May 25, 2012

Toyota’s Troubles Part Two (Or Three or Four or . . .)

Here I am again, writing about Toyota’s troubles.

Today, the car company announced another massive global recall of close to 1.7 million cars due to fuel leak problems. The car models in question affecting the U.S. are the Lexus IS and GS sedans. And though Toyota says it has received no reports of accidents or deaths due to the malfunction, it has had numerous complaints from North American, European and Japanese customers.

It’s been a horrible two years for the world’s largest car manufacturer. Last February I wrote about the Prius recall and the numerous questions that followed regarding the company’s totalitarian business environment.

The “Toyota Way” is the company’s long-standing philosophy that, among other things, places an extreme emphasis on maximizing efficiency by minimizing waste. Some have even said it acts almost like a religion amongst Toyota’s 316,000 employees. There is even a Toyota-approved way of turning corners when walking around the company’s numerous hallways (you must do say at a 90 degree angle). Think that’s bad? Toyota also demands that their employees never walk around the office with their hands in their pockets.

Now if only they could be that vigilant and careful with their car manufacturing process. Does Toyota value waste-cutting and efficiency more than product quality and customer safety? It’s a question that has been asked more than once.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Editor

Emily Holbrook is the editor of Risk Management magazine and the Risk Management Monitor blog.

212-655-5915

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.