Two (strategies) are not better than one


Compared to the substantial challenge the US auto industry has to face producing greener cars, is the challenge substantially less for humans and nature to survive with climate change across the ocean, in the US? Do emissions respect borders even without a wall? If yes, is that why also some European automakers pushed for this change in emissions regulations in the US? Then it's okay to have 2 sets of CSR strategies as a company? No? Is it because global economy is more complicated than that? Right, we're experiencing those complexities at the moment. The message of "togetherness" is reverberating around the world. Together forever? Time will tell. Then when we realize we don't have 2 planet Earths and a global company with 2 CSR strategies mistook the "S" for "selfish" instead of having a single CSR strategy where "S" stands for "social".


"Automakers seek the roll back of fuel economy requirements". Remember this news from, 2 years ago? "The Alliance [of Automobile Manufacturers] wrote to the president-elect and urged a reassessment of emissions rules the group said posed a “substantial challenge” for the auto industry. [...] We [] asked the automakers the Alliance represents for their own positions on climate change. General Motors, Ford, Fiat Chrysler, Volkswagen, Toyota, Mazda, Mitsubishi Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar Land Rover and Porsche all either did not respond or referred the query to the Alliance." ( (


The same companies then, are today pledging to make clean cars in Europe but at the same time edging towards and now very close to the opposite goal of allowing more emission in the US.


Forbes, 30.03.2020: "The rule change would permit vehicles to “emit nearly a billion tons more carbon dioxide over the lifetime of the cars [...] and hundreds of millions of tons more than will be emitted under standards being implemented in Europe and Asia,” as the Times notes."