Ford Pinto- Ethics Essay Example

their cost benefits analysis, despite having knowledge from their crash tests that deaths and burn injuries were likely to occur. Field reports in 1973 further confirmed that Pintos would explode and catch fire in rear-end collisions at speeds below 25 miles per hour.

Despite the increase in reports and future occurrences, it was not until 1978 that Ford finally issued a recall for 1.5 million Pintos built between 1970 and 1976. Sadly, this action came too late for many individuals who had already experienced horrific deaths and burn injuries. Their lives were forever changed due to Ford's unwillingness to prioritize safety over cost analysis, as a mere $11 investment per vehicle could have prevented unnecessary harm (Schwartz, 1990). During the 1960s and 1970s, consumer awareness regarding vehicle safety was relatively low (Gioia, n.d.).

Iococca was known for his statement "Safety doesn't sell," which he learned in the 1950s when his effort to incorporate expensive safety features into Ford cars was unsuccessful. Ford conducted trials on moving the gas tank, but abandoned the idea when they realized it would reduce trunk space. If Ford had responded ethically by recalling and repairing the existing and upcoming gas tanks based on field reports, numerous deaths and injuries could have been prevented. However, Ford prioritized greed over safety.

The Ford Pinto faced ethical dilemmas due to certain ground rules. One of these ground rules, set by Lee Iacocca, was that the Pinto should not exceed 2,000 pounds in weight or cost more than $2,000. In order to meet this requirement, certain product objectives were established. These objectives included being a true subcompact in terms of size and weight, having a low cost

of ownership including initial cost and reliability, and having clear product superiority in terms of appearance. (Casotti, Lafler, ; Lindaman, 2004, slide 9; Peabody, 2009).

During the development of the Pinto, engineers were hesitant to offer safety advice to Iococca because he disregarded their input and instructed them to focus solely on achieving the product's goals. Additionally, a key guiding principle for Ford was their mission statement, which emphasized their commitment to providing excellent products and services that enhance people's lives (Casotti, Lafler, ; Lindaman, 2004, slide 3).

Despite the mission statement emphasizing the enhancement of people's lives, it fails to address the product's safety. Following the release of the Pintos to the public and subsequent involvement in rear-end collisions resulting in fatalities due to fires, Ford introduced a new guideline in 1971. This guideline involved assessing the value of a human life in monetary terms. By comparing the benefits and cost-effectiveness of different options, Ford could then decide whether to invest additional funds in incorporating a plastic component or compensate for the loss of life.

The decision was ultimately made not to add the additional part because "safety doesn't sell" (Gioia, 2010). The ethical issue at hand was Ford's failure to prioritize the overall safety of the consumer, as it did not align with the company's best interests. This created an ethical conflict between personal and business ethics. According to Ford, the right choice for the company was to manufacture a profitable product, while the engineers were aware that the Ford Pinto was not a safe car.

No one could have predicted the company's long-term financial deficit or the consequences of their mistake, which included the recalls of the Pinto cars

manufactured from 1971 to 1976 (according to Hagerty Insurance, a survey of mostly car collectors voted these as the "Most questionable cars" of all time, para. 3). During the design phase of the Pinto, Ford Motor Company's leadership engaged in several high-risk situations. The first of these was the power struggle between Knudson and Iacocca over whether to enter the market.

When Knudson resigned, Iacocca became President of Ford and continued the project that employees knew could not be stopped. The project had an ambitious schedule and a limit of 2000, which posed serious business risks. While Iacocca led the project, engineers were aware of the gas tank issue. The conflict between management and employees is common in times of turmoil like Ford experienced. An engineer who worked on the Pinto design stated that discussing the gas tank issue with Iacocca would have resulted in termination. The conflict in ethical behavior between Ford management and employees stemmed from a top-down management style used to meet aggressive project targets. According to 12 Manage (2010), top-down management is a decision-making method where strategies are conceived by senior managers and then passed down the organizational chart of the firm.

According to paragraph 1, the lower levels of hierarchy are limited by the decisions made by top management. Iacocca had a strong desire to manufacture Pintos that had challenging requirements. However, the employees were unwilling to take the risk of reprimand or losing their job due to their personal ethics. As a result, the lack of ethical behavior and decision making during the design of the Ford Pinto had catastrophic consequences for both Ford Motor Company and its leaders. In a

market that was characterized by instability and constant change, the company's leaders prioritized profits over safety.

Leaders who utilized a top-down management style instilled fear in their employees and discouraged individuals with personal ethical concerns from addressing this behavior. The consequences of such circumstances resulted in loss of human lives and inflicted severe damage to the company's reputation as a prominent player in the automotive industry. The message conveyed is that implementing strict ethical business practices is vital, yet it remains a considerable hurdle for present-day business leaders.

The following references contain information regarding the Ford Pinto case:
- Casotti, L., Lafler, N., & Lindaman, J. (2004, October). Ford Pinto Case [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://mecholsky. mse. ufl. edu.
- Gioia, D. A. (n.d.). Pinto Fires Case Study. Retrieved from Gioia, D. A. PHL323 website.
- Nelson, K., & Trevino, L. (2007). Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How to do it Right (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Peabody, M. (2009). Once there was a way to get back home. Mugsy Peabody Online. Retrieved from http://mugsypeabody. blogspot. com/search?q=ford+pinto.
- Schwartz, G. T. (1990). The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case. Point of Law. Retrieved from http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/archives/000023.php.
- Valdes-Dapena, P. (2010). Tagged: 10 cars with bad reputations. CNNmoney.com. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/autos/0708/gallery.questionable_cars/3.html