论文部分内容阅读
Aston Martin， a 101-year-old luxury sports car manufacturer whose models made a profound cultural impression in a cluster of James Bond spy movies， has found itself in the eye of a storm. On February 6， the British carmaker announced a global recall of 17，950 units， or 75 percent of all the sports cars it has produced since late 2007.
As a document filed with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety suggested， the recall had its origin in a counterfeit DuPont plastic material used in the making of the accelerator pedal arms produced by Shenzhen Kexiang Mould Tool Co. Ltd.， a south China-based third-tier supplier. Later， Sarah Calam， spokesperson for Aston Martin， even expressed the intention to move related production back home.
As the high-end carmaker stated， the counterfeit plastic material adopted by the accused supplier was provided by Chinabased Synthetic Plastic Raw Material Co. Ltd.， and may rupture in certain circumstances， making traffic collisions more likely.
Yet， the matter was far from over. Logging on the website of the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Dongguan， a city of Guangdong Province where the Synthetic Plastic Raw Material Co. Ltd.， the alleged culpable party， is located， could not be found in the enterprises registration database.
According to a statement made by Calam， Aston Martin had no direct contractual relationship with Shenzhen Kexiang. It was Precision Varionic International （PVI）， a British company contracted with Aston Martin that subcontracted the manufacture of accelerator pedal arms to Fast Forward Tooling （FFT）， which in turn subcontracted the work to the Shenzhen-based parts manufacturer.
The party on the other side of the debacle， Shenzhen Kexiang Mould Tool Co. Ltd. found it hard to hold its tongue. “Our workshop covers no more than 400 square meters with outdated equipment. Therefore， we are incapable of handling bulk orders from the likes of Aston Martin，” said Zhang Zhi’ang， manager of the small firm.
Zhang questioned why the blame fell on his company as the recalled cars were traced as far back as 2007. His company came into existence in August 2010， and had no direct contract with the exotic sports carmaker， a fact confirmed by Aston Martin’s British headquarters.
If any， the company once made only a few models for FFT last year， argued Zhang. FFT only started working with Shenzhen Kexiang in April 2013 and their business only involved some 700 vehicles， Calam said in a statement sent to People’s Daily. “Why did Aston Martin blame us for a massive recall that included most cars produced since 2007？” Zhang asked pointedly.
On the slide
The maker of exotic sports cars had been beset by troubles regarding malfunctioning accelerator pedal arms， which may cause the car to be unable to accelerate or maintain speed. To counter such potential risks， prior to the current recall， it had launched two others within the space of a year—one in May 2013 and another in October 2013.
In modern industry chains， subcontracting is common， but the carmaker is required to inspect suppliers and sub-suppliers to ensure the quality of automobile parts， Jia Xinguang， an executive director at the China Automobile Dealers Association， told the Global Times. Zhou Zheng， a professor of business and economics at the University of Hong Kong， argued it was rare for a carmaker of Aston Martin’s reputation to choose an unknown part supplier in its production chain. He believed it was a simple cost-saving measure.
The counterfeit material displays the deficiencies present in Aston Martin’s supply chain and quality supervision， argued Zhang Yu， Director of Automotive Foresight（Shanghai）. This may be explained by the carmaker’s stakeholder and personnel changes. In 2007， Aston Martin was acquired by a consortium of investors that included American investment banker John Singers and two Kuwait companies， Adeem Investment and Investment Dar. Since then， it had been dragged down into a nightmare of sliding sales and expanding losses.
Its sales shrank from 4，800 units in 2011 to 3，800 units in 2012， with losses hitting￡2.46 million （$4.08 million）， and things failed to turn around in 2013. At the same time， Ulrich Bez， Chief Executive Officer of Aston Martin， had been in favor of subcontracting to improve production efficiency and lower costs.
Who to blame
“Aston Martin targets wealthy consumers who can afford exotic sports cars with price tags running into hundreds of thousands of dollars， which makes it unnecessary to separate the production of models from normal manufacturing. There is a possibility that Shenzhen Kexiang didn’t know the models were used in the car production，” said Zhao Yu， an automobile analyst， who believed the root cause was the inefficient supervision of product quality by PVI and Aston Martin.
In modern industrial chains， subcontracting allows suppliers to specialize in the production of a specific part and serve different downstream enterprises， which can remarkably boost the accuracy and quality of automobile parts， said Zhang Zhiyong， a carmarketing expert. According to Zhou， such supply chains may pose challenges to quality management. With regard to Aston Martin’s case， he maintained negligence in choosing suppliers was dangerous for product quality and customers， while passing the buck to Chinese suppliers was unprofessional. Therefore， automakers should give serious consideration to quality risks when picking subcontractors， he argued.
Furthermore， he stated that enterprises are fully responsible for their product quality and the quality supervision of subcontracted products. “Apparently， the Chinese supplier involved was not able to reach the strict standards that a prestigious luxury brand should insist on，” said Zhou.
In the case of Aston Martin， the first-tier supplier PVI， which has a direct contractual relationship with Aston Martin， should be blamed and give a reasonable explanation to the public， Jia said.
“Aston Martin can only name the specific subcontractor at an internal meeting when investigating the causes， not to mention that Shenzhen Kexiang denied any direct contract with the carmaker，” said Wan Di， a project manager of automobile business at a Sino-foreign joint venture， suggesting that Aston Martin had failed to inform consumers of the real cause and shoulder the responsibility.
A similar incident happened in 2007 when Mattel Inc.， an American toy manufacturing company， recalled over 18 million products， because many of the products had exceeded the U.S. limits set on surface coatings that contain lead. At first， Chinese manufacturers were blamed for using paint that contained excessive lead， which resulted in the suicide of Zhang Shuhong， owner of Lida Plastic Toys Co. Ltd. Later， Mattel delivered an apology for maligning Chinese manufacturers in the course of toy recalls and admitted that most of its toy recalls were due to its own design flaws.
All quality problems boil down to the inefficiency of quality management. The current sweeping recall mirrors severe loopholes in Aston Martin’s quality management and supervision system， market observers agree.
As a document filed with the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety suggested， the recall had its origin in a counterfeit DuPont plastic material used in the making of the accelerator pedal arms produced by Shenzhen Kexiang Mould Tool Co. Ltd.， a south China-based third-tier supplier. Later， Sarah Calam， spokesperson for Aston Martin， even expressed the intention to move related production back home.
As the high-end carmaker stated， the counterfeit plastic material adopted by the accused supplier was provided by Chinabased Synthetic Plastic Raw Material Co. Ltd.， and may rupture in certain circumstances， making traffic collisions more likely.
Yet， the matter was far from over. Logging on the website of the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Dongguan， a city of Guangdong Province where the Synthetic Plastic Raw Material Co. Ltd.， the alleged culpable party， is located， could not be found in the enterprises registration database.
According to a statement made by Calam， Aston Martin had no direct contractual relationship with Shenzhen Kexiang. It was Precision Varionic International （PVI）， a British company contracted with Aston Martin that subcontracted the manufacture of accelerator pedal arms to Fast Forward Tooling （FFT）， which in turn subcontracted the work to the Shenzhen-based parts manufacturer.
The party on the other side of the debacle， Shenzhen Kexiang Mould Tool Co. Ltd. found it hard to hold its tongue. “Our workshop covers no more than 400 square meters with outdated equipment. Therefore， we are incapable of handling bulk orders from the likes of Aston Martin，” said Zhang Zhi’ang， manager of the small firm.
Zhang questioned why the blame fell on his company as the recalled cars were traced as far back as 2007. His company came into existence in August 2010， and had no direct contract with the exotic sports carmaker， a fact confirmed by Aston Martin’s British headquarters.
If any， the company once made only a few models for FFT last year， argued Zhang. FFT only started working with Shenzhen Kexiang in April 2013 and their business only involved some 700 vehicles， Calam said in a statement sent to People’s Daily. “Why did Aston Martin blame us for a massive recall that included most cars produced since 2007？” Zhang asked pointedly.
On the slide
The maker of exotic sports cars had been beset by troubles regarding malfunctioning accelerator pedal arms， which may cause the car to be unable to accelerate or maintain speed. To counter such potential risks， prior to the current recall， it had launched two others within the space of a year—one in May 2013 and another in October 2013.
In modern industry chains， subcontracting is common， but the carmaker is required to inspect suppliers and sub-suppliers to ensure the quality of automobile parts， Jia Xinguang， an executive director at the China Automobile Dealers Association， told the Global Times. Zhou Zheng， a professor of business and economics at the University of Hong Kong， argued it was rare for a carmaker of Aston Martin’s reputation to choose an unknown part supplier in its production chain. He believed it was a simple cost-saving measure.
The counterfeit material displays the deficiencies present in Aston Martin’s supply chain and quality supervision， argued Zhang Yu， Director of Automotive Foresight（Shanghai）. This may be explained by the carmaker’s stakeholder and personnel changes. In 2007， Aston Martin was acquired by a consortium of investors that included American investment banker John Singers and two Kuwait companies， Adeem Investment and Investment Dar. Since then， it had been dragged down into a nightmare of sliding sales and expanding losses.
Its sales shrank from 4，800 units in 2011 to 3，800 units in 2012， with losses hitting￡2.46 million （$4.08 million）， and things failed to turn around in 2013. At the same time， Ulrich Bez， Chief Executive Officer of Aston Martin， had been in favor of subcontracting to improve production efficiency and lower costs.
Who to blame
“Aston Martin targets wealthy consumers who can afford exotic sports cars with price tags running into hundreds of thousands of dollars， which makes it unnecessary to separate the production of models from normal manufacturing. There is a possibility that Shenzhen Kexiang didn’t know the models were used in the car production，” said Zhao Yu， an automobile analyst， who believed the root cause was the inefficient supervision of product quality by PVI and Aston Martin.
In modern industrial chains， subcontracting allows suppliers to specialize in the production of a specific part and serve different downstream enterprises， which can remarkably boost the accuracy and quality of automobile parts， said Zhang Zhiyong， a carmarketing expert. According to Zhou， such supply chains may pose challenges to quality management. With regard to Aston Martin’s case， he maintained negligence in choosing suppliers was dangerous for product quality and customers， while passing the buck to Chinese suppliers was unprofessional. Therefore， automakers should give serious consideration to quality risks when picking subcontractors， he argued.
Furthermore， he stated that enterprises are fully responsible for their product quality and the quality supervision of subcontracted products. “Apparently， the Chinese supplier involved was not able to reach the strict standards that a prestigious luxury brand should insist on，” said Zhou.
In the case of Aston Martin， the first-tier supplier PVI， which has a direct contractual relationship with Aston Martin， should be blamed and give a reasonable explanation to the public， Jia said.
“Aston Martin can only name the specific subcontractor at an internal meeting when investigating the causes， not to mention that Shenzhen Kexiang denied any direct contract with the carmaker，” said Wan Di， a project manager of automobile business at a Sino-foreign joint venture， suggesting that Aston Martin had failed to inform consumers of the real cause and shoulder the responsibility.
A similar incident happened in 2007 when Mattel Inc.， an American toy manufacturing company， recalled over 18 million products， because many of the products had exceeded the U.S. limits set on surface coatings that contain lead. At first， Chinese manufacturers were blamed for using paint that contained excessive lead， which resulted in the suicide of Zhang Shuhong， owner of Lida Plastic Toys Co. Ltd. Later， Mattel delivered an apology for maligning Chinese manufacturers in the course of toy recalls and admitted that most of its toy recalls were due to its own design flaws.
All quality problems boil down to the inefficiency of quality management. The current sweeping recall mirrors severe loopholes in Aston Martin’s quality management and supervision system， market observers agree.