Case Analysis Ford Pinto
Ford Pinto Ethics Case Analysis
Dickey L. Sours Jr.
Business Ethics Course
The Ford Pinto designs had the placement of the fuel tank behind the rear axle. The fuel tank position has allowed the projecting bolts to puncture the tank when the vehicle was struck from the rear. The Ford Motor Company had decided not to change the fuel tanks design location in order to reduce the production costs. Ford Motor Company determined there would be a savings of approximately $20.9 million dollars. Between the years of 1971 and 1978 the Ford Motor Company faced about 50 lawsuits in connection to the Ford Pinto collisions. The obvious question is who is responsible or aware of the design flaws of the fuel tank placement. Furthermore what are the ethical dilemmas associated with this case study? I hope to determine whether Ford was to blame for Ford Pinto collision outcomes.
In order to understand the ethical dilemmas that are addressed within the Ford Pinto case, we must identify the people that have roles within the case. The Ford Motor Company would be one of the obvious stakeholders of the ethical decisions made. Mr. Iacocca (Executive Vice President) made the decision to move on with the production of the Pinto because he felt the studies conducted under the supervision of Mr. Robert Alexander (VP of Engineering) were feasible. Later, a former Ford engineer, Harley Copp testified that Ford management’s decision to proceed with the Pinto production was a decision made with awareness of the vulnerabilities of the fuel tanks to being punctured by the protruding bolts of differential. And it was later validated that the crash test results were forwarded up to the management. The Ford management made the decision to deviate from changing the design because it wasn’t cost efficient. Another stakeholder that may have had a strong influence on the decision made by the Ford management is the shareholders. As a shareholder you represent part ownership of the company.
Dickey L. Sours Jr.
Business Ethics Course
The Ford Pinto designs had the placement of the fuel tank behind the rear axle. The fuel tank position has allowed the projecting bolts to puncture the tank when the vehicle was struck from the rear. The Ford Motor Company had decided not to change the fuel tanks design location in order to reduce the production costs. Ford Motor Company determined there would be a savings of approximately $20.9 million dollars. Between the years of 1971 and 1978 the Ford Motor Company faced about 50 lawsuits in connection to the Ford Pinto collisions. The obvious question is who is responsible or aware of the design flaws of the fuel tank placement. Furthermore what are the ethical dilemmas associated with this case study? I hope to determine whether Ford was to blame for Ford Pinto collision outcomes.
In order to understand the ethical dilemmas that are addressed within the Ford Pinto case, we must identify the people that have roles within the case. The Ford Motor Company would be one of the obvious stakeholders of the ethical decisions made. Mr. Iacocca (Executive Vice President) made the decision to move on with the production of the Pinto because he felt the studies conducted under the supervision of Mr. Robert Alexander (VP of Engineering) were feasible. Later, a former Ford engineer, Harley Copp testified that Ford management’s decision to proceed with the Pinto production was a decision made with awareness of the vulnerabilities of the fuel tanks to being punctured by the protruding bolts of differential. And it was later validated that the crash test results were forwarded up to the management. The Ford management made the decision to deviate from changing the design because it wasn’t cost efficient. Another stakeholder that may have had a strong influence on the decision made by the Ford management is the shareholders. As a shareholder you represent part ownership of the company.
References: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700140513/Pinto-fires-case-proves-ethical-foundations-must-be-set-strong-before-a-crisis.html?pg=all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/12/mindless-autopilot-drives-people-underestimate-food-decisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism http://community.worldheritage.org/articles/Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2306a https://acquisition.gov/far/ Government Contracting Reference Book (hardcopy)