Pinto Case Have Affected The Ford Motor Company Business Environment

From a utilitarian theory, the Ford Motor Company focus on damage arising from this decision of money and nothing else. Money is seen as value by the Ford Motor Company, so by losing money by law suites and protecting the Ford Motor Company employees outweigh the collateral damage the Ford Pintos line up imposes. Jeremy Bentham brings to light the pleasure and pain aspect of what the decision would bring. In this case the Ford Motor Company expresses that the money saved from the recall brings more pleasure to the most amount of people. The money being saved is obviously from not installing the baffle between the gas tank and rear bumper. The consumer will also save money by the Ford Motor Company not issuing a recall. If the Ford Motor Company issued a recall, then the price of the Ford Pinto would be more than what was stated thus maybe making it not comparable to other cars in its class. You must also consider the pain that this decision creates. Because the Ford Motor Company refused to issue a recall to install the baffle between the gas tank and the bumper, it has created pain and suffering to those who were affected by rear-end collision injuries.

7. Would it have made a moral difference if the savings resulting from not improving the Pinto gas tank had been passed on to Ford’s customer? Could a rational customer have chosen to save a few dollars and risk having the more dangerous gas tank? What if Ford had told potential customers about its decision?

In August of 1978 three teenage girls were driving a Ford Pinto and were struck from behind. The three girls died because the Ford Pinto’s fuel tank ruptured from the collision and burst into flames. There was a big debate about the safety of the Ford Pinto to its proneness to its fuel tank catching on fire in low-speed rear-end

Ford Motor Company, American automotive corporation founded in 1903 by Henry Ford and 11 associate investors. (htt28) It is the multinational corporation and the world's third largest automaker based on worldwide vehicle sales. The Company operates in two segments: Automotive and Financial Services. Automotive includes Ford North America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, and Ford Asia Pacific Africa region. Financial services include Ford Motor Credit Company and Other Financial Service. The Company manufactures or distributes automobiles across six continents. Its automotive brands include Ford and Lincoln. Other Financial Services includes a range of businesses, including holding companies and real

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.

Friedman’s free-market approach to business ethics and how it relates to the Ford Pinto case.

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.

Personal evaluation of this case would take into consideration the fact; one engineer did offer a document indicating and estimate for the cost of value refitting which would prevent the Ford Pinto from bursting into flames should a rear end collision occur. A simple, $1, plastic gadget weighing one pound fitted over the gas tank bolts would have prevented the tank from being punctured. Conclusion was that "it was more economical to let people die and settle the suits afterward" (Newton and Ford, 2008). Put simply, the Ford corporate heads believed no project was worth manufacturing if the cost-benefit indicated a greater cost than the benefit. Further evaluation of the analysis indicated if the

In the mid to late 1960’s American automobile manufacturing was being dominated by Japanese imports. These imports, smaller in size than the domestic vehicles at the time, offered an economical and dependable alternative to what American automobiles offered. In order to remain competitive with these Japanese imports Ford chief executive officer Lee Iacoca instructed the Ford manufacturing company to come up with a vehicle for the 1971 sales year to compete with these Japanese imports. The normal time for design and production for a new vehicle line is 43 months but Iacoca ordered the process to be reduced to 25 months in order to compete. The timeline was met but a rear-end impact study was not conducted until after the car was already on sales lots. Drawn to the relatively inexpensive price for a vehicle at the time, Lily Gray purchased a 1972 Ford Pinto. This is where the production flaw of the Pinto was first revealed. Gray was traveling with 13 year old Richard Grimshaw on the highway when she had to slow to avoid a broke down vehicle. Also trying to avoid the broke down vehicle a Ford Galaxy traveling at approximately 50 miles per hour rear ended the Pinto. Almost immediately the Pinto burst into flames, both passengers had severe burns on their bodies, and later Lily Gray would pass away as a result of the burns from the crash.

Ethics are very important in the business world and to the general public. Ethics is defined as a system of moral principles or the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group. Using a moral compass should be a requirement for every CEO and executive. Any person who will have some impact on society needs to understand the difference between right and wrong. Since businesses touch such a large segment of our society, codes of ethics must be established and followed to protect the general public. In the following pages we will discuss the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster and examine how it relates to (1) the state of business ethics since 2000, (2) examples of the classic

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has established guidelines for all automakers to fallow. The guidelines were made to reduce fire during automobile collision. In 1972 and 1973 , the standard was 20mph and 30 mph of a rear end accident without any spillage of fuel (, Shaw & Barry). On the other hand, Pinto could not withstand such impact spilling fuel on passengers inside the car. Between 1971-1978, Ford statistics on death by Pinto to 13 lives while critic put it at 500 (, Shaw & Barry). Several lawsuits were initiated by the victims and fines were paid by Ford motor. Even though, the organization claimed they were following established rules, but the ethical and moral position would have been to acknowledge the fault of the car and apologized for the fatality. Nevertheless, the executives stood by their product and never waiver the fact that the product was not safe to be on the road. Several families sued Ford Motor and received compensation for their lost, but it is not like having the alive and well. Through the years, the company survive all those obstacle and remained in business. An apology to the families who have lost love one would have been seen as repentant to one action. The situation would not bring back those individuals, but earned a bit of respect from

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

In the Ford Pinto cases of the 1970s and 1980s, society and the government let Ford take the easier and cheaper way out. There was a design flaw in the gas tanks that caused horrific burn deaths and injuries. Ford could have fixed the problem, but chose to pay injury and death claims instead. Afflitto (2015) showed that Ford figured they could spend $49.5 million to settle injury and death claims versus $137 million to fix the problem. To this day, it is one of the largest corporate crimes in history. Ford put saving money over saving lives. At the time, our country was facing many other economic issues and they probably help keep this issue under wraps. Personally, I think Ford should still be paying penalties for their decision.

2. Suppose Ford officials were asked to justify their decision. What moral principles do you think they would invoke? Assess Ford’s

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