William Clay Ford Jr
Just another
short-sighted auto executive
with no interest in the environment,
our oil dependence,
or the truth.
Talking Green vs. Making
Green
DANNY HAKIM
NY Times 28mar02
DEARBORN, Mich. — Before he became chief executive of the Ford Motor Company (news/quote), William Clay Ford Jr. made a point of joining the environmental camp.
Global warming, he wrote in a citizenship report in 2001, "stands out from other environmental issues because of its potentially serious consequences and its direct relationship to our industry." (see below)
Global warming? Auto executives talk about cars, golf and every tenth of a percentage point of market share. But they do not speak of global warming, unless prompted, and then often dismiss it as scientifically unproved.
Such statements made Mr. Ford — a vegetarian, guitar-strumming black belt in tae kwon do — the Motor City's most outspoken executive on environmental issues.
But since becoming chief executive and gaining operational control of the struggling company last October, Mr. Ford, 44, has muted his pronouncements on such issues and has made decisions that have bitterly disappointed environmentalists.
Many activists are most angry that Mr. Ford, the great-grandson of Henry Ford, backed an intense lobbying and advertising effort against a Senate proposal to raise fuel economy standards for the first time since the 1980's.
Some also say they sensed a shift in Mr. Ford's priorities when, in a recent television campaign, he spoke of his love of the outdoors in an ad promoting the vehicle environmentalists love to hate most: the SUV.
"My fear is that Bill Ford is showing his true stripes as just another short-sighted auto executive with no interest in the environment, our oil dependence, or the truth," said Daniel F. Becker, who monitors global warming and energy issues for the Sierra Club.
Fairly recently, Mr. Becker said of Mr. Ford: "His tenure offers real hope for progress."
Mr. Ford declined requests for comment. But company officials say that Ford Motor has stood by its main commitments, including a pledge in 2000 to improve the fuel economy of its SUV's by 25 percent within five years. The company has said it aims to sell the first hybrid gasoline-electric SUV. — a step toward fulfilling that promise — in 2003. It is also undertaking an ambitious project to rebuild its huge River Rouge plant as an eco-friendly operation.
"What is the commitment we've made that we've backed away from?" asked James G. Vella, Ford's vice president for corporate public affairs.
But even a few of the company's white-collar workers, in an internal message board, recently expressed discomfort with Ford Motor's role in the defeat of a proposal backed by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to raise fuel economy standards 50 percent by the 2015 model year.
"This is a victory for American big business, including Ford lobbying," read one message given to The New York Times by an employee who did not support the company's position. "Fuel economy has improved hardly at all in 20 years."
Now, environmentalists, embittered after the Senate defeat, are lining up against the man they once viewed as a potent ally. They say it will be difficult for Mr. Ford to lay claim to a green mantle if his company continues to adhere to the industry line on fighting fuel economy regulation. Ford's tangible record is undistinguished, they argue, because the fuel economy of its automotive fleet is roughly equivalent to vehicles built by General Motors (news/quote), its main rival, and because Toyota Motor (news/quote) and Honda Motor are already selling environmentally friendly vehicles that use hybrid engines.
The heart of the anger is directed at the company's support for an advertising blitz in newspapers and radio stations across the country to sway lawmakers during the recent fuel economy debate. The ads claimed, among other things, that SUV's and pickups would be driven to extinction and farmers would have to use subcompact cars to tend their crops. Ford also drafted letters for its workers to send to Congress.
"Everybody had a lot of high hopes and optimism for what Bill Ford was doing at Ford," said Scott Stoermer, spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters. "It's one thing to be opposed to it," he said of the Senate proposal, "but it's quite another to personally ask your employees to lobby senators and to use arguments that you know are wrong."
Environmentalists argue that the notion that the SUV. or pickup would be legislated out of existence is belied by the fact that Ford's planned hybrid Escape SUV., due in 2003, will get 40 miles a gallon, well above the standards in the Kerry-McCain proposal.
Industry lobbyists counter that vehicles like the Escape will be made in limited numbers and that the legislation would have made it far more expensive to build — and for consumers to buy — pickups and SUV's.
"I don't think anybody would argue that the Kerry bill wouldn't have the impact of reducing choice," said Martin B. Zimmerman, Ford's group vice president for corporate affairs.
One alliance of environmental groups and corporations, the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, is now reviewing Ford's membership, as well as GM's.
"The recent actions by Ford and General Motors on fuel economy standards have raised some serious questions about their sincerity," said Robert K. Massie, the group's executive director.
When Mr. Ford became chairman in 1999, he had an easier platform to make grand pronouncements. The company was prosperous, and, as chairman, he was not responsible for day-to-day operations.
Much has changed since then. Ford lost $5.5 billion in 2001 and is in turmoil. The company faces its usual unyielding competition from abroad, but has also been caught off guard by a resurgent GM that is stealing market share and eroding profits by leading a price war. In January, Mr. Ford announced a restructuring plan that included 35,000 job cuts and five plant closings.
The crisis presents Mr. Ford with a quandary that puts his stated environmental beliefs up against preserving the corporate inheritance of his children and extended family.
"I used to wonder," he said in late 2000, "if running a large industrial company would really square with my values."
More recently, he has been less Hamlet and more Prince Hal, worrying less out loud about saving the earth and talking instead about the hard realities of how the company became distracted during the bull market and how it must now refocus on building profitable cars and trucks.
"We strayed from what got us to the top of the mountain and it cost us greatly," he said recently.
Environmentalists say the gospel of green should not be one of convenience. But Wall Street, the United Automobile Workers union and stockholders have their own concerns, starting with the bottom line and preserving jobs.
"You might irritate the environmentalists, but you have three other key constituencies," said Saul Rubin, an analyst with UBS Warburg. "The consumers, who are not particularly interested in fuel economy; the UAW, who are not particularly interested in fuel economy; and the shareholders, who are not particularly interested in fuel economy."
"Bill Ford," he continued, "is going to have to give up on his ambitions to create an environmentally friendly company. They need to focus all of their resources on becoming competitive again."
The disenchantment among environmentalists is in stark contrast to their attitude as the new decade began. Then, Mr. Ford led the company to abandon the Global Climate Coalition, a group of corporations that lobbied against restricting emissions of gases linked to global warming. And in a landmark corporate citizenship report released in 2000, the company acknowledged that the rise of SUV's had increased fuel consumption and added to greenhouse gas emissions.
"SUV owners who use their vehicles for off-road recreation can damage the nature they and others seek to enjoy," the report said.
Mr. Ford pressed for the report in an attempt to address questions about the impact of the rise of SUV's, not a popular area of inquiry in Detroit. "The court of public opinion sometimes decides before you're ready for them to decide, and I want to make sure we're ready and ahead of the curve," he said at a news conference when the report was released.
Michelle Robinson, who works for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said liberal activist groups like hers saw Mr. Ford "as a breath of fresh air."
More recently, she said, she has felt discouraged by his company's actions. GM, if viewed by groups like hers as a nemesis, has at least been more consistent, she said.
"I think there's a little more duplicity, or schizophrenia, with Ford right now," she said. "You're not quite sure what they really are advocating when they're saying one thing publicly and another behind closed doors."
Mr. Zimmerman, the Ford official, said the company was only agreeing with the rest of the industry that the Kerry-McCain proposal was too ambitious. Even Honda, increasingly seen by environmental groups as their last hope for an ally, opposed the proposal. Honda, however, is the only major automaker that is not a member of the trade group that sponsored many of the ads. It has also said that significant increases are achievable.
Inside Ford, noted one white-collar worker who said he feared losing his job if identified, "the camps are fairly well split between people who think not much or nothing needs to be done versus the group of people that think a lot needs to be done."
But Mr. Zimmerman argued that the vast majority of employees support Ford's position. He added that the company still had backing from some environmental groups, citing Conservation International, a group that promotes biodiversity that has accepted a $25 million grant from Ford.
Peter A. Seligmann, the chief executive of that group, said of Bill Ford, "In his heart of hearts, he is truly concerned about environmental issues and truly recognizes the impact his industry has on the environment.
"He would like to be engaged in finding solutions on these issues," he added, "and is trying to figure out how to get the industry there."
Bill Ford on Transparency
3apr01
One year ago, Ford Motor Company released its first corporate citizenship report. It was a significant first step in reporting publicly on elements of our business that affect communities around the world.
William Clay Ford, Jr.
Chairman of the Board
The report generated much more of a public reaction than we anticipated. The vast majority of the feedback was positive. Many commented on the Company's courage in speaking frankly. But there were some who said we were attacking our own vehicles or confessing to a laundry list of failures. We weren't.
The strong response convinced me of the report's value. It also highlighted a dilemma facing companies that want to address these issues in a less superficial and more substantial way. Discussions about business tend to fall into two categories. Most rely on the obvious financial indicators, gauging success in ways that have been in use for most of the last century. Nearly all of these standard indices look backward at what has been achieved.
A small but growing approach to assessing business focuses on corporate responsibility, or citizenship, gauging whether or not a company is meeting new, broader definitions of its roles and responsibilities. This view relies heavily on openness, transparency and engagement with outside stakeholders to determine whether or not a company is meeting these new expectations. It can identify emerging marketplace issues because it involves dialogue about expectations and potential along a wide range of issues. It looks forward at what needs to be done.
The differences of these approaches are apparent in many ways. For example, financial markets have difficulty measuring the economic value of citizenship efforts. The absence of effective measurement tools can lead them to discount these issues. And, while activists are beginning to see that a company's financial performance is critical to citizenship efforts, there is still a tendency to say that a focus on shareholder value means the company is pursuing profits over principles.
Our corporate citizenship report is an attempt to address these evolving standards of conduct. It adds measurement mechanisms for corporate citizenship to the more established measurements of corporate finance. The next step is to merge these two methods of examination because, from my perspective, there is danger in separation and opportunity in connection.
Citizenship issues should not be viewed as separate from the core business. Corporate citizenship can only be achieved in the context of a strong and healthy business. The more mainstream considerations of a large business venture are no less important simply because something new is added to the mix. Shareholders will support citizenship efforts only if they have a basic faith in the health of the business. Dealers, suppliers and other business partners will embrace citizenship efforts when the business issues they choose to raise are recognized. That is corporate citizenship in the real world.
Beyond the obvious need for mobility, people buy cars and trucks for a variety of reasons: safety, quality, cost, style, dealer service. It is in this context that we must consider our efforts to redefine environmental and social responsibility. If we keep them separate from the basics of our business they won't succeed. And we are rapidly reaching the point where, if our citizenship efforts don't succeed, the basics of our business won't succeed, either.
People buy cars and trucks for a variety of reasons: safety, quality, cost, style, dealer service. It is in this context that we must consider our efforts to redefine environmental and social responsibility.
It's not enough to see corporate citizenship as simply another feature that adds value. This view holds that, everything else being equal, people will buy from, work for, or invest in the company with the best set of social values. While the assumption is true, it undersells the potential. Forward-thinking, responsible behavior should enhance all of the things that add value for stakeholders, not just be an addition to them. Quality, cost, value, safety - everything should be improved by this process.
That's why Ford Motor Company's strategic focus on customers and their interests is so helpful not just to our financial success, but to our corporate citizenship efforts.
We spent much of this past year articulating, in a very general way, our rapidly evolving notions of our roles and responsibilities and the reasons for this shift in direction.
There is the emerging consensus around climate change. This stands out from other environmental issues because of its potentially serious consequences and its direct relationship to our industry. The global temperature is rising and the evidence suggests that the shift is being affected by human activity, including emissions related to fossil fuels used for transportation. While uncertainties remain, make no mistake about it: We believe it is time to take appropriate action.
While some might find motivation in fear, we approach this with a more hopeful perspective. We see an opportunity to play a significant role in building solutions and creating markets.
While some might find motivation in fear,... we see an opportunity to play a significant role in building solutions and creating markets.
There is the emerging focus on globalization. With dramatic increases in the flow of information around the world, people are better equipped to ask questions about the ways companies impact communities. That includes the treatment of employees; a key factor in how people judge corporate responsibility. For some companies, the issue is basic human rights. For Ford Motor Company, it will be revealed more subtly, as we explore our impact in communities beyond the gates of our factories or those of our suppliers. The landscape of accountability has changed and so has the criteria for leadership.
All of these changes are good for customers and citizens around the world, and those companies willing and able to change quickly.
To be among those companies that can change quickly enough to turn these societal shifts into marketplace advantage won't be easy. Some will question our sincerity; others will misinterpret our intentions. To energize the process, we'll need to set targets that are grand enough to inspire and realistic enough to achieve. And we'll need to set those targets before we're absolutely certain of how to reach them. That is the process unfolding today at Ford Motor Company.
Publishing an annual citizenship report is an important part of this transformation. It helps us to see our business from a variety of perspectives, which is an essential step toward gaining an accurate assessment of our progress. We will use this report as a tool for improving every aspect of our performance as a company. We invite others to join us in the process.
The changes won't happen overnight, but they will happen. The issues we face are complex, but our goals are simple: To build a stronger business and to make a better world.
William Clay Ford, Jr.
Chairman of the Board
April 3, 2001
source: http://www.ford.com/en/ourCompany/communityAndCulture/buildingRelationships/visionAndStrategy/BillFordOnTransparency.htm 28mar02
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |
