Automobiles Over Fuel Leak Issue Summary

6. What responsibilities to its customers do you think Ford had? What are the most important moral rights, if any, operating in the Pinto case?

1. Put yourself in the role of the recall coordinator for Ford Motor CO. It’s 1973, and field reports have been coming in about rear-end collisions, fires, and fatalities. You must decide whether to recall the automobile.

As time goes by, ethical and moral issues have been brought up for long periods of time and these issues are recently becoming the rising problem to be discussed in society, business area and daily life. Most of people generally understand that the general meaning of ethics equals to the meaning of moral. However, moral is basically a matter of individual conscience without forcibleness, but ethics are related to social system with forcibleness. The academic definition of ethics is described as a stem of philosophy which raises moral questions and is demonstrated what is the main characteristic of morality and the way in which moral standards are decided (Gray & Webb, 2010).

This paper explores how ethical issues of Pinto case have affected the Ford Motor Company business environment. A number of factors suggest that Ford Motor Company was negligent and violated its code of ethics. In this paper, we will review the corporate culture mindset which prioritizes profit over the value of human life for the purpose financial gain.

Ethics are defined as “a set of moral principles and perceptions about right versus wrong and the resulting philosophy of conduct that is practiced by an individual, group, profession, or culture” (Barker, 2001, p. 159). In the field

In this essay, I will argue that Ford Motor Company’s business behavior was unethical as demonstrated in the Ford Pinto Case. Ford did not reveal all the facts to consumers about a harmful gas tank design in the Ford Pinto. They tried to justify their decision to sell an unsafe car by using a Cost-Benefit Analysis which determined it was cheaper to sell the cars without changing to a safer gas tank. The price of not fixing the gas tanks is human injuries and fatalities. By choosing not to make the Pinto a safer vehicle Ford placed a price on the head of every consumer. Ford’s primary concern was to maximize profits. Ford had a duty and ethical responsibility to customers to

The Ford Pinto case involved the explosion of Ford Pinto 's due to a defective fuel system. The fuel system was designed in a way that even with a small hit the car would explode. After the cost-benefit analysis, Ford decided to go with its original gas tank designed despite the crash-test result. At that time Ford thought that would be the most ethical decision for the business. But later in 1978 media paid more attention to the Pinto gas tank stories, which resulted in accidents and many people lost their lives. Ford faced pressure from the media, the government, loss of future sales, loss of image, court cases, and had to recall 1.5 million Pintos. One wrong decision of the Pinto Ford representatives cost them more than what they assumed. In this case the argument and results would be different according to ones ethical views. The three main ethical theories I have chosen that could’ve changed the decision and result are; Mills—Consequentialism, Kant—Deontology, and Rawls –theory of distributive justice.

In the case of even small defects, issuing an auto recall can have serious consequences for the companies that issue them. The purpose of my research this semester is to observe the economic fallout of issuing an auto recall, in the cases of both life-threatening defects and mere convenience issues. Furthermore, I would like to use this foundation of research to observe how customer loyalty to auto makers who have issued these recalls

One of the many problems during the hearing is the emergence GM not only knowing about the defective ignition switch, but they also switched the defective product for a working one, yet still kept the same product number. In addition, during Senator Boxer’s questioning, she revealed that GM made a decision not to fix the defective product due to GM claiming that it “was not an effective business decision” due to the high cost of fixing the problem and the length of time it would take. Senator Nelson also brought up the issue of how people would be able to drive cars that are known to have the defects, citing that customers deserve compensation in a quick and effective process and are not satisfied with GM’s solution of driving “with only the car key in the ignition”.

The assumption that ‘it’s easy to be ethical’ assumes that individuals automatically know that they are facing an ethical dilemma and that they should simply choose to do the right thing. But decision makers may not always recognize that they are facing a moral issue. Rarely do decisions come with waving red flags. Dennis Gioia was recall coordinator at Ford Motor

Secondly is the company’s response to the crisis. According to (Ahluwalia, 2000) individuals presented with new data on a commonplace brand recognize positive news to be as demonstrative as negative data instead of new clients who have a tendency to weigh negative news all the more vigorously. Thirdly is the number and degree of injuries. In spite of the fact that a few studies found that the intensity of damage does not fundamentally influence purchaser conclusions, most specialists concur that the intensity of injury or deaths, influences buyers' responses to a Product-Harm Crisis. Mowen and Ellis found that an organization in a high-harm emergency case condition is recognized less great that an organization in a low-damage circumstance. Lastly are the external effects during and after the crisis with an emphasis in company response as the most important, because response is a stage that a company has to face when a crisis cannot be avoided. That is to say, negative news is accounted more vividly, as it is against the standard, and acknowledged more trustworthy than positive news spread by the organization itself (2009).

Taking an ethical approach to the Ford Pinto case makes accepting the risk/benefit analysis performed by the Ford Motor Company difficult. In making what seems to be the correct decision based on numbers, Ford in essence adopted a policy of allowing a certain number of people to die or be injured even though they could have prevented it. Ford’s decision

Bad news has come from companies in different forms over the years, employee layoffs, unexpected financial outcomes, crises both internal and external, and natural disasters to name a few (French, S. L., & Holden, T. Q., 2012). For Toyota it came in 2010, with 4,872,583 vehicles recalled, accounting for 29.7% of all vehicles recalled that year (Mezey, A., Hamilton, S., Kuwahara, K., & Sandlin, C., 2013). The failure on the company’s part was in how the recalls were handled, the lack of internal and external communication, as well as the lack of acceptance of responsibility both played substantial roles in the public’s view of the company.

Today’s consumers, for the most part, consider buying a car one of the most important investments of their life, next to buying their home. The average price for a new Toyota Motor Corporation vehicle today is around $25,000 or more, with the company also manufacturing Lexus models. This solidifies its rather large and costly importance in terms of budget for families and single consumers. As vehicle technologies advance so do their expected safety ratings and features, which are often times important selling points for both consumers and salesmen alike. However, there are still margins for error regarding manufacturing and safety, which unfortunately results in loss of life at times for some consumers, which puts Toyota at risk for being held liable concerning product liability and subsequently negligence. One such case involving product liability and negligence concerning a Toyota Motor Corp. vehicle is Saylor v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A, Inc. In order to understand our rights as consumers we will examine, the specifics of the Saylor v. Toyota case, the outcome concerning product liability and negligence in the case, as well as our rights as consumers concerning recalls on vehicles, and possible assistance offered for consumers.

The uncertainty of where the burden of responsibility begins and ends within the consumer and manufacturer relationship has continued to fuel many moral controversies. In a free enterprise system, where government regulation is limited, it is critical to examine this issue as billions of transactions are occurring daily and in some extreme cases become deadly. An instance of this can be illustrated in the Ford Explorer Rollover lawsuit. Although there have been several theories to explain this complex relationship, the Due Care theory is the most superior. I will begin by analysing the Ford Explorer case with the Due Care theory and identify where the manufacturers violated their duties. I will than explain why manufacturers