Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ford Pinto ethical case study
Introduction of pinto fires case
Ford Pinto ethical case study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ford Pinto ethical case study
Introducing the Pinto Fires Case Jamai Bridger California College San Diego The Pinto Fires Case centers around events that transpired more than 30 years ago. The impact of these events proved extremely important to America business history. Fortune Magazine called it one of the 20 business decisions that “helped create the business world as it is today.” (Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How to Do It Right) The resulting aftermath directly contributed to the development of both consumer activism and protection. (Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How to Do It Right) Relevant Facts Production and distribution continued despite recognizing that a serious fire hazard existed when the Pinto suffered a collision …show more content…
(Case: The Ford Pinto, n.d.) A report focusing on fatalities was included and illuminated the cost associated with technical improvements to the vehicle. An estimate was even applied to an estimate of how many people could be killed and even assigned a dollars-and-cents figure to the value of a human life. (Case: The Ford Pinto, n.d.) Ford determined that the overall cost greatly outweighed the benefits and decided against making any safety improvements. This decision resulted in numerous fire-related deaths to occur between 1971 and 1978; sworn testimony by Ford engineers stated that 95% of these fatalities could have been avoided if Ford had simply altered the location of the fuel tank. (Case: The Ford Pinto, …show more content…
This affected Ford Motors as a company, all stockholders with Ford, and the associated insurance companies representing Ford and consumers. These events forced guidelines and regulations by the government for the automobile industry to implement change and new standards. The loss of life is appalling and the suffering by all families involved is unspeakable. Possible Consequences of Alternative Action Ford could have avoided being at the helm of providing consumers with a vehicle that took human life if the decision to recall had been made. The cost would have been potentially higher and business might have suffered, but these are consequences that would have been short-lived. The cost for future recalls of vehicles could be considerably lowered because of the standard that would have been adopted had they gone forward with recalling the Pinto. A positivity would surely have been attached to the credibility and reputation of Ford following the recall and public consensus of that nature would be long-term. The decision against recall resulted in the loss of life. The doorway was then opened for lawsuits that ultimately exceeded that once substantial dollar figure Ford was desperate to save. Ford carries a horrific connection to tragedy and effected in long-term, perhaps even permanent damage to its
...ate the effects that an accident can have on both their company and the rest of their industry.
“Legal and Ethical Analysis of the Ford Pinto” For mankind communication has been a very important issue and with that transportation has also rose to prominence. Not so long ago we were aided by a new invention due to the innovation of a few workaholics and the automobile industry. Along with the Japanese rivals Ford is one of leading companies in the world and run by a family, which controls the major shares in the company. But the company’s fate and history has not been free of controversy and this case mainly deals with one of those. Late part of 60s and early part of 70s was a period in which the American industry was facing stiff competition from the Japanese companies and in order to counter that they needed to come up with compact and cheaper cars. With General Motors as the market leader Ford was the second best and was concentrating on areas let off by GM. Since there were only four major players the market was somewhat oligopolistic in nature. Ford’s model of Pinto was a smash hit in terms of price and mileage for customers and till then there was not much of a regulation because even governments did not want to temper much with a 100 billion dollar plus industry. But soon after National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Environment Protection Agency (EPA) began to play their parts. Section 301 required cars to be made in such a safe manner that in case of a crash from the rear the leakage should be minimum. Although Ford had conducted enough of research but the design flaw in Pinto was that the fuel tank was near rear axle and the bladder pipe could cause leakages way beyond what was sanctioned. Plus they were also affected by external hot or cold temperatures. Calling the cars rolling on the road ...
Public Citizen & Safetyforum.com. (2001, Jan. 4). Spinning their wheels: How Ford and Firestone fail to justify the limited tire recall. from the World Wide Web: http://www.citizen.org/Press/pr-auto25.htm
The unfortunate truth is that cases like the Ford Pinto have always taken place and will continue to occur in our capitalistic society. Although placing a value on an individual’s life and operating within the gray areas of the law is without a doubt unethical, it is considered by many corporate leaders as simply being good business. According to Hoffman, corporations often seek to meet the standards in place without exceeding them, in order to maximize their profit and increase their value . Although it is unfeasible to create a vehicle that will never result in the loss of a life, it is possible to make one that is safe by anyone’s standards.
Ford Motor Company case, because Ford Motor Company is confirmed to be inattentive and is responsible in this case. Ford Motor Company violated all elements of the negligence law, due to inattentively in every aspect of responsibility, since they know about the defective parts of Ford Pinto, but did not inform it to the public and resulted in the death of Lily Gray and a serious injury of Richard Grimshaw. The judgment asserted the trial court allocated a compensatory and punitive damages were reasonable for both Lily Gray and Robert Grimshaw. It is written in Philippians 2:4, “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.” Therefore, it is important for Ford Motor Company to create a safe product for their customers before publicly put it on the
The failures from both companies are quite obvious in production process of the product however, the greatest failures come from the statements released during the investigations of the company’s. Both companies were shaming each other and trying to blame one sole company for the tragic problems that occurred. This shows bad moral values in honesty and responsibility. The failures by Ford and Firestone shed light to other automobile company’s to not make the same mistakes as they did. For example, “BMW immediately recalled 200,000 of its cars, after getting to know that there was a problem with the front passenger seat airbags” (Tutor, 2008). The Ford-Firestone case also caused customers to distrust them and shame them for the tragedies that they caused. The events in the situation could have been handled very simply and would have prevented the whole problem in the first place. All Ford and Firestone had to do was just delay the production of the Explorer and the tires until they got a safe and reliable product to put on the
On the other hand, some people would lobby that Ford did nothing wrong releasing the Pinto early and knowing it had a major safety flaw. There was no National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rear-end impact standards at the time,(DeGeorge 298) so Ford did not break any safety laws. Also, Ford was found innocent of criminal homicide in the Ulrich case.(Waters) Even though both of these statements are true, before the release of the Pinto, Ford was an active lobbyist against new safety standards; this is a big red flag. (Trevion, 66) Ford may have won in the Ulrich case, but they lost many other cases including Grimshaw vs. Ford Motor Co. (Ford Pinto)
The tragic death of the Ulrich sisters and their cousin in their 1973 Ford Pinto, led to the first time an American corporation had been charged for a criminal crime in a court case. Even though the women were involved in a rear-end collision, it was believed that a flaw in the vehicle, a gas tank rupture, was the cause of their deaths. After District Attorney Michael Cosentino presented his argument, a grand jury returned a criminal homicide charge, indicting the Ford Company for three counts of reckless homicide. This case, State of Indiana vs. Ford Motor Company, revolved around the discussion of “acceptable standards” and whether or not Ford was ethically correct in the responded to the Pinto’s mechanical issues. American businesses paid
The Ford Pinto was manufactured in the 70’s. If this car was hit from behind, it would cause the gasoline to leak and the car would burst into flames. The Ford Company finally issued a recall on this automobile, only after more than a dozen of people where either killed or injured. The few of the executives involved in this decision, felt this was an unethical choice. This feeling was mainly because this was a business decision more so than it was an ethical one. The executives in charge of the Pinto were not knowingly unethical, or they intentionally authorized unethical behavior by employees further down the chain of command. It is evident that these patterns continue to recur in other
Manufacturing and problems with design have created the need for Ford to recall some of the most popular models in its lineup. In 2013, the Escape crossover model, Ford’s second-best selling product was recalled seven times (Ford Motor Company SWOT Analysis, 2014). Further adding to its image decline, the company was faced with penalties from the government concerning recalls. In July of 2012 for example, US regulators access a penalty of $17.4 million to Ford for failing to recall nearly 424,000 Escape SUVs quickly. These frequent recalls have a negative impact the confidence consumers have in Ford’s products.
In recent news, we have seen companies like General Motors (GM) overlook blatant safety risk. Their major concern is the cost to fix the safety areas rather than the safety of its employees and potentially the customers that purchase the vehicles. A former employee for the company stated that GM knew of the safety risk involved in the faulty ignition switch but refused to fix the problem due to the lead time required and most of all the cost which was estimated at $1 per car (Valdes-Dapena, 2014). This unethical business decision eventually cost twelve deaths over a ten year period.
As the ford ECO one of my main responsibility is make money for my stockholder while following the legal and ethical custom of the industry. My stakeholder in the ford pinto are investor who want to see return on their investment which means the company have to produce a greater profit every year. In the situation of the ford pinto case as the ECO I would have done the same thing that ford at the time which is keep the flaw in the design. The stats in the Fatalities report, showed the flew in the design could cause death but it will be a very low percent of death. allowing the engineers to redesign will delay the roll out of the product which and the redesign cost will be expensive. Although it seems sample to redesign. For example, we could
In this case study, Susan is a design engineer in a major auto company who receives two reports concerning engine fires and explosions that occurred in hot weather in the company’s popular economy car. When the engine of this model was approved for production, Susan advised the company that there could be a gas leak. She argued for a modification, but her proposal was turned down. Susan pressed for special testing under excessive heat conditions and urged the company to warn the public and immediately recall all of the cars of this model. However, such a recall probably will cost the company between $500,000 and $1 million, and Susan is told to mind her own business, or she will be fired. In the
...d. A factory closure, product recall, environmental damage or even industrial accident, can be handled in such a way as to present the corporate as being fully accountable, open to criticism, understandably fallible, and above all, able to identify a problem and provide a solution.
... The relationship between manufacturers, dealers, suppliers and customers has dramatically improved. In fact, Ford has been the only one of the three big automobile companies in Detroit not to accept a U.S. government bail-out or file for bankruptcy protection, as its rivals General Motors and Chrysler did last year. According to the Wall Street Journal, Ford sales in April 2010 climbed to 25% as compared to GM’s 7.2%.