Two pieces of good news for the health of the capitalist system have emerged in the last few days. The most important came on Friday, when US prosecutors announced they would be charging six individuals, including the former CEO Martin Winterkorn, for their alleged role in facilitating or covering up the German car giant’s decade-long cheating of environmental regulation of emissions.
US Attorney General John Sessions declared: “If you try to deceive the United States, then you will pay a heavy price. The indictment unsealed today alleges that Volkswagen’s scheme to cheat its legal requirements went all the way to the top of the company. These are serious allegations, and we will prosecute this case to the fullest extent of the law.”
Over the weekend, the former top dogs at VW were probably comforting themselves with the thought that, even if found guilty, they’d never face practical consequences as – quite unbelievably – Germany does not have an extradition agreement with the country that for 70 years has both underwritten its defence and, more generally, the world trading system of which it has been such a disproportionate beneficiary. But I’m digressing.
Today, they may feel less comfy. For yesterday we learnt that VW itself may well sue its former top employees in an attempt to exact punishment for the estimated $25 billion cost of the compensation and other bills that the scandal led to. Call me cynical, but I wonder if there’s more than a trace of PR in this. It is, after all, in VW’s interest to present itself as a victim of a few bad apples and that its corporate culture and its commercial closeness to the German government have also been full contributors to the rot.
As Jack Ewing – European economics journalist for The New York Times and author of a book on the scandal – told UnHerd last year, there was an unhealthiness to the depth, breadth and length of Berlin’s support for VW’s targets to lead the world in volume of car production. “If you look back at the last couple of decades,” he told Harriet Maltby, “time and again the German government went to bat for the German car industry and that led to this very weak regulatory structure.”
I’m pleased at the potential double action for two reasons. One is that it’s helpful in addressing widespread suspicion among voters that the wealthy and well-connected do not play by the same rules as them. The Transatlantic YouGov poll with which UnHerd launched last July confirmed the electoral toxicity of bad behaviour from big business. Our surveys found that only “one in twenty Britons thinks the level of punishment [for those responsible for the crash of 2008] has been appropriate, while it’s just over one in ten among Americans”. When banks failed – hurting taxpayers, shareholders and generating austerity and unemployment – too many CEOs landed far too softly.
But there’s an even more fundamental reason why it matters that bad practice should be seen to carry consequences. Consequences are, after all, at the heart of why competitive free markets are so innovative. And consequential losses at least as much as consequential profits. Like a mild heart attack, dropping into the red is a flashing light on the dashboard – a warning that a change of course is necessary or the next bank statement or next coronary could be fatal.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe