January 2010 – The Toyota Recall Crisis: A Chronology of How the World’s Largest and Most Profitable Automaker Drove into a PR Disaster
In September 2009, Toyota recalled about 4.2 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles’ floor mats after an accident in August 2009 that was caused by unintended acceleration. Toyota announced that the accident was caused because the floor mats were interfering with the gas pedals. However, another accident in December 2009 led to a massive recall in 2010 because the car that had the accident did not have a floor mat. Toyota admitted that in some cases, the accelerator pedal became harder to depress and slower to return to its upper position. These incidents killed at least 8 people and raised ethical issues.
The first ethical problem involves the engineers’ responsibility. Engineers are responsible for making and designing products that are safe and durable. But most of their work is done during the process of design. Once the product is made and sold, engineers often abandon their responsibility. For example, once a car is sold, engineers do not concern themselves with the maintenance status or quality of that car. And of course, they do not ask if there are any problems with a car. I think it is the engineers’ responsibility to keep track of the product they sold. It is almost impossible to track all of the products they designed and sold and to distinguish malfunctions from problems caused by users’ mistakes. But I believe that there needs to be some sort of communication between consumers and engineers, because the engineers who designed the product really understand the product and can find a problem more easily.
Many people point out that the problem of the Toyota recall was caused by cost reductions. Toyota tried to reduce the cost they spent and tried to make a car as cheaply as possible, raising an ethical problem. Is it unethical to produce a more affordable car rather than a safer car? I believe it could be unethical because most of the time, when engineers decide to design a cheaper car instead a safer car, they are abandoning one of their most important responsibilities as engineers, which is making a safe product. But sometimes, this could be ambiguous. Because less expensive cars are also what consumers demand, it could be hard to say the engineers are being unethical, because the company and engineers are supplying products for those demands.
The accident in December 2009 was caused by a malfunction of a gas pedal that is supplied by CTS. It is not clear whether this defect was caused by the gas pedal or a problem with Toyota’s vehicles. In either case, the connection between the two companies was not efficient, raising two possible ethical issues. First, is it the engineers’ responsibility to test for the safety of a part they are supplied? I don’t think it is their responsibility to test every single part they are provided, because when engineers are supplied with parts, they expect those parts have already been tested and work. In this case, it is ambiguous which corporation was responsible for the malfunction of the brake system. However, it is the engineers’ responsibility to think about convergence and connectivity between their products with the products from other engineers.
Conclusion:
One of the most important engineers’ responsibilities is safety of the product. And safety should be considered not only to be a process of design. Engineers should consider safety beyond the design.
Discussion Questions:
- Beyond Design: Is it engineers’ responsibility to test and keep track of quality of the product once it is designed and sold? What are the engineers’ responsibilities beyond the design?
- Safety vs. Cost: Is it unethical to produce a more affordable (cheap) vehicle rather than a safer vehicle?
- Security vs. Convergence: Is it engineers’ responsibility to tests (functionality or connectivity) for the safety of a part they are supplied? In the case of malfunction, who is responsible?
Class notes:
– responsibility of the engineers to check the safety of each parts that they receive from other producers
Questions:
1. Is it the reponsibility of the engineers to test the safety and quality of the product once it’s been sold.
Does privacy get in the way of data collection?
If the insurance industry requires monitoring, then are we putting a price tag on privacy?
2. Ballace between economics and safety?
Does it depend on the consumer? If a consumer doesn’t have a lot of resources to pay for extra safety, should the vendor sell cheap cars with lower safety standards?
It’s not always a trade-off of safety vs. economics. Is it a question of better integration of safety principles in the full process of bringing a car to market (designing, selling, driver training etc).
Is trusting the consummer to know what’s best for the consummer a good idea?
Need a minimum level of regulation?
Externalities? Should the government fine car companies for every accident that they cause?
I feel that this is a tricky situation. Of course, engineers should go above and beyond to check the safety of their products, but this is not always possible. After the first incident, why didn’t Toyota properly check the car’s quality? Another incident happened shortly afterward. In this circumstance, the engineer and the company should work together to fix the problem. I believe that it is not ethical to produce a more risky car so it is more affordable for the company, but it introduces a conflict of interest for the company: money or safety? I don’t think trusting the consumer to know what’s best for the consumer is not a good idea, because often the consumer does not have a full picture of what exactly is going on. They need to have more information, which is not always supplied to them. This is what the car companies should do if they want to avoid future recalls. People need to know the risks inherent in the products they purchase.
I believe Toyota did not check the car’s quality once it’s sold because they do not make more money. Since the car is already sold and they do not make make more money from the car, they don’t care anymore for the car.
I agree that companies do not offer full details about the product. Even they do, they use some sort of language that non-engineers consumers cannot understand. I agree that people need to know risks but I believe it is engineers’ responsibility to tell exact detail with a language that consumers can understand.
Peer Review of “Toyota Recall Crisis”
One issue that I think needs to be addressed is why didn’t Toyota conduct a more comprehensive investigation at the start instead of just settling on blaming the floor mats as the culprit for the unintended acceleration. Did Toyota settle on this conclusion simply because it was easy to come by, it was a cheaper fix than looking into the sensors or software, or even pride in the fact that they didn’t want to admit that their system might be faulty? You bring up a good point that safety is one of the most important responsibilities of an engineer and that they should maintain their products after they are released. How many engineers will you assign for the maintenance and for how long? Is it fair to stick an engineer on one project just to maintain it for years to come rather than allowing them to work on other projects? Will these engineers work for the company or will an outside company oversee the maintenance?
One of the main issues I think should have been brought up is the simple argument of whether or not an electronic system is viable for accelerating and steering. Is it a sound decision to move from mechanical systems to electronic ones? Are there too many complications or unforeseen problems associated with electronics? There are many benefits to implementing electronic systems since they are safer, more ergonomic, they make driving easier, and they eliminate many mechanical devices. Do these benefits outweigh the risks involved?
You state that Toyota tried to make a cheaper car rather than make a safer one, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe drive-by-wire systems are actually more expensive than mechanical ones due to the development costs, the complexity of the system, and the safeguards needed. I think Toyota is actually trying to be innovative and replace a mechanical system that can break down with an electronic system that isn’t as prone to defects. I think they are actually trying to put more money into the system to make it safer. I remember people being up in arms when it was found that the system was electronic, but really, how is an electronic system breaking down any different than a mechanical system failure? Consumers can demand for cheaper products, but if the consumer doesn’t have the resources to pay for a cheaper product, a less safe product should not be considered a viable alternative. When you drive a car you are putting others at risk and if you have demanded a cheaper but also less safe vehicle, not only are you at risk but others as well. You might deem those risks to yourself to be acceptable, but is it fair to put everyone else at risk as well? You sort of need to find that balance between adhering to safety standards while reducing costs.
I agree that there should be some level of regulation because the consumer may not always know what is best for them so someone should step in, and that could be the government or some other company to regulate these sorts of things. If it is found that a car company is responsible for accidents due to negligence or poor design, they definitely should be held accountable.