Shareholder confronts Toyota chief executive Akio Toyoda

Toyota chief executive Akio Toyoda was told to stop weeping in public by one of his shareholders at yesterday's company general meeting.

The investor told Akio Toyoda: "Mr Toyoda, you've been all over the media this year and you've gone teary-eyed on several occasions. For a man of your position, this is unacceptable. Please keep your chin up and try not to weep."

Toyoda most famously wept when he was forced to make public apologies over the recall of more than ten million cars earlier this year.

Toyoda claimed they were "tears of joy" in reaction to the support from Toyota's car dealers.

"I will try not to go teary-eyed again," said Toyoda.

Toyota posted a 209 billion yen (£1.56bn) profit last year, against a loss of 437bn yen last year.

"I would like to apologise once again for all the worries we have caused our shareholders but we've managed to post a profit after a year of losses and I feel like we are finally at the starting line this year," said Toyoda.

See all the latest Toyota reviews, news and video

Join the debate

Comments
13

25 June 2010

[quote Autocar]Toyota chief executive Akio Toyoda was told to stop weeping in public [/quote]I bet that brought a tear to his eye.

25 June 2010

Lest I be accused of being heartless, sick, uncaring, etc, it is hardly the week to be banging that drum at him, is it?

25 June 2010

Not the week to make that comment. However he should not have cried at the stupid congressional hearing. Should have told them all to f off and remind them how much Toyota contribute to the U.S economy and employment. Same applies to the BP chief exec - having seen some "party political broadcasts" they're all saying "we're against "big oil"" and the ignorance is outstanding. The only reason they're able to drive their 15mpg stupid trucks and have some resemblance of education and pensions is because of "big oil". One spill and suddenly BP are the devil and Obama (who I used to like) thinks its' a chance to look like a strong leader. They then jump on the BP chief exec taking two days off to see his family when he'd worked solidly for 2 months - and yet Obama was partly elected on the "family ticket". The ignorance, stupidity and sheer two-facedness of US politics makes me want to nuke the lot of them (I don't know how the Canadians here have put up with it this long - 1 year of it and I'm going screaming mad)

25 June 2010

[quote theonlydt]should not have cried at the stupid congressional hearing. Should have told them all to f off [/quote]Yes, that's a more mature attitude to take to public relations. I am sure it would have had customers rushing to Toyota dealers to buy cars.

As for "one oil spill" - I keep the word spill for milk, not for a gash in the Earth's crust gushing millions of barrells of oil into the ocean a day. All the evidence so far, including that from BP's own employees, shows it and its surrogate companies are clearly in dereliction of duty.

Eleven deaths, countless ruined livelihoods, the loss of shore line, and precious animal habitat, and their CEO declines to answer questions, (he "didn't know" 65 times!) leaves spectators baffled and speechless at the company's breathtaking arrogance. In any event, I'm sure the anti-US comments would be reversed if it was the shores around England about to be polluted for decades to come.

25 June 2010

[quote Los Angeles]Yes, that's a more mature attitude to take to public relations. I am sure it would have had customers rushing to Toyota dealers to buy cars.[/quote] My apologies - I'd just watched a sickening advert for someone running in Massachusetts who was anti "big oil". However, the congressional hearings are just a chance for two bit politicians to prove to their consituents that they are supporting US businesses by asking "challenging questions" to "aliens who would harm" their way of life. I despise George Galloway more than the devil himself, but you have to give credit to the way the man turned the hearing back round on the U.S. It's a circus and while Toyota + BP should be in regular official contact with the federal government both hearings are a farce.

England has had big oil spills thank you. My issues comes from the massive swing in public opinion from "drill drill drill" to "oil is terrible". It does well look like BP and transocean were at fault on various things, however look at the regulation in the US on the oil industry - more or less non-existent. All to encourage the oil industry to be as profitable as possible. 99% of companies will cut a corner if it's not against the law and the potential gains appear to outway potential losses - that is what poor regulation encourages.

It's not a huge gash in the earth's crust - where on earth did you get that idea from? If there was a massive gash it'd be following without BP's interference by drilling a well. You also quote "millions of barrels of oil every day", well the maximum the flow rate has been estimated at is 60,000 barrels a day - still terrible and the largest spill on record, but exaggerating by saying "millions" isn't going to work.

You talk about ruined livelihoods, but BP is already paying vast sums to those affected by the spill. Unlike the Exxon Valdez where it took decades for people to be compensated for the effects - say what you like about BP but they're acting faster and with greater morals than Exxon.

50% of BP is owned by U.S shareholders, a point the U.S papers are keen to avoid pointing out. A British chief exec means it's all our fault. Once again, American arrogance.

It's fair enough to say "I don't know". What's the huge obsession with a chief exec needing to know everything? The whole point with the chief exec is that he delegates and makes top level decisions. A hearing that would actually get to the bottom of things would take a different format - a list of questions would be produced in advance for B.P - they would come up with the numbers as they'd be given time to research and pull all the information together - this would then be presented to congress, notes taken, more questions asked and another hearing scheduled for further feedback. The current format is a media circus to make individual politicians look good and make it look like the federal government is doing something (like placing an illegal ban on deep-sea drilling).

Chickens have come home to roost. For too long the U.S has been too dependent on oil to drive the economy, cheap oil to fuel inefficient vehicles and industry and has taken a blase attitude to resource exploitation (Alaska anyone?). One day that attitude will bite you on the arse - it's now happened. I just bet the U.S are glad that it wasn't a fully U.S company "what done it", so all blame can be shifted.

25 June 2010

A real shame autocar have the insensitivity to publish this news now.

shame on autocar. shame on the editors.

25 June 2010

[quote theonlydt]50% of BP is owned by U.S shareholders, a point the U.S papers are keen to avoid pointing out. [/quote] Why? Chucking that at Americans as if it renders them hypocrits is nonsensical.

If that is true then the US government is exercising its judicial right to question BP executives on their policy and decision making. In any event, what does globalisation mean? Freedom to pollute, freedom to give nations the finger?

Your diatribe is saying one thing, and one thing only, BP does not need to be accountable to governments or voters. You want Exxon to be accountable but not BP. Well, that's a phony democracy, not one I am interested in fostering. The more multi-national corporations feel they can do as they please the more they will tell the "little" people to go to hell.

25 June 2010

[quote Los Angeles]You want Exxon to be accountable but not BP.[/quote] I want both to be accountable. Exxon were treated far more leniently than BP are right now. I'm actually pretty anti-oil and do not sit around stating that globalisation is always a good thing. However my view on oil companies is that we create the demand, we should be fully aware of the consequences and should set the rules that the industry works to, rather than pushing for maximum profit from them and lowest prices for us. If the U.S wants to protect itself from supply shocks and the like it needs to continue to develop its oil resources - deep sea drilling is going to be the only way to do that. Until this accident I'd say the general public and government were pretty gung-ho about it all. Suddenly the environmental movement has made massive advances in the U.S on the back of this.

25 June 2010

sarah palin for president!

25 June 2010

[quote theonlydt]Exxon were treated far more leniently than BP are right now.[/quote] So what's your beef? BP should be treated as leniently as a previous administration allegedly treated Exxon?

Pages

Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

  • 2016 Audi A3 Sportback e-tron UK review
    First Drive
    29 September 2016
    First UK drive finds the facelifted A3 Sportback e-tron remains a first-rate plug-in hybrid that is packed with tech if a little short on driver appeal
  • Citroen C11.2 Puretech 82 Furio
    First Drive
    29 September 2016
    Citroën's city car gets a new sporty-looking trim level, adding visual adornments, but no premium for the 1.2-litre Puretech triple we're driving
  • Mercedes C350e Sport
    First Drive
    28 September 2016
    Petrol-electric C-Class is a surprisingly well-priced alternative to a diesel but not the greatest example of the new ‘PHEV’ breed
  • Car review
    23 September 2016
    Aston kicks off its ‘second century plan’ with an all-new turbo V12 grand tourer
  • Ford Ka+ 1.2 Ti-VCT 85
    First Drive
    22 September 2016
    A rounded, refined and well-sorted bargain supermini – once you’re used to the confusing role redefinition imposed on the once-cheeky Ka