CASE STUDY I VOLKSWAGEN

GOURI N

BBA LLB
15

1. What factors led Volkswagen’s managers to decide to try to cheat environmental tests via
a “defeat device?” Explain how each of the following concepts was apparent in this
decision: ethical fading, incentive gaming, framing, bounded ethicality, bounded
rationality, obedience to authority, and conformity bias.

ANS: In December of 2016, the then chairman of VW revealed publicly that a group of
engineers at VW had chosen to rig the emission test in 2005 when the US EPA had imposed
what was held to be the toughest emission standards on the automobile industry. A large
proportion of the public holds the belief that the Volkswagen emission scandal occurred
primarily owing to ‘technological shortcomings’, which had prompted this prestigious
company to cheat in the emission test.

One significant reason was in virtue of technological shortcomings as believed. The engineers
at VW failed to meet the standards while staying within their allotted budget. VW’s rivals, such
as Mazda, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai, also had their eye on the U.S. diesel market but had
not acted in favour of this owing to the EPA standards. But, Volkswagen saw this as an
opportunity and an irresistible opportunity. In pursuit of this opportunity, they adopted the
unethical and illegal practice of rigging their cars with the defeat devices.

Another notable reason as to why VW chose to cheat rather than accept defeat is reflected by
their unique corporate culture. The culture of Volkswagen is compliance-based which
employees are obliged to comply with the rules 1. This has led to the establishment of a
particular kind of atmosphere where the workforce carries on their allotted task under a
critically centralized structure. Under this culture, the demand and expectations of the company
should be fulfilled regardless of how employees can perform the tasks 2.
Professor Luann Lynch, in her case study titled The Volkswagen Emissions Scandal 3,
summarizes the following as the reasons as to why VW chose to cheat

i. Pressure: according to her study, the pressure on these engineers were immense, and
as highlighted earlier, the company culture they embodied was also of a different
quality.to quote from her study; “VW’s 25-page Code of Conduct, on which every
employee was ostensibly trained in ethics, seemed irrelevant when contrasted with
management’s autocratic leadership style and single-minded goal to succeed at any
cost.”

1
(Goodman, McGrath, & Leah, 2015)
2
Supra 1
3
Lynch, Luann J. and Cutro, Cameron and Bird, Elizabeth, The Volkswagen Emissions Scandal. Darden Case
No. UVA-S-0267, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2975251
 In that scenario, the company’s engineering reputation was at stake, and the
consequence of failure for the German economy and reputation around design and
manufacturing would be substantial
ii. Opportunity: As discussed earlier, there existed an opportunity to cheat. “Coinciding
with the directive the engineers received to come up with a new solution, Bosch sold
VW the diesel-engine-management software that could detect when a vehicle was
being tested and turn on emission-controlling devices — on the understanding that it
would be used for internal testing, as the use was illegal in vehicles sold to the public.
And modern cars operate with about 100 million lines of software code, making it
easy to hide cheating software code amidst the complexity”
iii. Rationalization: Another aspect highlighted in the study is how VW in 1970 had
installed similar defeat devices which once exposed only attracted a minimal penalty
of a $120,000 fine. Hence there could have been a rationalization in their minds that
penalty would be light if they were caught. Perhaps they had reason to believe that it
was in the best interest of the company and so the management would not disapprove.

Although some people might stick to the idea that Volkswagen scandal took place in virtue of
profit maximization, this is, in fact, a misconception. Hence, considering the information thus
revealed, it becomes evident that this scandal’s roots can be traced back to Volkswagen culture
and approaches,
Ethical Fading is focusing on an issue as a “business decision” rather than an “ethical decision”
or Avoiding or disguising moral implications of a decision in favour of self-interest4. Here,
VW chose to ignore their moral implication and responsibility and saw the decision as merely
a business decision. This is highlighted by the fact that they such an unethical and illegal
practice to meet the requirements rather than accepting their incompetence owing to the lack
of the required technology. Had they chosen to accept their incompetence it would have led to
reduced business.

Incentive gaming, or “gaming the system,” refers to when one figures out ways to increase
one’s rewards for performance without actually improving one’s performance. Volkswagen
perpetrated one of the greatest frauds owing to their interminable pursuit to reach unattainable
benchmarks that have been imposed by those at the top. What’s even worse is that Volkswagen
engineers did manage to find a solution to face emission standards later on, yet they preferred
to continue rigging rather than making a positive change.

Bounded ethicality is the idea that one’s ability to make ethical choices is often limited or
restricted because of internal and external pressures. The company is autocratic rather than
democratic. The main focus of the company is on roots; therefore, there is a noticeable dearth
of global thinking. The workforce at VW is popular owing to their lack of dissent, and so it
needn’t be a requirement that top management forced the workforce to do otherwise. The HR
practices at VW are such that management is given the power to ask/demand that employees
perform their task again if they previously dissented to it. Thus employees of Volkswagen find
themselves in a situation where if maintaining a job is the concern, there is no choice.

4
A. Tenbrunsel and D. Messick, “Ethical Fading: The Role of Self-Deception in Unethical Behavior,” Social
Justice Research, 2004, Vol. 17, No. 2: 223-236
The conformity bias is the tendency people have to behave like those around them rather than
using their judgment. This is also reflected in the autocratic culture of the company.
2. When the software-based defeat device was first used by Volkswagen in 2008, why do you
think those involved decided to use the defeat device?

Ans. There has been animated debate regarding why a company like Volkswagen would have
resorted to such a fraudulent practise. At that point in time, VW was one of the biggest players
in the automobile industry. It owned several reputable marques such as Audi, Roll Royce, and
also Porsche. Yet, VW having met the audacious requirements set by the US EPA was a feat
of a different league.it leapt to the position of the top-selling automaker globally having beaten
groups such as GM and Toyota. The pride in having attained this was quickly tainted when the
fact that VW had installed defeat devices in their cars was made public.
One primary reason as to why they cheated could be traced back to the stringent laws that had
been established by the US EPA. They presented to the automobile industry what can be termed
as a virtually impossible challenge to the engineers. Most of VW’s primary competitors chose
to not meet such demands and to not breach the market. But VW rolled out its new-model
diesel in the U.S. in 2008 and won the first Green Car of the Year award ever granted to a diesel
car at the Los Angeles Auto Show.5
Another reason would be the unique corporate culture of Volkswagen, which is indivisible
from its German culture. The existing culture is such that employees live and work under a
centralized hierarchy wherein they are to perform all that they’re asked to do, irrespective of
the nature of the demand. From a technological point of view, a defeat device is one that cannot
be traced unless it is specifically looked for. This all points to a generally unethical practice
wherein the company blindly does what will surge them forward while disregarding both, their
commitment to their employees and their customers. All these aspects together would be a
collective reason as to why VW chose to use the defeat device.
3. How did Volkswagen frame its goals? Do you think ethical considerations were in the
managers’ frame of reference? Why or why not?

ANS: The goals set by VW were both simple and ambitious. They wanted to simply accelerate
their growth in the diesel industry and overcome their closest competitors to acquire the
topmost position. The only obstacle in their path was the stringent regulations that had been
established by the US EPA.

Volkswagen had data that showed that its diesel engine’s emissions exceeded U.S pollution
standards. Instead of redesign the engine, Volkswagen engineers chose to install the so-called
defeat device which interprets the emissions as if they met EPA standards. In this case, the
decision can be reduced to a simple “cost v benefit” analysis; weighing the short term benefits
of increased sales, higher profits, bigger bonuses, increased stock prices etc. against the risks
in the long run, including getting caught and punished.

According to news reports, VW considered both to be minimal. They chose to view the
“wrong” thing as not wrong but rather as a low-risk way of getting closer to maximizing profits.
It can be noticed by virtue of the results as to which is the choice that they made. Now, the

5
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-greencar-idUSTRE4AJ7S120081120
defeat device or rather the programme was programmed such that it provided these readings
only in test conditions. This sheds light on the fact that they were, in fact, aware of the ethical
issue that existed. It is also likely that they were able to make necessary moral judgements
about the issue.

To state from the case study itself,” while the VW engineers who developed the defeat device
were likely rational and (largely) ethical people, their bounded rationality and bounded
ethicality influenced their actions. They wanted Volkswagen to succeed, and the ethics of
developing the device for their company faded from view. Indeed, engineers and executives at
VW seem to have become so focused upon meeting technical standards and maintaining the
company’s profits and reputation as a leader in anti-pollution technology that the ethical
ramifications of the defeat devices were not taken into account. While it may be argued that
emissions tests were set up in a way that encouraged many automobile makers to game the
system, for Volkswagen, gaming the emissions test with defeat devices ultimately proved to be
an expensive misstep for the company.”
Hence, VW’s guilt is highlighted by the fact that they chose to hide their usage of the defeat
device. This shows that they were aware of the fact that they had chosen the ethically and
morally wrong choice. Hence it was a conscious decision to do the wrong thing. So, it would
be easy to assume that the ethically right choice wasn’t given much priority by those at
Volkswagen.
4. Did the fact that its profit goals seemed immediate and concrete while the victims of
pollution seemed very distant impact the decision making of the company’s employees?
Explain.

ANS: As discussed in the prior question, the goals that VW had chosen to pursue revolved
entirely around building prestige for the company and about gaining profit. Before the scandal
came to light, VW was branded as the greenest, most environmentally conscious carmaker in
the world. They courted millennials with the talk of their environmental sensitivity and
consciousness.

When faced with this dilemma of whether to back down and accept defeat or whether to use
such an illegal measure, they chose the former, since that meant increased sales, higher profits,
bigger bonuses, increased stock prices etc. The risk of getting caught was what assumed the
second most important thought of the company. The concept of how large a degree of pollution
would come about what a very far away thought for them. The fact that VW chose to continue
using the defat device even after they had discovered a solution to make the engine regulatory
binding emphasizes this.

When corporate self-interest is primary, business ethics and corporate social responsibility
remain merely so, with companies doing the bare minimum just to satisfy these requirements.
Most corporates have failed to use autonomy and discretion so as to ensure that they have fair
and generous outcomes. In the VW case, this aspect can be easily justified for they had accepted
that their primary goal was to establish themselves as the top performer. They had held that
their strategy was focused “on positioning the Volkswagen Group as a global economic and
environmental leader among automobile manufacturers”. They had held that this would be
achieved by focussing on ‘environmentally friendly orientation and profitability of our vehicle
projects so that the Volkswagen Group has the right products for success even in more
challenging economic conditions’.
“Individuals also show implicit bias when facing decisions that involve trade-offs between their
self-interest and the interests of future generations. In a majority of cases, they frequently
prioritize the former over the latter. This over-discounting of the future burdens future
generations with an environmentally damaged planet.Most people consider themselves
environmentally friendly and fiscally responsible, yet they are not willing to incur personal
costs to avoid harming future generations”6
These statements enhance the fact that for VW the concept of environmental sustainability was
merely an input or a marketing strategy wherein their measurable goals remained unit sales,
profits and escalated shares.
5. This was an unethical strategy by Volkswagen. In retrospect, do you think it wise on financial
grounds? Explain.

ANS: A German newspaper titled the VW scandal as the most expensive act of stupidity in the
history of the car industry.” Almost immediately after the scandal broke, the company’s stocks
dipped. As of January 2020, 'Dieselgate' has cost the company over €30 billion ($33.6 billion)
the larger proportion of which constituted fines and compensation to customers in the United
States. But this was once the scandal came to light.
There was a complete recall of all cars sold during that particular period of time.

6. Engineers at Volkswagen complained that environmental standards were becoming

impossibly strict. In what ways did emissions test and regulation standards encourage
automobile companies to game the system when testing their vehicles? How might these factors
lead companies’ ethical frameworks to fade from view?
ANS: The primary requirement of any company is to increase the sale of its product. The
regulation that had been imposed by EPA were such that it dramatically increased the cost
diesel vehicles. This set an unachievable standard for all manufacturers in the field. Hence, it
was both, a challenge and an opportunity. If the company were to achieve this superficial goal,
it would mean an enviable feat for the them. Hence, the stricter the laws, the bigger the standard
to achieve and the bigger the achievement, the greater would be the praised on the company.
Volkswagen, after having managed to pass the emission standards rose to fame and even won
awards for their “clean cars” and managed to achieve their goal of top car seller earlier by a
margin of nearly two years. The inherent desire in all companies to place their financial goals
and competitive urge well above their ethical commitments is an issue that will only be
accelerated by the stricter laws and regulations.

In such a scenario, ethics and morals of the company are reduced to mere concepts that need
be checked off a list for the purpose of satisfying some external agency who had imposed these.
7. It has been suggested that engineers often focus their attention on solving problems (such as
how to build a defeat device and not get caught), and do not pay attention to the ethical

6
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Ethical+Blind+Spots_4db0de5b-5177-457d-be51-
7f0d5d9f3f12.pdf
particulars of a situation. Do you think that was the case here? Do you think that it is the case
generally? Why or why not? What behavioural biases or situational factors may have impacted
the engineers’ involvement in developing the defeat device?
ANS: The Engineers at Volkswagen were out in a situation wherein there was immense
pressure on them, they were expected to deliver unrealistic and almost impossible goals that
had been agreed to by the upper management and marketing. The engineers might not have
wanted to do what they did, but owing to various factors such as the compliance mind set of
the workforce and also the company culture, they had to have given in to the pressure and hence
took part in cheating.
With regards to the commonality of such an occurrence, courses such as ethics are those that
one checks of merely for the requirements. The value of such is very limited. Aspects of ethics
are not fostered within the minds of engineers during their training or their educational periods.
Integration of ethics education into the curricula of engineers might help these engineers
sharpen up their ethical points of view while teaching them that the compliance mind set need
not always be advantageous.
Now, though this emphasizes that there exist inherent flaws in the educational structure for
engineers, this needn’t be the sole reason as to why engineers choose to cheat. The engineers
at Volkswagen were put in such a position wherein they were expected to deliver on an
unrealistic promise, but had they managed to do it, they could have witnessed their company’s
ascend to the position of top car maker in the world. “Collaborative cheating” occurs when
individuals from various backgrounds interact and thus create, implement and sustain solutions
to problems that violate ethical obligations. It is necessary that there be factors involved
wherein those involved will incline towards disregarding personal and professional ethical
principles. In collaborative cheating, the various agents who’ve contributed to the ethical
wrongdoing need not be actively compliant with it, but are still willing to commit it for some
higher purpose such as the good of the company, as was the case in VW. The workforce might
have recognized the lack of moral value in what they were to commit but they still chose to do
it for the greater good of the company.
With regards to the factors that lead them to cheat, as discussed before, the inherent compliance
mind set fostered in the company is one reason, the company culture that fosters such a mind-
set is another situational factor that’s had led the engineers to cheat.
8. Are individuals more likely to cheat or engage in other wrongdoing if they think others are
doing so? Why or why not?

ANS: The concept of collaborative cheating is one that occurs when individuals of various
backgrounds come together and interact to come up with a solution to problems that violate
ethical obligations of the organization or company that they are part of. It is necessary that
there be factors involved wherein those involved will incline towards disregarding personal
and professional ethical principles. In collaborative cheating, the various agents who’ve
contributed to the ethical wrongdoing need not be actively compliant with it, but are still willing
to commit it for some higher purpose such as the good of the company. The workforce might
also recognize the lack of moral value in what they were to commit but they still chose to do it
for the greater good of the company.
Studies have shown that people tend to overlook the unethical practise of another if it occurs
gradually over time. There is also the existence of what is termed as ethical blindspots, which
helps highlight how people who are quintessentially are ethical will either overlook or
themselves get involved in ethical wrongdoings. Ethical blind spots are rooted in a number of
biases. Implicit bias is resonated when a person chooses

9. At a minimum, scores of Volkswagen employees knew of the defeat devices. Why might
none of them come forward? What was wrong with the company’s culture that no employee
felt safe to blow the whistle? How can a company create a culture that would encourage
employees to step forward to stop wrongdoing?

ANS: As discussed previously, the VW scandal sheds light on ethical dilemmas in the
workplace. The questions regarding whether an employee should follow the orders of those at
higher posts even when the employee is personally aware that the choice is unethical or illegal.
This same question was faced by the engineers at VW when their managers approved a plan to
use defeat devices. Now, at this point of time, the engineers should have had the authority to
stand up against this and blatantly refuse to be part of such an illegal activity. But the company
culture at VW was such that this was not an option, in case they wanted to continue the job
they held.

VW had a very centralized company culture with emphasized power vested on the CEO. There
was centralized authority wherein even daily decisions went up the chain of command. VW’s
CEO played a very central role in day to day decisions, they micromanaged everything ranging
from engineering decisions to cars that would be promoted at auto shows. Such a centralized
hierarchy meant that lower level employees had a very hard time trying to get their information
heard at the higher levels. At VW, the intimidation occurred at the highest levels. Former CEO
Winkerton held ‘Tuesday meetings’ whit the top executives from various brand including Audi
and seat. At these meetings, Winkerton would ruthlessly criticize those who had failed to meet
their targets. The engineers were so fearful of the upper management inclusive of the CEO to
such an extent that they were ready to let go of their personal ethics solely because they could
not approach the upper management with their inability to do what was demanded of them.
The responsibility for such a scandalous decision does rest upon the management as was
elucidated above. VW is the perfect example wherein the failure of a fear based system can be
highlighted.Collaborative cheating, as what happened at VW, has a higher chance of occurring
in environments where the organizational culture and the leaders who are responsible for the
latter’s establishment, create a social context that will motivate the employees to achieve
anything demanded of them, irrelevant of the lengths they might have to go.

Now with regards to how a company can make such an environment wherein the employees
feel safe regarding open up about anything going on within the company, the following are
important;

1. The first step is the creation of a policy that details how to report any illegal or unethical
practice. While framing such a policy, 4 factors need be considered;
 a. Formal mechanisms that help report such practices should be clearly outlined
b. There must be clear instructions regarding voicing of concerns such as a specific
chain of command or a particular individual or an HR professional who will act as
an Ombudsman shall the need arise
c. There must be clear communication regarding the ban on retaliation. the company
must ensure that they have strong no-relation policy. As part of the anti-retaliation
strategy, the company must emphasize that there exists a mutual obligation; on the
employees to come forward if they witness misconduct and on the employer to
ensure that that they will be protected and recognized if they do come forward.

d. There must be clear communication between the company’s code of ethics and its
performance measures.

2. A second important aspect is to lead by example, what the top management does will impact
how the workforce act. If the workforce believes that the management does not lead with
integrity, they will shy away from reporting due to the following reasons:

a. The workforce will not have trust in the fact that the upper management will do
corrective any
b. The workforce will believe that their reports will be kept confidential
c. There will exist fear of retaliation from the superiors
d. There will exist fear retaliation by co-workers
Finally, since the management themselves lack integrity they will not know who
to contact.
3. The company must communicate their commitment to ethical behaviour. The commitments
must be ingrained in the employees at all levels of the company. The management must
make any and all effort to communicate their ethical behaviour; and the company’s ideas
must be propagated through all mean available.
4. Strong investigation and follow up rules. There must be stringent regulation regarding
prompt investigation of any claims that are put forth.
5. There must be an assessment of the company’s internal whistleblowing system.

Following the practices established above will help the company foster a culture wherein
integrity and transparency is promoted. This will lead to a company culture that is receptive
rather than hostile to those who are coming up with concerns.

10. How might automobile companies guard against ethical fading? How might regulating
bodies like the EPA support protections against incentive gaming?
ANS: the term Ethical fading is used to define a process wherein ones ethical and moral
obligation fade from view while dealing with making a tough decision. It involves
quintessentially good people resorting to unethical practices, having blind spots about what
they’re doing and simply failing to see an issue as having an ethical dimension.
The following are ways by which ethical fading maybe reduced;
 i. Raise ethical awareness: this can be made possible by ingraining an ethical aspect to
decision making. This will include questioning the ethical validity of a decision that is
to be made.
ii. Promote greater self-awareness and knowledge
iii. Performance goals: these must be framed such that it ensures that there isn’t undue
pressure on any employee or set on employees within the organization
iv. Avoid undue pressure: this will help shift the focus from short term benefits to long
term gains.
v. Universal accountability: everyone must be made responsible for the ethical standards
of the company
Other than the ones mentioned above, there must also be an attempt to integrate ethics into
every wrung of decision making.

Studies done by Tenbrunsel, Wade-Benzoni, Messick, & Bazerman, 2000, on the effect of
environmental standards, suggest that the presence of real or implied standards, standards and
regulations, can change the way people think and can aid in the process of ethics fading from
the situation. Meeting standards become a dominant decision goal and it overshadows the
ethical goals and responsibilities of the organization. When stringent standards are established,
companies will prefer solutions that help them conform to the regulation rather than the
ethically sound decision. Standards thus fade the ethical aspect from decisions.
Regulatory bodies and institutions such as the US EPA can mend their regulations such that
merely meeting the standard becomes irrelevant unless there is an aspect of enhancing the
inherent goal of the regulation. Environmental regulations such as that set by the US EPA
usually require businesses to take actions that they would not have taken in response to market
forces alone. When employees are faced with conflicting goals, they may devise solutions that
make it appear as though they are following official policies and procedures when, in fact, they
are manipulating the system for their own end. Such gaming of an organization's systems can
be counterproductive and costly. To discover where gaming might occur, managers must fully
understand how work gets done in their organization. For the regulatory authorities too, there
is a lesson to be learnt from the Volkswagen episode. Control systems have a tendency to
atrophy over time. They no longer deliver the output expected of them. There is a divergence
between the expected outcome and the actual, with the added disadvantage that neither the
regulators nor the general public who look to the regulators to ensure satisfactory outcome, are
even aware of such divergence.

11. Would knowing that Volkswagen cheated on the emissions testing affect your decision to
purchase one of their vehicles? Why or why not? How could a brand regain trust with
consumers? Explain.
ANS: All consumers too must be ethical and put their moral principles to use while choosing
brands or companies, and any decision otherwise would be hypocritical. Many people are all-
in and concerned about pollution and climate change but do not leap to consider it in their
personal choices.

VW as a brand can rebuild trust in two ways:

1. localizing the origin of the problem and claiming that there is one single person or
procedure responsible for the scandal in its entirety. This will help emphasize the fact that
it was not the company’s inherent fault.

2. Another way is to unreservedly apologize to customers and other stakeholders, offer

compensation, promise the removal of all those responsible and involved in the scandal,
and promise to restructure the entire organizational structure so that something similar to
this does not ever occur again

Frost & Sullivan proposes the following eight strategies Volkswagen can utilize to regain
consumer trust, fuel sales volumes and develop sustainable revenue growth opportunities:

1. Focus on emerging markets

2. Position hybrid and electric powertrain as priorities
3. Focus on passenger safety
4. Position the company as a pioneer in sustainable mobility and synthetic fuels
5. Treat connected cars as a basic and major focal point
6. Bring Audi, Porsche, and other brands to the fore
7. Increase the focus of commercial vehicle business
8. Conduct rigorous voluntary emission testing and certification

In addition to these, the brand can also resort to the following:

 The company can create a higher purpose mission, one that will enable the organization
to have an aim or goal that varies from the typical profit earning perspective.
 The development of such a higher purpose program will also help re kindle trust in the
brand. This should be branded and it must leverage the organization’s people and assets
to doing a social good
 Finally, the organization can also make use of real life testimonials to help regain
customer trust.

Losing trust is easy and effortless but gaining the same back is a very hard process. Hence
prevention is better that cure and so, it must be such that all organisations keep with their ethical
commitments while on the rat race to the top.
REFERENCES

1. https://earthtalk.org/volkswagen-emissions-scandal-impact/
2. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/22/vw-scandal-caused-nearly-1m-
tonnes-of-extra-pollution-analysis-shows
3. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/dieselgate-timeline-car-emissions-fraud-
scandal-germany
4. https://hbr.org/2016/12/why-ethical-people-make-unethical-choices
5. http://www.maestro-business.com/perspectives/the-culture-of-vw/
6. https://gps.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/gourevitch/gourevitch_cs_zhou.pdf
7. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-long-term-cost-of-volkswagens-emissions-scandal-
11569343060
8. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/volkswagen-profits-diesel-
emissions-scandal-cost-results-a8895896.html
9. https://fortune.com/2018/09/08/volkswagen-vw-diesel-
scandal/#:~:text=Volkswagen%20admitted%20in%20late%202015,impact%20at%2027.4
%20billion%20euros.
10. Mansouri, Naz. (2016). A Case Study of Volkswagen Unethical Practice in Diesel Emission
Test. International Journal of Science and Engineering Applications. 5. 211-216.
10.7753/IJSEA0504.1004.
11. Organisational communication management during the Volkswagen diesel emissions
scandal: A hermeneutic study in attribution, crisis management, and information
orientation,Christopher Painter
12. https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/vw-emissions-and-the-3-factors-that-drive-ethical-
breakdown, Professor Luann Lynch ,The Volkswagen Emissions Scandal, co-authored
with former Darden students Elizabeth Bird and Cameron Cutro (both MBA ’16),