Case Analysis
UNIVERSITY OF CEBU LAPU-LAPU AND MANDAUE
A.C. Cortes Avenue, Looc Mandaue City
Case Analysis
In Partial Fulfillment of
Retail Franchising
Submitted by:
Christine E. Badelic
Submitted to:
Mr. Jhun Veril Jr.
CASE AGIANST FORD AND FIRESTONE
I – Summary Ford-Firestone case is a unique and an appropriate example of violation of business ethics by two renowned corporations. Ford Motor Company and Fire Stone Tire Company. Each of which was the manufacturer of a “different product. This essay talks about as to how the leading car manufacturer Ford, can be held morally accountable for the various accidents and deaths. Which occurred in US due to vehicle rollovers of its popular SUV known as the “Ford Explorer”. However executives somehow managed to put most of the blame on Firestone by saying that the accidents and deaths occurred mainly due to tie blowouts. And therefore “ it’s a Firestone tire problem and not a vehicle problem”. On the other hand Firestone claimed that many of accident were mainly due to the vehicle’s lack of stability and wave not due to its tires indeed much of the essay is about opposing statements made by the executive of Ford and Firestone. Therefore, in order to have a better understanding of the case, it is important to understand the difference between when an item is product in its own right and when it is a component of another product. When thousands of parts came into a Ford assembly plan, Firestone tires were also like those other components that were acquired by Ford. Therefore it can be presumed that the tire were manufactured in a manner to suit the Ford specifications, and they did became a part of the assembly process. At the time of assembly, Ford should have checked whether the tire had the same quality as other components. Even according to the utilitarian approach, the manufacturer of the product should be held responsible for the detects rather than the retailer. And it is the duty of every producers to
A.C. Cortes Avenue, Looc Mandaue City
Case Analysis
In Partial Fulfillment of
Retail Franchising
Submitted by:
Christine E. Badelic
Submitted to:
Mr. Jhun Veril Jr.
CASE AGIANST FORD AND FIRESTONE
I – Summary Ford-Firestone case is a unique and an appropriate example of violation of business ethics by two renowned corporations. Ford Motor Company and Fire Stone Tire Company. Each of which was the manufacturer of a “different product. This essay talks about as to how the leading car manufacturer Ford, can be held morally accountable for the various accidents and deaths. Which occurred in US due to vehicle rollovers of its popular SUV known as the “Ford Explorer”. However executives somehow managed to put most of the blame on Firestone by saying that the accidents and deaths occurred mainly due to tie blowouts. And therefore “ it’s a Firestone tire problem and not a vehicle problem”. On the other hand Firestone claimed that many of accident were mainly due to the vehicle’s lack of stability and wave not due to its tires indeed much of the essay is about opposing statements made by the executive of Ford and Firestone. Therefore, in order to have a better understanding of the case, it is important to understand the difference between when an item is product in its own right and when it is a component of another product. When thousands of parts came into a Ford assembly plan, Firestone tires were also like those other components that were acquired by Ford. Therefore it can be presumed that the tire were manufactured in a manner to suit the Ford specifications, and they did became a part of the assembly process. At the time of assembly, Ford should have checked whether the tire had the same quality as other components. Even according to the utilitarian approach, the manufacturer of the product should be held responsible for the detects rather than the retailer. And it is the duty of every producers to