Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 38 references

In thirteen public automotive compliance failures, the document chain never caught itself: every break was found by self-report, regulators, customers, or field incidents.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 11:23 UTC pith:SV4NQ27V

load-bearing objection Solid domain mapping and a clean public-record taxonomy; the verification-layer indictment is real for the sample but already scoped by the authors as the catastrophic tail, not a population claim. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04924 v1 pith:SV4NQ27V submitted 2026-07-06 cs.CE

Compliance Evidence in the Automotive Supply Chain: A Systematisation of the Quality-Document Spine and a Taxonomy of Documentation Failure Modes

Dawar Jyoti Deka , Nilesh Sarkar This is my paper
classification cs.CE
keywords automotive supply chaincompliance documentationPPAPVDA PPAfailure-mode taxonomytype approvalverification layerevidence architecture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Automotive series production depends on a dense spine of quality and certification documents: part-approval packages, material certificates, inspection sign-offs, and type-approval dossiers. This paper treats that spine as an information system rather than as procedure or as corporate ethics. It maps the chain across the two dominant regimes, AIAG PPAP and VDA Volume 2 PPA, by artefact, producer, verifier, trigger, approval state, and retention. It then assembles thirteen compliance-documentation failures made public from 2012 to 2024, classifies them by how the evidence broke, and shows that the taxonomy covers the set without collapse. The sharp finding is that none of the thirteen failures was found by the chain's own routine checks. Detection always came from self-report, regulator action, customer or third-party discovery, or a field incident. The authors therefore argue that the verification layer itself, not only the people who write the evidence, is under-engineered, and they derive architecture requirements for each failure mechanism.

Core claim

Across a verified public-record compendium of thirteen automotive compliance-documentation failures from 2012 to 2024, not one case was surfaced by the chain's own routine document-facing verification. Failures entered mostly at evidence creation, often as procedural non-equivalence or fabrication, and were later found by self-report, regulators, customers, or incidents. The record therefore indicts the verification layer as systematically thin, not only the evidence authors.

What carries the argument

A five-mode documentation failure taxonomy (M1 fabrication, M2 procedural non-equivalence, M3 unauthorised approval, M4 upstream propagation, M5 artefact-evidence decoupling) applied to a thirteen-case public-record compendium and mapped to lifecycle locus, driver, and detection path; the classification is shown exhaustive and discriminating over the set, with the verification layer defined as the routine checking stages that never detected any of the cases.

Load-bearing premise

The thirteen public cases, which the paper itself notes over-sample spectacular news and court failures and leave retention and retrieval stages unobserved, are still treated as enough to indict the verification layer as a system property rather than as a sampling artefact of what reaches the public record.

What would settle it

A structured corpus of private receiving-audit findings, certificate rejections, and recall-execution friction that shows routine document-facing checks regularly catching documentation failures before self-report, regulator action, or field incident would falsify the claim that the verification layer detects nothing.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Evidence architectures should require independent verification paths and tamper-evidence for load-bearing records so fabrication is costlier and reconstructible.
  • Prescribed test procedures need machine-readable specifications so conduct, not only output values, can be checked before submission.
  • Approvals must bind sign-off to artefact identity and to certified authority, especially across firm boundaries.
  • Certificates that feed many downstream records should rest on issuer-independent confirmation, generalising the EN 10204 type 3.2 principle.
  • Document-centric assurance must state its outer limit: it cannot alone guarantee artefact behaviour engineered to diverge outside the test.
  • Open work remains on public failure telemetry, procedure-as-code for certification tests, cross-firm approval provenance, regime comparison, and burden measurement per vehicle programme.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If routine verification truly never detects these failures, then capacity investment and tooling for the verification layer may matter more for safety outcomes than further elaboration of the evidence packages themselves.
  • The empty retention and retrieval cells in the public sample suggest that future telemetry drawn from audit and recall systems could reveal a second, quieter failure surface that never reaches national news.
  • Japan's post-2024 sampling-test reforms and Euro 7's approaching type-approval cut-off create a natural experiment: if detection paths shift toward routine checks under the new rules, the baseline claim will need re-measurement.
  • The same verification-layer thinness may apply to other high-stakes document spines (aerospace, medical devices, chemicals) where conformity evidence is dense and routine checks are under-resourced.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper systematises the automotive supplier-quality and certification evidence chain (AIAG PPAP and VDA Volume 2 PPA) as an information system organised by artefact, producer, verifier, trigger, approval state and retention (C1, §4, Tables 1–2). It assembles a public-record compendium of thirteen compliance-documentation failures 2012–2024, each tagged adjudicated/company-acknowledged/alleged (C2, §5, Table 3, Appendix B), induces a five-mode failure taxonomy (M1–M5) dimensioned by mechanism, lifecycle locus, driver and detection path and shows it exhaustive and discriminating over the set (C3, §6, Figures 3–4, Table 4), then derives mechanism-specific evidence-architecture requirements and an open-problems agenda (C4, §8–9). The headline observation (O1) is that none of the thirteen cases was surfaced by the chain’s own routine verification layer.

Significance. If the mapping and taxonomy hold, the paper supplies a missing domain instantiation that quality-management, misconduct, regulatory and records-management literatures have each approached only partially. The dual-regime systematisation (Tables 1–2, Appendices A and C), the evidentiary-tier discipline, the explicit case-individuation and dominant-mechanism rules, and the boundary arguments (M1 vs M2, M2 vs M5, M1 vs M4) are concrete and reusable. The architecture requirements in §8 and the five open problems in §9 (failure telemetry, procedure-as-code, cross-firm provenance, regime comparison, burden measurement) give a falsifiable research agenda rather than a closed claim. The selection-bias limit is already stated by the authors; the contribution remains a well-scoped baseline for an under-mapped industrial information system.

major comments (2)
  1. [§6 O1; Abstract; Conclusion] O1 (§6, Abstract, Conclusion) elevates zero routine-verification detections in the thirteen-case public sample into an indictment of the verification layer. The paper itself correctly flags the censoring (§6 empty Record/Retain and Retrieve/Reconstruct columns; §9(a) catastrophic-tail oversampling; private receiving audits invisible). The claim is therefore defensible only as a sample observation. The Abstract and Conclusion should state the scope restriction in the same sentence as the indictment (e.g., ‘on this public-record sample’) so that O1 cannot be read as a population property of the chain.
  2. [§6 lifecycle locus] The lifecycle-locus dimension is imported from the companion manuscript (arXiv:XCITE-P1) and used as one of four taxonomy axes (§6). For a standalone reading, a short self-contained definition of the five stages (Create/Generate … Retrieve/Reconstruct) is needed in §6 or an appendix; a citation alone leaves the locus assignments non-reproducible without the companion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 3; Figure 4] Table 3 and Figure 4 are dense; a one-line legend restating M1–M5 abbreviations on the figure itself would improve stand-alone readability.
  2. [Acknowledgements] Acknowledgements still contain a placeholder (‘[PLACEHOLDER: pending consent; see FLAGS.md]’); remove or complete before production.
  3. [Competing interests] Competing-interests statement is appropriately explicit; ensure the journal’s disclosure form matches the software-development affiliation stated there.
  4. [§4–§5] A few long sentences in §4 and §5 (e.g., the EN 10204 independence paragraph) would benefit from splitting for readability; no technical content is affected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No derivation circularity: taxonomy and O1 are induced from an external public-record sample; only a non-load-bearing companion self-citation supplies one taxonomy dimension and an interpretive lens.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [§6 Dimension two (lifecycle locus); also §2 Division of territory and §7]
    "Dimension two, lifecycle locus, the stage at which the failure entered the record; its five stages (Create/Generate, Verify/Reconcile, Approve/Sign, Record/Retain, Retrieve/Reconstruct) adopt the companion manuscript's lifecycle model, not re-derived here [companion paper, arXiv:XCITE-P1]."

    Same-author companion supplies the lifecycle stages used as a taxonomy axis and the burden lens of §7. This is self-citation, but it is not load-bearing for O1 or for mechanism discrimination: detection-path coding and M1–M5 cuts rest on the public case record and boundary arguments internal to this paper. Flagged only as minor same-author import, not as a forced derivation.

full rationale

The paper’s four contributions are descriptive systematisation (C1 from AIAG/VDA standards), empirical compilation of thirteen public cases (C2), inductive taxonomy over that set (C3), and architecture requirements derived from the named mechanisms (C4). The headline observation O1—that none of the thirteen failures were detected by the chain’s routine verification layer—is a count over independently coded detection paths in Table 3, not a quantity fitted from or defined by the verification-layer definition in §4. Mechanisms M1–M5 are distinguished by boundary arguments on external cases (Mitsubishi vs Suzuki for M1/M2; Toyota Industries vs Volkswagen for M2/M5; Takata vs Kobe Steel for M1/M4), not by self-definition. Exhaustiveness is claimed only over the constructed case set under explicit individuation rules, which is normal inductive taxonomy work rather than circular prediction. The sole self-reference is the companion manuscript (arXiv:XCITE-P1) that supplies the five lifecycle-locus stages used as one taxonomy dimension and the documentation-burden lens imported once in §7; neither is required to establish O1 or the mechanism cut, so the citation is not load-bearing for the central claim. No fitted parameters, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz-via-citation appear. Score 1 reflects only that minor same-author import, not a reduction of any result to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 3 invented entities

The paper is qualitative and empirical; it introduces almost no free parameters. Load-bearing premises are domain descriptions of the two approval regimes and the decision to treat the public record as the sole evidence base for the failure set. The five failure modes and the ‘verification layer’ are invented analytic entities whose only independent handle is the public cases themselves.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption AIAG PPAP (4th edn) and VDA Volume 2 PPA (7th edn, 2026) correctly describe the dominant supplier-quality evidence regimes and their artefacts, producers, verifiers, triggers, states and retention rules.
    Section 4 and Tables 1–2 rest the entire systematisation on these normative instruments; any material mis-description would collapse C1.
  • domain assumption Public adjudications and company admissions are sufficient and non-misleading sources for constructing the thirteen-case failure set and assigning mechanisms.
    Section 5 and Appendix B build every cell of Table 3 exclusively from the public record; private audit findings are acknowledged as invisible.
  • ad hoc to paper The five lifecycle stages (Create/Generate, Verify/Reconcile, Approve/Sign, Record/Retain, Retrieve/Reconstruct) imported from the companion manuscript are an adequate locus dimension for the taxonomy.
    Section 6 adopts the companion’s model by single citation without re-derivation; the empty Record/Retain and Retrieve/Reconstruct cells depend on this choice.
invented entities (3)
  • Verification layer no independent evidence
    purpose: Collective name for the chain’s routine document-facing checks (customer disposition, certificate acceptance, third-party audit, delegated final-inspection sign-off), distinguished from regulator enforcement and ad-hoc measurement.
    Defined in §4; the central O1 claim is stated relative to this entity. Independent evidence is only the non-detection pattern in the thirteen cases.
  • Failure modes M1–M5 (fabrication, procedural non-equivalence, unauthorised approval, upstream propagation, artefact-evidence decoupling) no independent evidence
    purpose: Taxonomy that classifies every case in the compendium by mechanism.
    Introduced in §6 and Figure 3; exhaustiveness and discrimination are demonstrated only over the paper’s own case set.
  • Documentation exergy destruction (imported lens) no independent evidence
    purpose: Explain why verification burden is under-resourced when capacity tightens.
    Section 7 imports the companion’s thermodynamic metaphor; used interpretively, not as a measured quantity.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 32748 in / 2997 out tokens · 32722 ms · 2026-07-11T11:23:40.470275+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The automotive industry runs on a dense, standardised chain of supplier-quality and certification evidence: production part approval packages, initial sample reports, material certificates, inspection sign-offs, and the type approval dossiers. The chain is operationally central, yet no literature maps it as an information system, and its failures are studied as corporate misconduct rather than system outcomes. This paper systematises the chain and taxonomises its documented failures. First, it systematises the supplier-quality evidence chain across the two dominant regimes, AIAG PPAP and VDA Volume 2 PPA, organised by artefact, producer, verifier, trigger, approval state, and retention. Second, it compiles a compendium of thirteen compliance-documentation failures made public 2012 to 2024, built strictly from the public record and each classified by evidentiary status (adjudicated, company-acknowledged, or alleged), with the Japanese certification cluster of 2016 to 2024 as centrepiece. Third, it builds a failure-mode taxonomy over the compendium, dimensioned by mechanism, lifecycle locus, driver, and detection path, shown exhaustive and discriminating over the case set. Fourth, it derives evidence architecture requirements mechanism by mechanism and sets an open-problems agenda. Across all thirteen cases, not one failure surfaced through the chain's own routine verification; the record indicts the verification layer, not only the evidence authors.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    GM fires employees over indian recall

    Agence France-Presse. GM fires employees over indian recall. IndustryWeek (AFP wire), 2013. URL https://www.industryweek.com/talent/ labor-employment-policy/article/21960831/ gm-fires-employees-over-indian-recall. accessed 2026-07-04

    arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    Zohreh Bagherifam, Solmaz Naghdi, Ahmad Ahmadian, Alireza Fazlzadeh, and Milad Baghalzadeh Shishehgarkhaneh. Digital regulatory governance: The role of RegTech and SupTech in transforming financial oversight and administrative capacity.International Journal of Financial Studies, 13(4):217, 2025. doi: 10.3390/ijfs13040217. URL https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs1...

    work page doi:10.3390/ijfs13040217 2025

  3. [3]

    Wiley, 4 edition, 2016

    Adrian Bejan.Advanced Engineering Thermodynam- ics. Wiley, 4 edition, 2016. ISBN 9781119052098. doi: 10.1002/9781119245964. URL https://doi. org/10.1002/9781119245964. accessed 2026-07-04

    work page doi:10.1002/9781119245964 2016

  4. [4]

    Classification scheme for root cause and failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) of passenger vehicle recalls.Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 200:106929, 2020

    Chia-Fen Chi, Davin Sigmund, and Martin Octa- vianus Astardi. Classification scheme for root cause and failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) of passenger vehicle recalls.Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 200:106929, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ress. 2020.106929. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ress.2020.106929. accessed 2026-07-04

    doi:10.1016/j.ress 2020

  5. [5]

    Document AI: Benchmarks, models and applications

    Lei Cui, Yiheng Xu, Tengchao Lv, and Furu Wei. Document AI: Benchmarks, models and applications. arXiv:2111.08609, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2111.08609. accessed 2026-07-04

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [7]

    accessed 2026-07-04

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.14070. accessed 2026-07-04

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [8]

    Results of the investiga- tion by the independent third-party committee and future actions

    Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. Results of the investiga- tion by the independent third-party committee and future actions. Daihatsu news release, 20 Decem- ber 2023, 2023. URLhttps://www.daihatsu.com/ news/2023/20231220-4.html. accessed 2026-07-04

    2023

  8. [9]

    Doshi and Darshak A

    Jigar A. Doshi and Darshak A. Desai. Role of pro- duction part approval process in continuous quality improvement and customer satisfaction.Interna- tional Journal of Engineering Research in Africa, 22:174–183, 2016. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/ jera.22.174. URL https://doi.org/10.4028/www. scientific.net/jera.22.174. accessed 2026-07- 04

    work page doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/ 2016

  9. [10]

    Greve, Donald Palmer, and Jo-Ellen Pozner

    Henrich R. Greve, Donald Palmer, and Jo-Ellen Pozner. Organizations gone wild: The causes, pro- cesses, and consequences of organizational miscon- duct.Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 2010. doi: 10.5465/19416521003654186. URL https:// doi.org/10.5465/19416521003654186. accessed 2026-07-04

    work page doi:10.5465/19416521003654186 2010

  10. [11]

    Systematic technology identification for the digitalization of the conformity of production in the automotive industry.International Journal of Conformity Assessment, 4(1), 2025

    Kerstin Haeckel, Stephan Husung, and Christine Wuensche. Systematic technology identification for the digitalization of the conformity of production in the automotive industry.International Journal of Conformity Assessment, 4(1), 2025. doi: 10. 55459/ijca/v4i1/kh.sh.cw. URL https://doi.org/ 10.55459/ijca/v4i1/kh.sh.cw. accessed 2026-07- 04

    work page doi:10.55459/ijca/v4i1/kh.sh.cw 2025

  11. [12]

    Why does quality fraud occur? a case study of japanese manufacturers

    Hiroto Hara and Shuzo Fujimura. Why does quality fraud occur? a case study of japanese manufacturers. Technology in Society, 89:102659, 2024. doi: 10.1016/ j.techsoc.2024.102659. URL https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.techsoc.2024.102659. accessed 2026-07- 04

    arXiv 2024

  12. [13]

    Hashmi, G

    M. Hashmi, G. Governatori, H.-P. Lam, and M. T. Wynn. Are we done with business process compli- ance: State of the art and challenges ahead.Knowl- edge and Information Systems, 57(1):79–133, 2018. doi: 10.1007/s10115-017-1142-1. URL https://doi. org/10.1007/s10115-017-1142-1. accessed 2026- 07-04

    doi:10.1007/s10115-017-1142-1 2018

  13. [14]

    ISO 15489-1:2016 information and documentation: Records management

    International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15489-1:2016 information and documentation: Records management. part 1: Concepts and principles. International Standard, ISO/TC 46/SC 11, 2016. URL https://committee.iso.org/ sites/tc46sc11/home/projects/published/ iso-15489-records-management.html. accessed 2026-07-04

    2016

  14. [15]

    InterPARES: International researchonpermanentauthenticrecordsinelectronic systems

    InterPARES Project. InterPARES: International researchonpermanentauthenticrecordsinelectronic systems. University of British Columbia, School of Library, Archival and Information Studies. URL https://interpares.org/. accessed 2026-07-04

    2026

  15. [16]

    About the decision on kobe steel’s violation of the unfair competition preven- tion act

    Kobe Steel, Ltd. About the decision on kobe steel’s violation of the unfair competition preven- tion act. Kobe Steel news release, 13 March 2019, 2019. URL https://www.kobelco.co. jp/english/releases/1200908_15581.html. ac- cessed 2026-07-04

    arXiv 2019

  16. [17]

    A risk assessment method for production part approval process

    Lafayette, Li, and Webster. A risk assessment method for production part approval process. In 2017 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Sym- posium (RAMS), pages 1–4, Orlando, FL, 2017. IEEE. doi: 10.1109/ram.2017.7889728. URL https: //doi.org/10.1109/ram.2017.7889728. accessed 2026-07-04

    work page doi:10.1109/ram.2017.7889728 2017

  17. [18]

    Industry-wide corporate fraud: The 13 truth behind the volkswagen scandal.Journal of Cleaner Production, 172:3167–3175, 2018

    Larry Li, Adela McMurray, Jinjun Xue, Zhu Liu, and Malick Sy. Industry-wide corporate fraud: The 13 truth behind the volkswagen scandal.Journal of Cleaner Production, 172:3167–3175, 2018. doi: 10. 1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.051. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.051. accessed 2026- 07-04

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.051 2018

  18. [19]

    Providing grounds for trust ii: The findings of the authenticity task force of InterPARES

    Heather MacNeil. Providing grounds for trust ii: The findings of the authenticity task force of InterPARES. Archivaria, (54):24–58, 2002

    2002

  19. [20]

    Harvard University Press, 1990

    Mashaw and Harfst.The Struggle for Auto Safety. Harvard University Press, 1990. ISBN 9780674423466. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674423473. URL https: //doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674423473. accessed 2026-07-04

    work page doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674423473 1990

  20. [21]

    Results of the investigation reports by automobile manufacturers concerning the presence of irregularities in type designation applications

    Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. Results of the investigation reports by automobile manufacturers concerning the presence of irregularities in type designation applications. MLIT press release, 3 June 2024 (in Japanese),

    2024

  21. [22]

    accessed 2026- 07-04

    URL https://www.mlit.go.jp/report/ press/jidosha08_hh_005134.html. accessed 2026- 07-04

    2026

  22. [23]

    Klingner

    Edin Mujkic and Donald E. Klingner. Dieselgate: How hubris and bad leadership caused the biggest scandal in automotive history.Public Integrity, 2018. doi: 10.1080/10999922.2018.1522180. URL https: //doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2018.1522180. ac- cessed 2026-07-04

    doi:10.1080/10999922.2018.1522180 2018

  23. [24]

    Blockchain-based solution for product recall manage- ment in the automotive supply chain.IEEE Access, 9:167756–167775, 2021

    Pratyush Kumar Patro, Raja Wasim Ahmad, Ibrar Yaqoob, Khaled Salah, and Raja Jayaraman. Blockchain-based solution for product recall manage- ment in the automotive supply chain.IEEE Access, 9:167756–167775, 2021. doi: 10.1109/access.2021. 3137307. URL https://doi.org/10.1109/access. 2021.3137307. accessed 2026-07-04

    doi:10.1109/access.2021 2021

  24. [25]

    Democratic business ethics: Volk- swagen’s emissions scandal and the disruption of corporate sovereignty.Organization Stud- ies, 37(10):1501–1518, 2016

    Carl Rhodes. Democratic business ethics: Volk- swagen’s emissions scandal and the disruption of corporate sovereignty.Organization Stud- ies, 37(10):1501–1518, 2016. doi: 10.1177/ 0170840616641984. URL https://doi.org/10. 1177/0170840616641984. accessed 2026-07-04

    2016

  25. [26]

    Rozinat and W

    A. Rozinat and W. M. P. van der Aalst. Confor- mance checking of processes based on monitoring real behavior.Information Systems, 33(1):64–95,

  26. [27]

    URL https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2007.07.001

    doi: 10.1016/j.is.2007.07.001. URL https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.is.2007.07.001. accessed 2026-07-04

    doi:10.1016/j.is.2007.07.001 2007

  27. [28]

    Andrea Seňová, Lenka Štofová, Petra Szaryszóvá, andJaroslavDugas. SuperstructureofISO/TS16949 forthemeasurementofmaterial-technologicalparam- eters of the products in automotive production.Man- agement Systems in Production Engineering, 29(3): 178–183, 2021. doi: 10.2478/mspe-2021-0022. URL https://doi.org/10.2478/mspe-2021-0022. ac- cessed 2026-07-04

    work page doi:10.2478/mspe-2021-0022 2021

  28. [29]

    ‘more than words’: Expand- ing the taxonomy of greenwashing after the volk- swagen scandal.Journal of Business Research, 71:27–37, 2017

    Alfonso Siano, Agostino Vollero, Francesca Conte, and Sara Amabile. ‘more than words’: Expand- ing the taxonomy of greenwashing after the volk- swagen scandal.Journal of Business Research, 71:27–37, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.11

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.11 2017

  29. [30]

    2016.11.002

    URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres. 2016.11.002. accessed 2026-07-04

    doi:10.1016/j.jbusres 2016

  30. [31]

    Su, Hidetaka Aoki, Junichi Yamanoi, and Eric W

    W. Su, Hidetaka Aoki, Junichi Yamanoi, and Eric W. K. Tsang. Corporate misconduct in japan: A view from comparative corporate governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2025. doi: 10.1007/s10490-025-10038-0. URL https://doi. org/10.1007/s10490-025-10038-0. accessed 2026- 07-04

    work page doi:10.1007/s10490-025-10038-0 2025

  31. [32]

    Results of in- vestigation regarding model certification appli- cations

    Toyota Motor Corporation. Results of in- vestigation regarding model certification appli- cations. Toyota Global Newsroom, 3 June 2024, 2024. URL https://global.toyota/en/ newsroom/corporate/40920588.html. accessed 2026-07-04

    arXiv 2024

  32. [33]

    Takata corpo- ration agrees to plead guilty and pay $1 billion in criminal penalties for airbag scheme

    United States Department of Justice. Takata corpo- ration agrees to plead guilty and pay $1 billion in criminal penalties for airbag scheme. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Michigan, press release, 13 January 2017, 2017. URL https://www.justice. gov/usao-edmi/page/file/930816/dl. accessed 2026-07-04

    2017

  33. [34]

    Volkswagen AG agrees to plead guilty and pay $4.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties; six volkswagen executives and employees are indicted

    United States Department of Justice. Volkswagen AG agrees to plead guilty and pay $4.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties; six volkswagen executives and employees are indicted. Office of Public Affairs, press release, 11 January 2017 (Internet Archive snapshot), 2017. URL http://web.archive.org/web/20250202235034/ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ volk...

    arXiv 2017

  34. [35]

    Court sentences hino motors ltd., a toyota sub- sidiary, and imposes over $1.6b in penalties for emissions fraud scheme

    United States Department of Justice. Court sentences hino motors ltd., a toyota sub- sidiary, and imposes over $1.6b in penalties for emissions fraud scheme. Office of Pub- lic Affairs, press release No. 25-276, 2025,

    2025

  35. [36]

    accessed 2026-07-04

    URL https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/ court-sentences-hino-motors-ltd-toyota-subsidiary-and-imposes-over-16b-penalties-emissions . accessed 2026-07-04

    2026

  36. [37]

    United states reaches settlement with hyundai and kia in historic greenhouse gas enforcement case

    United States Environmental Protection Agency. United states reaches settlement with hyundai and kia in historic greenhouse gas enforcement case. EPA news release, 3 November 2014,

    2014

  37. [38]

    ac- cessed 2026-07-04

    URL https://www.epa.gov/archive/ 14 epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/ 15519081fbf4002285257d8500477615.html. ac- cessed 2026-07-04

    2026

  38. [39]

    Improper conduct in fuel consumption testing on products manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC)

    Jiří Vodička.Vehicle Type-Approval and Emission Regulation in the EU: Environmental Perspective. Masaryk University Press, 2024. doi: 10.5817/CZ. MUNI.M280-0512-2024. URL https://doi.org/ 10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M280-0512-2024. accessed 2026- 07-04. 15 Note: Appendix B lists source titles in English; original-language (Japanese) titles, URLs, tiers and access dat...

    work page doi:10.5817/cz 2024