Ford Pinto Fire Case Study

“Ford Pinto Fires Case” is a case study written by Dennis A. Gioia. Dennis was one of the Ford’s vehicle recall coordinator during the time when Pinto fire problem occurred. Pinto is a one of the subcompact car of Ford which came into the market during 1970’s. This paper focuses on why “Ford Pinto Fire Accident” which took lives of three people occurred.

Background

The Ford Pinto Fire Case took place in Goshen, Indiana on August 10, 1978. It was 1973 Ford Pinto model. Three teenagers were driving that car when they were hit from behind by a van. Due to that, the fuel tank of the car erupted and the car blowup in flames. Out of three, two passengers were burned to death on the spot while the driver died miserably hours later in the hospital.

In this paper, we will be discussing the eight steps process to analyze this Ford Pinto Fires Case. According to Trevino, the eight steps process advocates a liner decision-making process that is necessarily inaccurate because

normally ethical decision making is not liner. However, it is very helpful to see what we normally cannot see.
Ethical Issue
The main issue in this case is why Ford did not put the safety of customers first knowing that there was the problem with fuel tank design. If one thinks from ethical point, safety of human life is most important. However, even after being the recognized name in the auto industry, Ford decided keep their eyes closed to the problem that could have been fixed in the beginning was not the ethical act from the outsider’s view.
The dilemma that Ford was facing from inside might have looked different. As a business, they might have been looking out for the financial problems that comes from the redesigning of the already made products and lose of profit. Thus, making it different ethical view from two different sides. Ford pinto had passed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards so it was lawfully accepted.
Stakeholders
The main stakehoders who are involved in this case are customers who buy the car, employees of Ford like designers of the car, people in the recall vehicle department who have to make decisions after getting reports from surveys and the higher ups at Ford like president and CEO who have the authorities to put decisions into action.
Customers put their trust into the company when they buy products from them. Therefore, they are directly involved this kind of case. After all, there were human lives which were lost in this case. The employees like designers who design the car for the company are also directly involved in this case. It was the design that was faulty and caused the problem. However, when they found out about it during the crash test, they did not change it due to their fixed time frame for production so even if the designers would have wanted to change the design, they might not have given support to do so.
The vehicle recall department has authority to inspect the final product and their problem if any. After that, they can make the decision of recall if needed. According to Dennis, they didn’t make the recall decision because they were looking out of the company’s best interest. To Dennis, as an employee, it was an ethical dilemma that should they focus on their loyalty to their company or the lives of the customers. As for president, and CEO, they have the authorities to make decisions which might not be made by anyone else. That is why, after knowing that this car will cause problems in the future, they should have made decision keeping not only their company but also for other stakeholders in mind. In this case, the President Lee Iacocca, and CEO Henry Ford II’s dilemma was to only thought of their own company’s interest rather than all the customers who will be buying their products.
Consequences
Every decision that we make have consequences.

Depending on the person and situation, it can become either positive or negative. In this case, knowing the defect in the fuel tank design, if the company had try to solve it in the beginning, the consequences might not have been these bad, and people would not have lost their lives. In order to do so, the company might have faced some problems like the financial problems or not to be able to provide the product time which would have affected the company in a negative way.

In this case, the consequences of secrecy approach fits well. The company knew about the problem before the product came out into the market. However, they did not make it public. Of course, it would have been hard to say that this car might get on fire while you are driving because of the some design problem. Therefore, the company kept it secret from the public. As a result, it was too late when the problem found out and some people have already lost their

lives.
When something is being kept secret, that is not the right thing to do is a general feeling for most of the humans. Therefor Ford should have noticed that what they were doing was not the right thing to do. However, they were also looking out for their company’s interest so they just couldn’t look at the broad picture that they were neglecting the first important step in any ethical decision, human life and its well-being.
Obligations
Deontological approach focuses on duties, obligations, and principles. It focuses on what is right thing to do now rather than thinking of what will happen in the future because of the decision made at present. Ford is an auto industry which makes vehicles. People use them on daily base, therefore, Ford has obligation to make sure that the lives of those people will not jeopardize because of the vehicles made by the company.
As mentioned before, the president and the CEO of the company also have obligations in this case. However, the President Iacocca said that “Safety doesn’t sell” which proves that he did not even think about his obligations. As president, he becomes the face of the company, therefor, he needs make sure that those who look up to him have good example to look forward. By not doing the right thing, he is not only neglecting his duties as president of the company but also as a human being who supposed to inspire the new generation.
Deontological approach follows the Golden Rule- “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Trenivo, ADD REST). It means treat people like you would like to be treated by them. The probability of this rule to apply in this case is very low. The reason for that is that, the present of the company hid the fact from the public and put the profit before the safety. I think it is not character of someone with high moral. According to Trivino, the Golden Rule can only leads you to make the best decision if you are highly ethical. Therefore, from looking at the president side, who is not a high moral value person, to make the right decision is almost impossible.
Character and Integrity
Character and integrity are values that show who the person really is. It is like a reputation of a person or the company. If it is a trustworthy, it becomes respectful and helps in many ways in a life and career. However, if it turnout to be unreliable, it becomes so hard to overcome.
In this case, the company lost the trust of the community which led them to a tough time. It became the stain that will stay on their profile forever. The company should have focus on the safety than making the profit. However, according to the Ford’s calculation, making the car more safely would have cost almost three times more than the profit so they decided not to improve the faulty fuel tank design. It shows that the company does not show any integrity for either customers or the society.
Creative Actions
To be creative is the key to solve many problems. As Ford is an automobile company, they should have people who can come up with interesting creative ideas. In this case, reducing the production on the hand and making enough cars with safety fuel tank could have been a good solution. Doing so, they did not have to leave this stained accident on their profile, and people would not have to die. It will also gives the time to change the already made parts of the car.
Another solution to this problem is to have recalled all Pinto as soon as the first incident happened. It is not a big deal for auto industry to have recalled their vehicle since it happen often. As long as the company fixes the problems before it becomes a really big, the society forgets it as it is nothing. Therefore, Ford should have try to fix the problem in the very beginning.
Check Your Gut
This point focus on how you feel about the decisions that you make. While making any kind of decision, if you do not have guts to see through your decision, it is sign that you are missing something. These feeling is not something one can explain, but years of socialization make us sensitive to understand that something just does not feel right (Trinivo). In order to overcome this, you need to use the rational decision making tools.
If I were to in the position to make decision for Ford at that time, I would have recalled all Pinto immediately, and would not feel bad about that. I might feel bad that it will be a huge financial burden on the company at that time, and the company might lose the reputation for the time being. However, if we think about long-term effects, this decision will prove best because it will help to save the face of the company during that time. It will create the image that will show to all stakeholders that the company cares for them more than anything. By gaining their trust, the firm can overcome all the obstacles one by one.