Case Analysis : Ford Pinto Incident

What is ethically responsible management? How can a corporation, given its economic mission, be managed with appropriate attention to ethical concerns? These are central questions in the field of business ethics. There are two approaches to answering such questions. The first one is Milton Friedman’s shareholder theory of management and the second one is Edwards Freeman’s “Stakeholder” theory of management, two different views about the purpose and aims of a business.

Ford should produce the products that are safe to be used. Besides that, Ford should also be honest to the customer by providing the truth information to the customer. In this case, the most important moral rights is every human being has the inherent right to live. Thus, Ford should disclose the dangerous of their products to the customer.

The customers (drivers of Ford) are the number one stakeholders that lost the most. They might not have lost much money or reputations, but they lost the one thing that you can never get back, their life.

In this essay we are taking a look at the famous Milton Friedman's essay "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profit ". The following paper is an attempt to critically evaluate the article in consideration of Freeman Stakeholder Theory.

Because corporations are established to profit and shareholders invest money with expectations of a greater return, managers cannot be given a directive to be “socially responsible” without providing specific criteria of checks and balances to which needs to adhere. Therefore, it is imperative to the success of a corporation for managers to not act solely but rather to act within the policies of the shareholders.

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.

There are a few concerns about harmful behavior of the FMC that should be discussed. A behavior is harmful when it wrongfully sets back the interest of others and has a high risk of harm. Obviously, the gravity of harm in this case is very high being that it is life threatening. Once a consumer has purchased the Pinto and drives it off the lot he is at risk to getting rear ended, and burned to death by a car fire or explosion. Since the weight of this harm is very severe, the low probability of the consumer having an accident doesn’t discount Ford’s unethical behavior. Indeed, driving a Ford Pinto would place a consumer’s life at risk. Also at stake are the interests of Pinto passengers and drivers of other vehicles who certainly are not willing to risk their lives so Ford can make an extra buck. Everyone has an interest in not getting injured or killed. Setting back the interest of consumers isn’t the only thing Ford Motor Company was responsible for.

In their theories of how a business should operate, R. Edward Freeman and Milton Friedman hold virtually opposite beliefs as to what businesses’ responsibilities should be. In favor of the Stakeholder theory, Freeman believes that any person or organization that has a “stake” in the business should also play a role of participation in the business’s actions and decisions. In the other corner of the ring stands Milton Friedman, who holds the belief that said business is only responsible for those that actually own stock in the business – the owners, or stockholders.

Milton Friedman believed a free-market system, in which goods and services are exchanged and controlled by individuals and privately-owned businesses without government authority, was the only way to achieve personal freedom. Adam Smith, a 18th century philosopher and economist, held the belief that in a free society, the role of government should be limited to the protection of the people, the administration of justice through the court system, and the maintenance of all public resources. Adam Smith developed the concept of the “invisible hand” theory, which says within a society that is free of government interference, individuals can pursue actions out of their own self-interest, and the collective result of this

On August 10, 1978 three young girls died in a 1973 Ford Pinto after being stuck from the rear by a driver in a van. The Ford Pinto was completely engulfed in flames and the accident resulted in the death of the three young girls. Today, the debate continues regarding whether or not The Ford Motor Company was responsible for this case and many other cases involving the Pinto bursting into flames resulting in disfigurement or death.

Ford was an unethical leader. He allowed himself to fall into the ethical trap of “Worry over Image” with his alteration of the $5 Day policy and his creation of the Ford Sociology Department. “Ethical traps stem from confusion or uncertainty as to what action or behavior should be taken in a given situation. The ethical trap “Worry over Image” entails making decisions based on how they’ll impact your reputation or standing among peers, subordinates, supervisors, or community. Concerns about what might turn out to be an embarrassing situation may cause you to do something less ethical instead of what’s right (BCEE, 2017c, p. 6-7). Ford wanted his employees to behave a certain way and to do this he paid them to conform to his standard.

This essay will aim to investigate the ethical treatment of shareholders and workers in a traditional, capitalist corporation; The Ford Motor Company and compare and contrast the findings with the treatment of these stakeholders in the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation. The structure of this essay will be as follows; firstly the fundamental differences between the two contrasting organisations will be examined and how these differences impact the ethical treatment of the relevant stakeholders; secondly, the ethical treatment of shareholders in regards to corporate governance and the executive’s accountability and control will be investigated, and lastly, the ethical treatment of workers within the two contrasting organisations will be

The means were limited design time and reducing costs. By cutting costs, Ford knowingly created a product which could prove dangerous and fatal to its consumers. Does Ford’s ends justify its means? Ford did create a sub-compact that sold extremely well and competed fiercely with foreign imports. The goal of the Ford Pinto was met. The costs of this win were substantial however. The money that Ford tried to save by not recalling the vehicle was spent when Ford recalled the Pinto, and extra was spent in compensatory and punitive damages in lawsuits. So the costs that Ford tried to avoid were incurred anyway along with extra.

This paper will have a detailed discussion on the shareholder theory of Milton Friedman and the stakeholder theory of Edward Freeman. Friedman argued that “neo-classical economic theory suggests that the purpose of the organisations is to make profits in their accountability to themselves and their shareholders and that only by doing so can business contribute to wealth for itself and society at large”. On the other hand, the theory of stakeholder suggests that the managers of an organisation do not only have the duty towards the firm’s shareholders; rather towards the individuals and constituencies who contribute to the company’s wealth, capacity and activities. These individuals or constituencies can be the shareholders, employees,

I think Pinto case raised some serious issue of abusing human rights and not behaving ethically in the world of business. Any business/service should never ever put a value on human life and not take consideration of a known deadly danger. Ford had an option as well as the solution to design the car in a way that prevented cars from exploding; however they refused to implement it.   They thought that it was cost effective not to fix dangerous condition than to spend the money to save people in spite of the fact that the only added cost was $ 11 per vehicle.