read accounts of it in the media, but that anger soon dissipates – either when the facts are fully revealed or when they realise that most people trying to save their skins have done the same. Who hasn’t told lies?

@dieseltaylor, Patrick. I have not disputed that VW owners have suffered loss (not sure who the comment was directed at) and I’ve aired my views on how some of that loss might be compensated.

I have pointed out before that the VW “cheat” was used to their advantage during the KBA’s execution of the NEDC test – a test regime designed by, and imposed on all manufacturers, by the EU in order to attain type approval. No question of that. I don’t know whether the cheat device also set out to give beneficial mpg and CO₂ results; I’ve lost track of that.

“deceit in the pursuit of personal wealth is far worse than in simply attempting to avoid getting a bad report.“. Two of the motives for deceit are for money (say in business), and for covering misdemeanours (say in public life). The problem I have with the latter in, for example the maternity unit at Shrewsbury and Telford, at Gosport Hospital, in the NHS blood problem is that they not only caused actual loss of life and severe damage to health at the time but, by covering up, preventing people speaking out, destroying evidence maybe, they prevented speedy remedial action being taken and cause significant further fatalities and severe health damage. I’d put that kind of selfish, irresponsible, cowardly behaviour way above a profit motive. I’d suggest it is criminal. Lives cannot be recovered from the actions of these organisations and the people involved; money can be recovered.

Patrick – I have neither said not implied that I believed “the original excuse from VW that the upper echelons of VW were unaware”. Indeed, I wrote previously today that society should “exact a penalty on the company’s directors, relevant senior managers, and shareholders [through devaluation of their stock by the reduction of profits and dividends]”. In a subsequent comment I wrote “I have not heard whether any internal disciplinary processes have led to any sanctions against personnel. It is perhaps shocking, and grossly remiss of me, that I have not been following this story with the attention to detail that is expected of me by some people, but I can’t be everywhere I am afraid. It seems as though a handful of staff [other than those subject to criminal proceedings] have either jumped ship when close to shore or been made to walk the plank. I would have expected a major purge of the organisation and the closure and reformation of the entire testing unit would have been carried out. Perhaps it was and I missed it again.

I don’t think I have contended that there has been no actual loss to VW owners; some of them clearly have experienced a quantifiable loss and I have averred that they should have the right to be compensated for it if they wish. I just happen to think that very few losses will ever be crystallised, that in the overall scheme of things they are not as serious as is being made out, and that to some extent in a lifetime’s car ownership with possible ten or more vehicles we just have to accept the rub of the green. That’s my philosophy but I would not wish to impose it on anyone else. As Malcolm stated earlier today, the Indesit/Whirlpool case is much more deserving of active compensation because it put people’s lives at direct risk, meant serious inconvenience to owners, caused them direct additional expense, the rectification process was mishandled and protracted, and the public authorities [Peterborough Trading Standards et al] were delinquent and misdirected themselves [eventually having to be pulled into line by an application for judicial review by a private consumers’ organisation].

The management analytical concept of the “Thermocline of Truth” might come into play with huge organisations like VW. The upper echelons are blithely unaware of what is going on at production level [or pretend they are]. Many perpetrators might also be exonerated in honour of the popular Teutonic concept of “only obeying orders”, although I thought that had had its come-uppance seventy years ago..

Malcolm: “The problem I have with…the NHS blood problem (et al) is that they not only caused actual loss of life and severe damage to health at the time but, by covering up… they prevented speedy remedial action being taken… I’d put that kind of selfish, irresponsible, cowardly behaviour way above a profit motive. I’d suggest it is criminal.”

But it is. That wasn’t the point I was making. John’s touched on it with his comment about the “Thermocline of Truth”, but the real point is that it is culturally embedded for many businesses to lie for profit; in the case of the NHS issue that was a worrying breakdown in management culture and responsibility, and one that we see in all kinds of institutions, everywhere but hopefully rarely. It is – or should be – an aberration, whereas lying and deceit in business is almost a prerequisite for promotion. Morals and business are not automatically linked, whereas in the NHS they are – and should be inextricable.

There are, and have been, many examples of deceit/malpractice/cover up in public services, some of which have had severe or catastrophic consequences. The point I was making was that this kind of attitude is, I believe, down to the people involved. That is where such problems start. And that is not limited to one sector. Personal advancement and protecting one’s position is probably a key driver for many.

I worked in industry and those businesses I was part of behaved well. Morals and the NHS are clearly not always linked as many of the scandals have shown over the years. I sense it is at the administration level that these problems start.

Malcolm are you talking about the big coverup by HMG that gave 4000 British hemophiliacs – HIV -etc by using American blood supplied from drug addicts/ prisoners /homeless etc ? This was back in the news as the coverup was outrageous in terms of the length it went to and the amount offered/given was derisory as it was a death sentence to them and they had to sign a waver of any future action being taken . As I said long ago in the USA you are paid for blood. I am lucky I had a blood transfusion in the early 70,s after a major stomach op.

There’s a public inquiry just started after 30 odd years. How timely?Many of the victims are dead.

I don’t deny that there have been (and possibly are) examples of deceit and lying in public services. The point which I’m making is that in business there is no moral imperative unless and until a conscious decision is made to create one. The NHS has as its guiding principle a moral imperative and while individuals can and do ignore that it remains the very reason why, when something does happen, they are held to a higher standard than businesses. The word ‘pilloried’ is not inappropriate.

You might well ‘sense’ where the problems start but in fact I know of incidents which have been instigated elsewhere.

I’m not defending NHS miscreants; far from it, although I could point to the incredibly intense levels of public scrutiny under which Health Board and Hospital administrators are expected to work while resources are continually whittled away, the targets that are set by those who lie for a living and the intense media scrutiny when things go wrong as being ameliorating factors, but in the case of business we don’t hear about the issues, since businesses worry about confidence, about salaries and about employment, and it’s only when it emerges that a car company has been routinely lying and deceiving about emissions that can seriously impact the health of children in cities since 1973 that there’s any sort of public reaction, because that’s the first time we get to find out what’s been happening.

It’s a useful benchmark. There are probably more of the affected VW’s in Germany than in other EU states but the number of affected cars in State X over the number in Germany would give a working percentage on which to base the calculation of a penalty.