Ford Pinto

the Ford Pinto incident in the 1970’s. First, I will validate why the stakeholder theory is the best theory to use when making business decisions, and why the liability should fall on the people regulating the market interactions, not the producer of the products. Second, I will come from a different angle and analyze the objections that some people may have about the Stakeholder theory. Last, I will analyze the ethics and consequences of taking a different course of action as the CEO of Ford. By

Dennis Gioia had taken part in making a decision based off of a cost benefit analysis regarding whether Ford should conduct a recall for the Ford Pinto or should they do nothing. In this situation, Ford's cultural values play a big role on how they approached this issue. The organization beliefs of everyone was to make sure Ford was losing the minimal amount of money regardless if people are in danger or not. The cost benefit analysis indicated that they did not think people's safety was as important

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

Facts Around 1967 Ford Motor Company decided to design a small size car called the Ford Pinto. The automobile industry at the time (and still is) was highly competitive and very cyclical. In the late 1960's, America began to see the influences of foreign vehicles. Prior to that, cars were bigger and less fuel efficient, allowing the Japanese to gain substantial market share with the smaller, more economical vehicles, and the need to react to this pressure was even greater at Ford. Even though they

The Pinto began receiving the attention of critics because of the potential fire hazard of having the fuel tank at the rear of the vehicle without a true rear bumper. “Ford was allegedly aware of the design flaw but refused to pay what was characterized as the minimal expense of redesign.”(Ford Pinto Safety Problems). Given the low price of the car, Ford used of a cost-benefit analysis to determine that it would be cheaper to pay the potential lawsuits then to address the issue. Ford Motor Company

Dilemma in the Ford Pinto Case 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 has argued for

Ford Pinto Case General Description White Collar Crime, known by many as a form of crime that is greatly overlooked throughout the criminal justice system, has proven itself time and time again to be just as dangerous and damaging to those affected as all other crimes combined. There have been many cases throughout our nation’s past that have not only scarred, but ended hundreds of lives as a result of White Collar Crime. One in particular, is the popularly known Ford Pinto Case. The constant want

stopped to fill up their 1973 Ford Pinto. They left the cap loose which fell off as they were going down the highway. They stopped in the right lane on the highway shoulder. A van coming by struck their car bursting it into flames. The two girls died instantly from the flames. The driver was thrown from the car and died later on in the hospital. Previous incidents have happened where the Ford Pinto burst into flames. It also did it in crash tests. The concern for the Ford Pinto was the fuel tank. It was

1970 to 1980 Ford Motor Company produced a car that stayed within “the limits of 2000.” This car would weight no more than 2,000 lbs. and wouldn’t cost the customer more than $2,000. This vehicle was extremely fuel efficient, easy on both the consumer and manufactures wallet, and quick to produce. Sounds great doesn’t it? Well it was, consumers loved the Ford Pinto, and Ford was pleased they were keeping up in a time when overseas dealers were threating their very existence; that was of course until

• In 1968, Ford decided to create the Pinto to compete in the small car market against the advice of former Ford President Semon Knudsen which led to his forced resignation and appointment of Lee Iacocca as president. • Iacocca wanted the Pinto for 1971 model introductions, so automotive production teams followed the shortest production planning period in automotive history (within two years vs. three years). • Ford was aware of the Pinto’s faulty fuel tank design. In a test designed by Federal