Brandon Trinh Bus/Phil 186-07 Professional and Business Ethics Spring ‘15/Dr. Williamson February 23, 2015 The Ford Pinto Companies that ignore the safety of their consumers in order to push a product to meet its deadline while saving some money are acting immorally. Ford knew their new automobile, the Pinto, had serious consequences to human welfare, yet ignored it and sold the product as is anyway. The Pinto did not meet the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s proposed standard for rear-impact collisions and failed every crash-test. This posed a serious safety concern considering that the Pinto represented a serious fire hazard when struck from the rear; even at low speed collisions. Even with this knowledge, Ford decided to push the product as is and ultimately ended up harming many people. Therefore, Ford acted immorally. …show more content…
During this time, foreign countries such as Japan and Germany were rising in the subcompact automobile market and Ford wanted in on some of the competition.
It was their competitive drive that led them to the decision of compressing their timetable for the Pinto from three-and-a-half years to just only two. This meant that any changes that were to be made were done in the process of building this car. However, they bumped into a major setback since their new car could not pass the proposed standard set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This standard called for automobiles to withstand 20-mph collisions from the rear without sustaining any fuel loss. This setback forced Ford to make an ethical decision: They could meet the production timetable by neglecting consumer safety and rolling out the existing design for the Pinto; or they could delay productions in order to implement a safer gas tank but would have to be forced fork over a little bit more money per vehicle and to concede to foreign
companies. Ford went along with the existing design, keeping it for six more years, and justified their actions using cost-benefit reasoning. Using cost-benefit analysis, Ford somehow arrived at the conclusion that the cost of modifying the gas tanks of the Pinto outweighed the lives put at risk by driving a Pinto with an unsafe gas tank design. Ford acted on self-interest when they should be promoting the general good for everyone. For their decision to be moral, Ford had to promote the general welfare more than any other alternative. Self-interest clouded their judgment and caused them to make an irresponsible decision. Ford did not take into account the consequences that their consumers would have to endure due to their decision. Therefore, Ford did not maximize the benefits in the long run and in the end, they had a net harm which resulted in them paying for their immoral actions. Overall, Ford’s decision resulted in net harm for everyone. Instead of considering the net benefit equally for everyone, Ford chose to make decisions based on its self-interests. One example of harm that resulted from Ford’s immoral decision deals with the risk of serious injuries the Pinto posed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed a safety standard that required new automobiles to withstand a rear-end impact of 20 mph without fuel loss by 1972. This standard aimed to raise that number to 30 mph by 1973. Ford crash-tested their Pinto prototypes and each and every one of them failed the 20 mph standard. However, in 1970, Ford was able to pass the test with certain modifications to the gas tank such as using a rubber bladder in the gas tank or adding a piece of steel between the tank and the rear bumper. Results from these crash tests gave Ford knowledge of the risks the Pinto posed if the gas tanks were left unmodified. Ford knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire hazard when struck from the rear, even in low-speed collisions; however, they decided that saving money to turn a profit and compete with the foreign countries were more important than the safety of their consumers.
Fords president wanted to make a car that fitted the American demands, so he made the Pinto which had the price of 12,000 dollars in todays capital measurement. Everything was set, and Ford made some tests, and that is when the company realized that the design placed the gas tank in a vulnerable place. Now, we all know that no car is one hundred percent safe, but the Pinto unwillingly raised public awareness when a
As a result, GM’s developer Edward Cole was well aware of the major design defect of the excessive weight in the rear causing General Motors to face 106 Corvair liability lawsuits involving injuries and death. After the publication of Nader’s book General Motors hired a private detective in New York to gather information and discredit Nader. Nader sued General Motors for invasion of privacy winning millions in the lawsuit. Furthermore, CEO James Roche promoted Edward Cole the Corvair design engineer in question, to GM’s President. Did the CEO Roche of General Motors make a sound ethical decision with the promotion?
The automobile went from being a toy for society’s elite to being an essential item within the economic reach of nearly every American, all thanks to the hard work and ingenuity of Henry Ford. His dedication to quality and attention to detail earned him not only dozens of racing titles, but also the reputation of a respectable businessman. Ford understood his market so well that he knew what the people wanted before they could even ask for it, always ahead of the curve. Ford was a pioneer of American commercialism, and so his production methods were centred around efficiency and mass production, thus allowing him to increase productivity and decrees cost to meet the demand of the masses. Lastly, consideration of the working class and philosophy of raising the wages instead of raising the price point and focusing only on profit. There are a great many lessons to be learned from distinguished businessmen in history, and Henry Ford is no
I can recall when my older sister in the 70’s had purchased a shiny new Ford Pinto and pulled it into the driveway. She used at that time what she thought was her best judgment along with an economical price but only to be succumbed by our Dad when he realized what she purchased. Ford Motor Company in the late 60’s were being overtaken by other countries car manufactures in the subcompact market. The Volkswagen Beetle was still formidable, and the VW Rabbit was on the drawing board. Datsun and Toyota were readying new models. Honda was preparing to change the nature of the competition with its Civic. (Lee Iacocca 's Pinto: A Fiery Failure) It would be 10 years later that Henry Ford II, Ford Motor Co. Chairman would fire the person who ultimately
The national spotlight is dominated today with the debate over how much control should the government have in an individual’s life. With this in mind the question is asked, should the government be allowed to dictate the quality of gasoline that individuals use in their vehicles? Unbeknownst to consumers the Environmental Protection Agency recently approved the sale of E15 gasoline which contains harmfully high levels of ethanol. John Tomlin states, a “recent survey showed that a majority of consumers (95 percent) had not heard of E15 gasoline or the damage it may cause” (1). Is it ethical for the government to make this determination without notifying the public? Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ethical behavior as, “following accepted rules of morally right and good behavior” (1). Based on this definition, changing to E15 gasoline without the publics’ knowledge is ethically wrong because it can cause accelerated engine wear, fuel system damage, and ultimately result in car warranties being voided. This change in the quality of gasoline blends has proven to be more cost effective to producers, but in the long run it will end up being more costly to consumers.
Foreign markets were beginning to show promise with the vehicles that were going to put out on the market. The Ford Motor Company began to feel the pressure and felt that it needed to be in the limelight of the competition. Lee Iococca, the CEO of Ford, decided that it was time for a change and thus the Ford Pinto was introduced. However, the Pinto had numerous flaws that cost the Ford Company more than ever anticipated.
Ethical dilemmas have long been issues that have plagued all of mankind for generations. Since the beginning, the majority of humanity has struggled to do what is right when the answer wasn’t clear. Sometimes, however, the answer is not as difficult to realize, but is much more difficult to accept. In the case of the Gee-Whiz Mark 2 (GWM2), the dilemma that faces its respective company is whether or not the units that are defective should be exported to countries that have no enforceable rules to punish the marketing of said defective units. If the company does not do so and instead decides to scrap the units, there will be a loss of profit. For the company though, the answer is clear; though it may be challenging for its leaders to accept,
When we consider the case of the Ford Pinto, and its relative controversy, through the varied scope of ethical viewpoints, the results might surprise us. From a personal standpoint, as a consumer, the idea of selling a vehicle to the masses with such a potentially devastating flaw is completely unethical. When we consider the case from other directions and other ethical viewpoints, however, it makes it clear that often ethics are a matter of perspective and philosophy. It’s also clear that there are cases where more information will muddy the waters, rather than clear them.
It seemed then that Ford and Firestone failed to meet its ethical obligations. That is, they didn’t report safety related defect information to government agencies and they also concealed important information related to vehicle safety from the public. As a result, the consumers suffered the consequences of their unethical conduct. Many people died because of the defect in these tires. In fact, these accidents would have not occurred if both companies have solved the problem immediately.
Our week five case study, Mattel and Toy Safety, involves toy safety inspection and product recall concerns among outside contractors. In 2007, the infamous toy company, Mattel, recalled a very large number of toy products covered with lead-based paint that were manufactured in China. Mattel responded to the massive toy recall by increasing the testing of all products and reassuring its customers that they will take affirmative action to correct the recall issues as soon possible. In my opinion, I believe Mattel acted in a socially responsible and ethical manner regarding the safety of it toys because as soon as Mattel was aware of a European merchant finding lead paint on their toy products, Mattel conducted an immediate investigation.
This Coca Cola malfunction incident demonstrates that if attention is not paid to the ethical operation or the company it could challenge and threaten a company’s short and long term performance. This could have long lasting affects on the companies operations and requires strategic decisions to restore company’s image in the eyes of the customers. Gaining the trust of customers takes long time but it is broken with one small incident.
Toyota issues in automotive industry resulted from a lack of moral and ethical obligations to loyal customers. In fact, people encounter ethics at one time or another. A business expectation is to act in manner upholding society values. According to authors Trevino and Nelson, (2004) states, “a set of moral principals or values, or the principals, norm, and standards of conduct governing a group or individual.” On the other hand, three ethical criteria determined in this discussion like obligation, moral ideas, and consequences which this article highlights an ethical dilemma with automobiles makers.
...when the company focused on further improvements of its pickups and SUVs instead of focusing on innovations required by the changing demand. If the management had not been ignorant and would have developed sound strategy as soon as it spotted the change, the company would have avoided the crisis. However the company just recently adjusted its production plan and plans to continue realigning its manufacturing capacity, product mix and cut costs to fix the situation (“Ford Adjusts Production”).
In today’s fast paced business world many managers face tough decisions when walking the thin line between what’s legal and what’s socially unacceptable. It is becoming more and more important for organisations to consider many more factors, especially ethically, other than maximising profits in order to be more competitive or even survive in today’s business arena. The first part of this essay will discuss managerial ethics[1] and the relevant concepts and theories that affect ethical decision making, such as the Utilitarian, Individualism, Moral rights approach theories, the social responsibility of organisations to stakeholders and their responses to social demands, with specific reference to a case study presenting an ethical dilemma[2], where Mobil halts product sales to a garage, forcing the garage owner to stop selling solvents to young people. The second section of this essay will focus on advice that should be given to any manager in a similar position to the garage owner with relevance to the organisational strategic management, the corporate objective and the evaluation of corporate social performance by measuring economic, legal, ethical and discretionary responsibilities. It will address whom to think of as stakeholders and why the different aspect could cost more than a manager or an organisation could have imagined.
It seems obvious that large corporations have a tendency to ignore the negative effects of their actions in favor of profit. This example, although sensationalized, still says to me that with power comes responsibility. It affirmed my belief that a corporation’s goal cannot be just to provide profit to shareholders, but there must also be an element of social responsibility.