Risk......Defn. ..How bad can it be?
Seems as though ATW writers, when we posted on the ‘Toyota recall’, were actually mulling over ancient history, lost opportunities and the power of corporate lobbyists without being aware that it was just that; ‘ancient history’, in business terms of course. Seems as though Toyota lobbying efforts to minimise the effects of a recall motion regarding Toyota Camrys, Lexus, Avalons as well as their ‘green’ flagship model, the Prius were so successful that boasts of saving $100 million dollars were made by the lobbying company.
I am reminded of a nineties film named ‘Class Action’ starring Gene Hackney. He played a crusading attorney who sued a car manufacturer on behalf of bereaved families after the deaths of family members in the company’s cars due to a manufacturing fault built in to the car. The main theme of the manufacturer’s thinking was found to be a ‘risk analysis’ which found that it would be cheaper to let the faulty models run through their life, and fight any law suits which might result from the death. In other words the projections of actuaries for probable deaths and injured car-owners is weighed against the cost of re-tooling and re-manufacturing the car without the defect (exploding gas tanks) with the resulting decision to keep the car as-is to positively benefit short term profitability.
Now I am not accusing Toyota executives of taking the same road, of avoiding their responsibilities to their customers, but it seems to me as though the evidence is on the side of those who state that Toyota is guilty of a huge error of judgement in grasping at the ‘recall’ of one type of floormat as a solution to their problems.
Indeed, I wonder if you agree with Michael Rowan, the attorney for Dustin Ricardo's survivors: a daughter, now 4, and a wife, who said "They decided that if some people lost their lives, then so be it. It was pure greed."