5 minute read
SDM Workshops
2.2
SDM Workshops
This phase involved interviews with subject-matter experts internal and external to Ford. They included company employees and dealers, subject-matter experts from academia, research institutes, investor organizations and nonprofits, and members of the community within which the company operates. We interviewed 166 participants in total from June 2019 to February 2020. These interviews were conducted in a focus group format. All participants were asked to identify the fundamental ways Ford may impact social sustainability, currently or in the foreseeable future. This long-term value creation perspective was necessary because the automotive industry is undergoing a rapid period of disruption, due to the rise of automation and shared mobility, so a longer-term perspective is needed to ensure the social metrics’ relevance in the future.
According to SDM principles, all decision priorities—in this case, the company’s social impacts—are hierarchal in nature. A small number of core social impacts (or ends) are achieved by a much larger number of lowerorder means. For example, a company may improve the health of its community (a core impact, or an end) by minimizing its facility emissions and preventing any industrial accidents (two separate means). To isolate the end from the means, participants were asked to describe why they believe each of the impacts they identified was important, from their perspective.
We analyzed the interview data qualitatively, looking for common emerging themes related to how Ford affects social sustainability and drives human progress more broadly. We then used these themes to develop a hierarchal model of how Ford impacts social sustainability. In keeping with the SDM approach, we phrased these themes as actionable social sustainability objectives, making them easier to integrate into company decision-making in the future. We phrased Ford’s social impacts as verbs with a specific direction, such as “decrease the cost of transportation” instead of “transportation affordability,” which lacks a specific direction.
2.2.1 Ford Employees and Dealerships
We spoke with representatives from 31 different departments within Ford (in the U.S. and internationally), as well as from its financial services arm (Ford Credit) and its philanthropic arm (Ford Fund), for a total of 55 interviewees. These departments were identified based on whether their work may impact social sustainability, and they included the company’s sustainability, marketing, human resources, automotive safety and corporate strategy departments, among others. Participants were asked to consider their department’s role within the company and to identify the fundamental ways their department may impact social sustainability, currently or in the foreseeable future, and why this impact was important.
In addition to Ford employees, Ford (and Lincoln) dealers offered a unique perspective on social impacts. In their dual role as Ford’s customers and vendors, dealers are simultaneously enablers and beneficiaries of the company’s social impacts. To capture this unique perspective, we spoke to the general managers at six Ford dealerships (each located in a different U.S. state). As with the employee interviews, the participants were asked about the most important ways their dealership (and Ford more broadly) impacted social sustainability.
The social impact themes from these interviews were analyzed using content analysis and were used to build a preliminary model of how Ford impacts social sustainability. This analysis involved multiple rounds of iteration between the interview data and the literature on sustainability and mobility to identify the company’s core social impacts (the ends), as well as the individual ways these impacts are achieved (the means). We analyzed the interview data to first identify the wide range of means by which Ford creates social impact, which we then distilled down to a smaller set of ends. This preliminary model represented the internal company perspective on social impacts. The areas covered under the model were designed to be individually mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.
2.2.2 External Subject-Matter Experts
To supplement and validate our preliminary model, we interviewed members of external organizations with expertise in the fields of mobility and sustainability (15 interviewees in total). These organizations were identified based on the social impact areas that appeared in the preliminary model. These included three international research and public policy institutes that focus on issues related to sustainability and mobility, three investor relations organizations that advocate on issues related to human rights and social sustainability issues, and representatives from the sustainability departments of two municipal government agencies. In these interviews, we asked the participants for their perspective on how mobility companies—broadly defined as including both original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and shared mobility companies (of all modes)— impact people’s lives and well-being, currently and in the foreseeable future. The qualitative data (social impact themes mentioned) that emerged from these interviews were then used to help refine the preliminary model of social sustainability.
2.2.3 Members of the Community (General Public)
To further supplement and validate our preliminary model, we surveyed members of the communities in which Ford operates. This sample population also included OEM consumers, transit users and shared mobility users, all of whom represent pertinent stakeholders whose perspective would be necessary in our model. We recruited 90 participants across three community types (rural, suburban and urban), using Southeast Michigan as a case study. We chose to recruit across different community types because transportation needs (and thus mobility-related social impacts) vary by community type. Mobility users living in rural or suburban locations, for example, tend to rely more heavily on personal vehicles than public transit, due to the relatively lower housing density and smaller transit systems in these areas.
The interviews were conducted in a focus group format. Participants were asked for their perspective on how mobility companies affect their lives and wellbeing, currently and in the foreseeable future. We interviewed 36 participants from rural communities, 29 from suburban communities and 25 from Detroit and other urban centers. They were compensated for their participation.
The social impact themes that these interviews yielded were used to further refine the model of social sustainability (by refining the framing of the various means and ends). This data was also analyzed via a frequency count of the total number of mentions of each social impact theme. The analysis identified the relative frequency of mentions (a proxy measure of issue saliency) of each impact, from the general public’s perspective. This information was used (along with the review of the social impact measurement landscape conducted) to determine which social impacts are currently a measurement priority for Ford and its stakeholders.
