Firestone and Ford
This scandal broke out because due to a very high rate of tire failures equipped on the vehicles produced by Ford Motor Company. In particular, one should speak about such models as Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer. These tires were manufactured by Firestone, a company that was a supplier of Ford for a long time (Nutt, 2009, p. 2). It is believed that these tire failures resulted in 1100 accidents and 119 deaths (Nutt, 2009, p. 2). These accidents attracted the attention of governmental organizations and consumer advocacy groups. As a result, both companies were accused of irresponsibility.
It should be noted that at the beginning, these organizations began to blame one another for these accidents (Vance, 2009, p. 138). For example, Ford representatives argued that these problems could be explained by the tread separation of the tires. They could disintegrate when a car was running at a relatively high speed; therefore, such a vehicle could eventually rollover (Nutt, 2009, p. 3).
In their turn, the executives of Firestone argued that these incidents could be attributed to the faulty design of Ford Explorer and the specifications that this company set for the tires of this vehicle. Therefore, it is possible to say at the beginning, the communication strategy chosen by this organization was based on the complete denial of any accusations. However, later they tacitly admitted that their products could be malfunctioning.
For example, one can mention that Firestone had to recall millions of tires (Nutt, 2009, p. 3). In this way, this organization tried to avoid accusations and lawsuits. The main problem is that the representatives of Firestone did not speak openly about the underlying causes of this problem. Moreover, they did not specify what they would do in order to eliminate possible risks. In turn, Ford tried to settle various disputes out of the court. In both cases, these companies tried to avoid negative publicity, but they did not achieve this goal because they were portrayed as irresponsible corporate citizens.
This case led to several important outcomes. In particular, one should mention that Ford and Firestone broke up their long-standing partnership (Nutt, 2009, p. 3). Secondly, it is important to remember that the sales of Firestone plummeted when the company began to be perceived as the major culprit for numerous accidents and deaths (Nutt, 2009, p. 3). In its turn, Ford began to pay more attention to the quality control methods used by their suppliers. These are some of the main details that should be considered.
There are several alternative strategies that can be adopted by the organizations involved in the case. For instance, Firestone should have focused on the possible causes of tread separation and eliminate this dangerous defect as soon as possible. Secondly, instead of denying their mistakes, the executives of the company should have explained what they were doing in order to address this problem. This strategy could enable the company to protect its reputation.
Similarly, Ford should have immediately responded to the increased rates of incidents in which their vehicles were involved. They needed to identify the causes of these incidents and possible defects even if Firestone tried to deny any accusations. Overall, it is possible to say that these companies only tried to shift the blame on one another without trying to identify their own flaws. The proposed alternative might have helped them to eliminate the defects and avoid negative publicity.
Exxon Valdez
In 1989, the tanker belonging to the Exxon Shipping Company struck Bligh Island Reef and spilled more than 260,000 barrels of crude oil (Ramlogan, 2004, p. 50). This event resulted in catastrophic environmental effects. For instance, it killed more than 36,460 birds in Prince William Sound (Ramlogan, 2004, p. 50). Moreover, the population of many marine species declined significantly. It should be mentioned that the Exxon Shipping Company was accused of failure to provide a sufficient and rested crew for their ship. These people were both fatigued and overworked (Salinger, 2005, p. 304).
Moreover, the crew did not have a well-developed recovery plan that could have helped them reduce the impact of the spill. Furthermore, the company became criticized because it did not respond to the emergency adequately. On the whole, this incident underlined the necessity to control the marine transportation of oil. These are some of the key issues that should be taken into account.
One can argue that the company accepted its responsibility and agreed to pay $ 900 million in order to restore the ecosystem damaged by this oil spill (Salinger, 2005, p. 305). Additionally, this organization did not try to deny the accusations. They accepted that the lack of organizational safeguards eventually contributed to this environmental disaster (Ramlogan, 2004, p. 50). However, this organization attempted to reduce the number of punitive damages that they had to pay.
In their opinion, the court had to consider the fact that they spent a significant amount of money on the clean-up of oil. Overall, the representatives of this company tried to emphasize the idea that the company did everything possible to mitigate the effects of the spill on the welfare of various stakeholders. This is the communication strategy that this organization adopted.
The major outcome of this case is that the government adopted several regulations that were aimed at reducing the probability of such events in the future. For example, one can speak about the adoption of the Oil Pollution Act in 1990. According to this law, the ships that caused significant oil spills were not allowed to enter Prince William Sound.
Moreover, it is possible to mention several regulations adopted by the legislators in Alaska. Furthermore, one should speak about the decline of economic growth in many cities affected by this spill. In particular, it is important to remember that many people were dependent on the tourism industry and fishing (Salinger, 2005, p. 304). In turn, this event undermined the development of many businesses in this area. This is one of the consequences that should not be disregarded.
Overall, Exxon should have taken several steps in order to respond to the situation more adequately. First of all, they should have adopted stringent rules ensuring that each tanker of this company is adequately staffed. As it has been said before, this spill can be explained by the fact that the crew of Exxon Valdez was extremely overworked.
By laying stress on this policy, the company could have increased its credibility. This approach is critical for minimizing the risk of such events in the future. Secondly, this organization should have settled disputes out of the court. These are the main recommendations that can be made in this case. This approach might have helped this company to avoid negative publicity.
Reference List
Nutt, P. (2009). Why Decisions Fail: Avoiding the Blunders and Traps That Lead to Debacles: Easyread Edition. New York, NY: ReadHowYouWant.
Ramlogan, R. (2004). The Developing World and the Environment: Making a case for Effective Protection of the Global Environment. New York, NY: University Press of America.
Salinger, L. (2005). Encyclopedia of White-Collar & Corporate Crime. New York, NY: SAGE.
Vance, D. (2009). Corporate Restructuring: From Cause Analysis to Execution. New York, NY: Springer.