Can Bill Ford Defeat His Green Goblins?

As automaker runs out of gas, nature bunny great-grandson steers into a hole

If those of us in the Wolverine State had to pick one candidate for divine intervention—Ford Motor Company or General Motors—we would be well advised to pick Ford. The company is not more worthy of heavenly help, but under its greener-than-thou chief executive officer Bill Ford, who has dragged America's number two automobile manufacturer into an acute existential crisis, it needs even more help. Absent a miracle, Ford might well go down the tubes—and take Michigan with it.

It is no secret that the Big Two automakers are in Big Trouble. Delphi Corp., GM's biggest supplier, recently declared bankruptcy in order to void its extravagant union contracts. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union—never shy about killing the golden goose—recently authorized a strike against Delphi. Should the strike actually go forward, it may ring the death knell of GM, which, after six consecutive quarters of losses, has neither the cash reserves nor the inventories to weather such an event.

But if GM's losses are more serious, Ford's are more intractable. Ford cut thousands of white collar jobs last year and plans to eliminate 30,000 more by 2008. It will shutter 14 factories over the next few years. Its debt has been trading at junk level for about a year. And it posted its worst quarterly loss earlier this year (even bigger than GM's), partly as a result of the expensive buy-out packages that it was forced to pay to reduce its bloated workforce.

Radical cost-cutting measures might stanch the company's losses, they won't restore its profitability. What the company needs, sorely, to regain its health are exciting cars that people will buy at full price without bribes of zero interest loans and Dell computers. But these products have eluded Ford for years now.

Nor is this a surprise. Under Bill Ford, the company, the majority of which is still owned by the Ford family, can't make up its mind whether the automobile—his great-grandpa's invention—is a boon to humanity or a blot on the face of Mother Earth. Where Henry, the founder of the company, was a proud promoter of the automobile, his great-grandson worries whether or not the automobile is compatible with "sustainable development."

Henry Ford had an ideology too—a noxious mix of anti-Semitism and anti-unionism, as a matter of fact. But he kept his business separate from his politics and raised the wages of his workers well over industry norms to fuel demand for his cars. But Bill Ford, a former member of the Sierra Club, is more interested in setting the "pace in the industry on important environmental and social priorities, such as reducing water consumption, conserving energy, recycling and reusing non-renewable materials, eliminating toxic materials, establishing codes of working conditions and safety in our plants and supply chain, and addressing public health issues from HIV/AIDS to cancer to juvenile diabetes." Everything but making cars.

The company's inner conflict between saving itself and saving the planet is particularly acute when it comes to pick-up trucks and SUVs—until recently its most successful products.

Last month, Ford partnered with TerraPass, a group that invests in alternative energy sources, to launch a website that would allow owners of these gas-guzzlers to calculate the greenhouse gases they emit in a year. It would then direct them to invest in companies that produce clean technologies to offset these emissions.

But investors need no invitation from Ford to put their money elsewhere. Ford stocks were trading at a 15-year low a few weeks ago and are worth a modest $7 or so today, compared to $25 in 2001.

This is not Ford's first foray into environmental correctness since Bill Ford took over the company in 1999. Ford was the first automaker to withdraw from the Global Climate Coalition—a coalition of manufacturers lobbying against the Kyoto Treaty's mandates against greenhouse gas emissions.

Last year, after Toyota overtook Ford as the world's second biggest automaker (behind General Motors), one might have thought Ford would devote every dollar it could muster to improving its products and recapturing its lost market share.

Instead, Ford launched a multi-million-dollar advertising campaign—complete with full-page ads in The New York Times and 60-second radio commercials—to publicize that Toyota was not the only one holding the bragging rights to making hybrids. Ford was making these money losers too.

Worst of all, Bill Ford has repeatedly called on the government to impose a gas tax to discourage sales of SUVs. "We can't be in the business of dictating what the customer wants to buy," he says—implying, of course, "but the government can."

Nor is this simply feel-good PR designed to earn brownie points with the enviros. The company's environmental mission has become inextricably entwined with its business strategy. Ford has convinced itself that the public's growing environmental conscience combined with stricter government regulation against greenhouse gas and other emissions means that the future will belong to greener car makers.

To this end, the company has decided to bump up its annual hybrid production from 25,000 now to 250,000 by 2010. But it typically costs $6,000 more to manufacture a hybrid than a gas-powered car, according to Ford insiders. The best estimates suggest that the company loses $2,000 to $3,000 on every hybrid it sells.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.