Case (The Ford Pinto) There was strong competition for Ford in the American small-car market from Volkswagen and several Japanese companies in the 1960’s. To fight the competition‚ Ford rushed its newest car the Pinto into production in much less time than is usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months but Ford took 25 months only (Satchi‚ L.‚ 2005). Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding
Premium Ford Pinto
Running head: Ford Pinto Case Study – Was Ford to Blame in the Pinto Case? Taking a Side Mayo Smith‚ George Deese‚ Josh Eubank‚ Mignon Waller‚ Michelle Stower and Jaime Arnold University of Phoenix Take a Side Bad business decisions can be seen throughout history; however none has stirred such controversy as the error made by Ford Motor Credit concerning the 1971 Ford Pinto. Despite many safety concerns Ford CEO‚ Lee Iacocca and Ford executives began the production and distribution
Premium Ford Motor Company Ford Pinto Station wagon
Varun Patel Philosophy 131 Michael F. Martin 03/08/2010 The Ford Pinto Case and Utilitarianism In this essay‚ I will talk about the ford Pinto case‚ and how the information was withheld from public in order to save company from huge losses and at the same time keep company’s reputation intact. I don’t think the decision of the ford company to with hold the information about the safety-issue of the car for which they were already aware of; was the right thing to do. I agree‚ as a utilitarian
Premium Ford Motor Company Ford Pinto Ethics
The Ford Pinto Case In the late 1960’s Ford Motor Company wanted to produce a small model car to compete with small Japanese and German imports like Volkswagen‚ Datsun and Toyota (Danley). In 1969 Ford’s Board approved the plan to produce the Pinto. The CEO‚ Lee Iacocca‚ wanted a car that was low weight‚ under 2‚000 pounds‚ and low cost‚ under $2‚000. Lee “Iaccoca imposed the 2000/2000 rule‚ i.e.‚ the Pinto could weigh no more than 2000 pounds and cost no more than $2000” (Danley). The engineers
Premium Ford Pinto Ford Motor Company Ford Mustang
Running head: FORD PINTO FORD PINTO Insert Name Here Insert Affiliation Here The case of Ford Motor Company producing the Pinto is a clear example of unethical behavior on the part of an automobile manufacturer‚ where a potentially dangerous product was knowingly released into the market. While there are some good consequences from the action‚ such as the jobs that were provided to American employees producing the car‚ and the individuals provided with an affordable vehicle‚ these were
Premium Ford Motor Company Ford Pinto Station wagon
Question 7: In our opinion‚ we think that Ford Company is morally wrong if the savings resulting from not improving the Pinto gas tank had been passed on to force’s customers. We will say is morally wrong because Pinto do not meet the safety standard propose by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The safety standard of NHTSA is to reduce fires from traffic collisions. This standard required that all new cars produced by 1972 should be able to withstand a rear-end impact
Premium Ford Motor Company Ford Pinto Station wagon
FORD PINTO CASE The Ford management has chosen to be unethical and morally unworthy to be trusted with the lives of its customers. Can you just imagine the number of individuals riding every day in the cars that they produced‚ who are unaware that they could be in an injury any moment? Ford management has chosen not to follow the safety guidelines and standards in producing such products because at that time‚ the government is still not that strict in implementing such rules. And because of their
Premium Ford Pinto Cost-benefit analysis
Lottie George Part‚ Two Water for Profit‚ John Luoma February 26‚ 2013 Should Water be Free? Today’s economy is mostly comprised of wealthy business investors and major corporations. Fresh water resources are being controlled or being angle drilled by private corporations from across the world. This article by John Luoma‚ Privatization refers to: To change (an industry or business) from Government or public ownership or control to a private enterprise dealing with private water companies
Premium Minimum wage Water resources Wage
decision-making framework. The Pinto safety issue was evaluated utilizing a Utilitarian framework motivated by the CEO’s Egoism. From a risk management standpoint‚ this may be the most dangerous combination in a decision-making. The Procedural steps of the decision making framework was Utilitarian in nature‚ Ford chose the action that would cause the least amount of harm for the majority involved‚ therefore allowing the minority to be harmed by death. Apparently‚ Ford did not care about the type
Premium Morality Risk Human
Running head: FORD PINTO CASE (Newton‚ Ford‚ 2007‚ p. 1)Ford Pinto Case External social pressures play a big part in the decision reached about the Ford Motor Company. When you have highly respected individuals such as retired NASA engineer Dr. Leslie Ball say “The release to production of the Pinto was the most reprehensible decision in the history of American Engineering” (Newton‚ Ford‚ 2007‚ p. 1); there is cause for concern. There would be more
Premium Ford Pinto Ford Motor Company Station wagon