The Impact Of Ford And The Firestone Crisis

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.

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

The research and development of Ford is very strong because every time they have introduced many new cars and brands and also represents renowned brands like Formula One.

Based on the information presented in the PBS documentary and the TIME article, describe how the behaviors of corporations, such as Ford, Firestone, and the financial institutions on Wall Street, could or should be understood as crime whether or not they have been prosecuted? How do these activities differ from those involved in “typical” street crimes?

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.

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.

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

In April 2000, Ford Motor Co. announced a shareholder Value Enhancement Plan (VEP) to significantly recapitalize the firm's ownership structure. Ford had accumulated $23 billion in cash reserves and under the VEP would return as much as $10 billion of this cash to shareholders. In exchange for each share currently held, the plan would give stockholders one new share plus the choice of receiving $20 in either cash or additional new Ford common shares. Shareholders electing to receive cash would be taxed on these distributions at capital gain rates. Among other things, the plan provided a means for the Ford family to obtain liquidity without having to dilute their 40% voting interest (even though they own

In the latter part of 2008, the United States’ economy was rapidly plummeting - the stock market crashed, the housing bubble burst and gas prices skyrocketed. The majority of U.S. based firms faced the reality that they would not be able to survive during such desperate economic times. The U.S. automobile industry, in particular, began to buckle under the depressed economy. The government stepped in proposing a multi-billion dollar bailout to stimulate the economy and restore economic balance. The possibility of this unprecedented government intervention was condemned by many economists. If the government helped the ailing automotive industry, this industry would have to tighten their expenditures and plan for the future to prove to

Henry Ford was an engineer from Detroit, Michigan who had an idea. By 1902, Ford had attempted several times to produce a gas powered vehicle, but with little capital, he realized that his attempts were futile. Ford approached a man by the name of Alexander T. Malcomson about the possibility of manufacturing an automobile. Malcomson, a friend of the family and wealthy coal merchant was reluctant at first but finally agreed with Ford, and decided to assit Ford financially with his endeavor. With Malcomsons investment and Ford's engineering skills a partnership was formed and in mid June of 1903, papers of incorporation for the Ford Motor Company were filed in Dearborn, Michigan.

It’s 1968 and the Ford Motor Company is losing ground to foreign made cars that are smaller with improved fuel efficiency. Additionally, these cars are cheaper to produce and thus easier to purchase for the already strapped American consumer. The vice-president of Ford Motors is Lee Iacocca who, tired of losing ground to the foreign competition, has devised a plan to introduce an American subcompact car that can compete for the domestic market share currently being swallowed by foreign automakers. In order to field the automobile as quickly as possible and compete for said market share, it should be designed and developed on an accelerated schedule. This means keeping costs to a minimum which in turn may result in safety standards taking a back seat to production schedules. From 1971 to 1978 the car enjoys profitable sales records but as time passes, trouble lurks in the shadows as safety issues are beginning to rear their ugly heads. So the question is proposed; Can Ford Motors make the right decision so as to balance public trust while simultaneously increasing corporate profits?

Ford Motor Company and its close ally Firestone Tires faced a serious crisis when many Ford Explorers equipped with Firestone AT/ATX tires rolled over as a consequence of tire failures. In 1999 the first fatalities occurred in Saudi Arabia and not much later similar accidents were reported in Venezuela. Ford immediately reacted by blaming the weather and vehicle owners for under-inflating their tires. However, Ford also began replacing tires. It was not until March 2000 when a Ford Explorer rollover in Texas USA

The brand image of Ford was damaged due to the product recalls of the Escape Sport Utility Vehicle due to engine fires and the Ford Focus

Ford was not in violation of the law in any way and had to make the decision whether to incur a cost to fix the obvious problem internally. There were several options for the fuel system redesign. The option most seriously considered would have cost Ford an additional $11 per vehicle. Under the strict $2000 budget restriction, even this nominal cost seemed large. In addition, Ford had earlier based an advertising campaign on safety, which failed miserably. Therefore, there was a corporate belief, attributed to Lee Iacocca himself, of “safety doesn’t sell”. (2)

Ford did not approach the question of redesigning the gas tank to make the car safer versus waiting another year allowing the foreign market to dominate subcompact vehicles. Their goal was only to maximize profits. They did not into account the interests of their share holders and when they did come into consideration, they were analyzed against profits. One has nothing to do with the other. Their goal should not have been a race to make the most affordable subcompact car. Their focus should have been to make a subcompact car that was not only most affordable but also the safest subcompact. They were aware of the dangers associated with the rush production. It would have made a difference if the $11 savings had been passed on to the customers because they would've kept their reputation and integrity in tact and possibly gain customers who were not considering the vehicle. Any rational customer would not have chosen to save $11 to drive a car at the risk of dying. It is never appropriate to knowingly jeopardize people's lives. That is a criminal act. Their actions were socially irresponsible, ethically and morally wrong. They did not consider their own reputation nor did they consider that they represented America in the industry.