Ford drops suppliers over working conditions

[RichardJensen]

Stuff like this just never makes the news, does it?

 

Here you have a company that has stopped buying from 10 Tier 1 suppliers because they don't meet its workplace standards, and do you think you'll read about it anywhere but on this board?

 

http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=23883

 

Ford has taken an even larger step over the past two years, becoming the first automotive company to extend worker standards to its global suppliers. It is the only automaker to train, assess and remediate among its first-tier supply base.

 

"Our emphasis is on working with our suppliers to assess and develop management systems to ensure proper working conditions," said Ian Olson, manager, supply chain sustainability. "That is why training is critical. The goal is not to police them but to have suppliers take ownership and make long-term positive changes."

 

Ford has assessed working conditions at more than 200 supplier plants, mostly in China, Central America, Mexico, Russia and Romania. The approach is to assess a sample and train all of the supplier sites in 17 identified emerging market. So far, Ford has discontinued the sourcing process for 10 suppliers for non-compliances or lack of cooperation.

 

"In most cases, our suppliers have been cooperative and are eager to work with us to correct identified issues," said Olson. "Unfortunately, we have had cases where the non-compliances are so systematic or severe, we have had to discontinue the sourcing process."

Also, on the environmental side of things:

 

Like other sustainability practices in business and manufacturing, responsible social practices can impact the bottom line, according to O'Brien. He points to the issue of water conservation, which was identified as a major issue in some regions. Ford began looking for opportunities to save water at its facilities and now uses about 10 billion gallons less water per year -- a positive for local communities that also saves Ford about $5 million a year.

 

10 billion gallons. Savings equal to about what 400k U.S. citizens consume in a year.

[Stray Kat]

Dammit! Richard you are right yet again. Where is the positive press for Ford on this? I think though, that this issue breaks the biased liberal media's agenda so I'm not looking for front page news anytime soon. What with a great big evil American company quietly conducting business with character and class. That just don't fit what they want to say about America. I love it, the environment AND human rights all wrapped into one story and I heard nary a word other than here. Kinda makes you think that the talking heads don't really care about either just effecting their obvious goals.

[probeGT]

Kudos to Ford for doing this, and you're right it SHOULD be getting more media attention.

 

BUT. . . how can you possible spin this non-coverage as evidence of the "liberal" media? If the media truly were liberal, wouldn't they be all over this, in our face with it? If the media truly was liberal why would they hate Ford (pro-union, social conscience) and love Toyota (non-union, no conscience)?

 

Aren't liberals in favor of workers' rights, and opposed to "letting the market decide?" So, if anything, Ford's activities in this regard are anti-conservative, which basically just says live and let die.

 

Also, if this is a liberal issue, why don't I hear Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Scarborough, Rivera, Stossel, Hume, Beck, Novak, Will, etc. fuming about it?

 

BTW, name me as many liberal commentators you see in the media with the stature of those above.

[retro-man]

I agree. Attributing the "conspiracy of silence" to the "liberal media" is a brain-fart if ever I saw one. What interest could the "liberal elite" possibly have in squashing a corporation doing right? Seems to me they'd want to rub it in the face of all those not doing right. Speaking of motives, if someone can explain the motives behind this vast conspiracy to give Toyota and Honda a free pass, while killing off blue collar industry and union jobs in the U.S. (yeah, that sounds like something "liberals" would want to do - kill the unions and screw the workers :rolleyes: ) I'd sure like to hear it. Otherwise, better put your foil hat back on. I think the aliens (probably liberal aliens) are manipulating your brain waves.

 

The only question I have - and have had ever since learning about the Rouge River complex, and the Piquet project - is where is Ford's PR department in all this? I would think that strategically timed and placed press releases would get coverage. Also, there are plenty of "green" internet and e-mail newsclips in circulation. I subscribe to a couple myself. They need somebody writing and releasing articles about things like this. To the more outlets, the merrier. Write a piece for the WSJ stressing how it benefits the bottom line. Send something to Lou Dobbs about how it protects working standards, ultimately reducing downward pressure on wages and conditions for workers here at home, etc. etc. Be strategic. Above all, get the word out.

 

There will be attackers who will point out things like low fleet mileage, etc.. View those not as enemies, but as "loyal adversaries", who can help define strategies for shoring up the rear.

 

p.s. Kudos to Ford for this. I always knew they were decent at the core.

Edited July 21, 2006 by niteflight

[RichardJensen]

These initiatives reflect Bill Ford's character, and I think part of that character involves not 'blowing a trumpet before you when making a gift'. Ford's charitable efforts are almost twice GM's, and close to three times Toyota's. But this is very much a part of how the Ford family sees its responsiblity to the public, and I think there is a desire to not be seen trying too hard to get noticed for these sorts of things.

 

For the Fords, this is about doing what is right, and that is an end in itself.

Edited July 21, 2006 by RichardJensen

[marc-o]

You know, to be quite honest, most companies nowadays make various moves that (usually) for both economic and strategic reasons make sense. They don't usually make the press.

 

If you scour through press releases of any major company, you'll see annoucements like these, they rarely make it to the mainstream media (especially not in the busier news days we have been seeing lately). Ford isn't somekind of forgotten goodwill martyr.

[RichardJensen]

You know, to be quite honest, most companies nowadays make various moves that (usually) for both economic and strategic reasons make sense. They don't usually make the press.

 

If you scour through press releases of any major company, you'll see annoucements like these, they rarely make it to the mainstream media (especially not in the busier news days we have been seeing lately). Ford isn't somekind of forgotten goodwill martyr.

Gee. First auto company (including Toyota) to impose global workplace standards. First auto company to work with suppliers to implement this code. First auto company to stop doing business with suppliers based on their workplace standards.

 

Thing is this DOES NOT make short term economic sense, and the only stratgic sense accrues with wide public dissemination of this effort.

 

Ford is actually well respected within the circles that pay attention to these kinds of things. However, the broader public doesn't care, and the media that cover Ford find it very difficult to put this kind of news in any kind of context. Ford's media coverage is generally in dollars and cents, total sales, or 0-60 times. Trying to fit in a piece on workplace standards just doesn't work. Unless it's because people are protesting somewhere.

 

I don't think Bill Ford would declare himself some sort of "goodwill martyr" for doing this and receiving little to no credit for it. This is just part of being a good citizen.

[Stray Kat]

I agree. Attributing the "conspiracy of silence" to the "liberal media" is a brain-fart if ever I saw one. What interest could the "liberal elite" possibly have in squashing a corporation doing right? Seems to me they'd want to rub it in the face of all those not doing right. Speaking of motives, if someone can explain the motives behind this vast conspiracy to give Toyota and Honda a free pass, while killing off blue collar industry and union jobs in the U.S. (yeah, that sounds like something "liberals" would want to do - kill the unions and screw the workers :rolleyes: ) I'd sure like to hear it. Otherwise, better put your foil hat back on. I think the aliens (probably liberal aliens) are manipulating your brain waves.

 

 

 

 

You tell me. Why would you see news media sources with an anti- American slant ? I get the impression that the journalistic geeks think they are above all this? It's like they make comments from some vantage point on high. Kind of like a good percentage of today's college "professors". Talking heads create nothing and are accountable to no- one it would seem. See I question what the motives behind liberalism really are. I question them because you won't hear about these good things coming from an American company for the most part. Are you saying that there is no liberal voice to tout these accomplishments by companies like Ford? The exact reason that Ford is not favorable is because it is a big old American company. They participated in a major way in the industrial revolution of this country. Before Henry, America was largely agricultural. After, it was industry and technology based to a greater degree. Ford, unfortunately to the liberal mind, represents the past and all the imperfections that goes with that. Never mind Ford or Gm is like a mini America, industrious and ambitious, hammering out it's problems daily ever improving and correcting problems of the past. I wonder many times why the supposedly ultra riteous non- American car companies feverishly want to sell their wares here in the first place. Are'nt there many more places on earth that need their ultra- clean and fuel efficient masterpieces more than us? You don't suppose it's because they can turn a greater profit selling here do you? Why concentrate all the latest and greatest stuff here, it's "unfair" that America and the west get all the good stuff, is'nt it? Should'nt their inherent higher moral standards literally force whomever to donate their goods to those less fortunate? I mean after all America is o-k we'll get by, maybe. Why don't the companies more sensitive to the human condition "fix" the rest of the world with their far greater generosity and goodwill?