Ford Pinto Fires Case Study and Executive Summary
John Bonner, Scotti Greenleaf, Rose Scarbrough
MGT216
University of Phoenix
October 18, 2010
Sarah Nelson
Ford Pinto Fires Case Study and Executive Summary
Introduction
During the Late 1960’s the Ford Motor Company was one of the leading auto manufactures in the United States. Ford was credited with revolutionizing the muscle car era of the 1950’s and 1960’s. During the mid 1960’s Lee Iacocca helped Ford establish itself in the late 1960’s with the introduction of the Ford Mustang. During this time foreign auto manufactures were gaining market share in the mid to compact car markets. This was largely due to customers seeking more fuel efficient cars because of soaring fuel
…show more content…
This was brought to the attention of Ford management, but both the engineers and management decided to move forward with production and the Pinto went to market. Dennis A. Gioa was the recall coordinator for Ford Motor Company during this time, and had opportunities to initiate a recall of the Pinto but chose not to do so. He went against his own values to do what was best for the corporation. All parties that were involved in the Ford Pinto case chose to do what was best for the corporation, and ignored his or hers values and ethics.
Corporate Mission and Ethics Ford motor company has made many improvements in the quality of its products over time since the seventies which is the period in which the Pinto case took place. Ford has placed greater focus on customer satisfaction, innovation and doing what is good for the environment. The company has many programs which are geared towards the community. These programs are in the areas of education, diversity and driver safety among others. The Company is a global leader in the automotive industry. It manufactures and distributes a variety of types of vehicles across six continents. It has about 200,000 employees and operates 90 plants which are located all over the world. Just like in the seventies, the mission statement of the company has not changed much. Its main goal is to produce affordable vehicles that consumers demand. Ford
The moral issues about the Ford Pinto is that they take their profit is more important than human life. They also did not inform the consumer about the facts of the Pinto. Lastly, they also lobbied the safety of the car to lowest standard (Shaw, Barry & Sansbury 2009, pp 97-99).
You have to consider the Ford Motor Company’s reputation after they made the decision to not recall the Ford Pinto to
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.
There are many different cases where people have been critically injured or have died from burn-related injuries from the ruptured the Pino gas tank. This case study specifically discusses the 1978 untimely deaths of Lynn Marie Ulrich, Dana Ulrich, and Judy Ann. Between 1971 and 1978, the Pinto was responsible for a number of fire-related deaths. It was the death of these teenagers that lead brought the controversy of the Ford Pinto’s faulty gas tank placement to a climax resulting in criminal homicide charges for the automaker. Ford’s CEO Henry Ford II and Ford’s new president Lee Iacocca were responsible for the launch of the Ford Pinto. To stay ahead of the growing competition, The Pinto was not to weigh over 2,000 pounds and not costs not to exceed $2,000. Ford officials knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire issue when struck from the rear, but were desperate to expedite the vehicle’s release, the Pintos timing was set just under 25 months. Tooling has already been kicked off, so when crash tests revealed a serious defect in the gas tank, it was too late for any design modifications. The tooling was well underway. Therefore, Ford’s president decided it would be too costly to make changes in the Pinto’s gas tank location pushing ahead with the original design which went unchanged for six years. Any changes to the low-cost Ford Pinto would result in an increased price, thus possibly making it less desirable by small car buyers. Iacocca understood that people shopping for compact cars were watching every dollar, One Ford engineer explained, “the process of elasticity on these subcompacts is extremely tight. You can price yourself right out of the market by adding $25 to the production cost of the model”.
Ford Motor Company, a global automotive industry leader based in Dearborn, Michigan, manufactures or distributes automobiles across six continents. It is a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange. The Company has about 198,000 employees and 90 plants worldwide with the automotive brands include Ford and Lincoln. The Company also provides financial services through Ford Motor Credit Company. The revenue of the company is $136.26 billion with a net income of $20.21 billion by 2011.
Ford Motor Company has been and till the date is known as the king of innovations in the automobile industry. Their research & development department and innovation of interchangeable parts in moving assembly lines resulted in extraordinary global extension for them. They are an old heritage who ruled and still doing impressive jobs in the global automobile market. Some prestigious motor brands are also owned by Ford.
Ford executives were under a great deal of pressure to produce a smaller, more gas efficient automobile. Japanese and German automobile sales were rapidly increasing. These competitive forces drove Ford’s executive team to respond by rushing the design process of the Ford Pinto. By 1973, the Pinto was well into production when engineers discovered a flaw in the gas tank, which was located just under the rear bumper. They discovered that if the vehicle suffered a rear-end collision over 20 mph, the gas tank could break and spill gasoline into the passenger compartment, potentially resulting in a fire. The remedy for the flaw was a part that cost $11.00 per vehicle. Executives at Ford knew the company had followed all safety standards and regulations. At that time, automobile safety standards only needed gas tanks to withstand a collision under 20 mph. An internal cost-benefit analysis revealed the costs would be substantially higher to fix the design flaw that the costs associated with any potential damages due to collisions and loss of life. The public remained unaware until Mother Jones journalist, Mark Dowie broke the story in 1977. Fueled by the media, what followed was a frenzy of public outcry and court trials.
The Elkhart County Grand Jury took up the matter and filed a charge of criminal homicide against Ford, the Automobile American Corporation that designed the Pinto car models. According to Elkhart County Grand prosecutor, Michael A. Cosentino, Ford was guilty of reckless homicide, because the company committed a conscious, plain, and unjustifiable neglect of harm that positioned the gas tank in the rear end of the car without proven protection. Besides, Ford engaged in negligence and substantial deviation from the acceptable standards of conduct. The major focus of the case entailed the expanding and assessment of acceptable standards the company violated in the process of manufacture of Pinto cars.
Ford has argued for over three decades that The Ford Motor Company is not at fault, but rather the other motorists who happened to rear end the Pinto drivers. Many accuse Ford of rushing the Pinto into production without proper testing leaving a faulty
Harley Copp was a key witness in this case. He was a senior engineer executive at Ford Motor Company and testified that senior management within the company was aware of the defects, was knowledgeable of the revised design to make the Pinto safer, but ultimately signed off on the original design and launched it into the market.
Company in the early 1970s when the company decided not to recall the Pinto despite dangerous
Ford Motor Company has tough competition with European and Japanese manufacturers, therefore the company did not respond well and suffered
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.
There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition, Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi, L., 2005). Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that