Ford Pinto Case

hurry head crossbreeding Pinto slip-up debate Was crossbreeding to Blame in the Pinto Case? Taking a Side mayonnaise Smith, George Deese, Josh Eubank, Mignon Waller, Michelle Stower and Jaime Arnold University of Phoenix Take a Side Bad business decisions cigarette be seen throughout history and none has stirred much(prenominal) broil as the error make by hybridization Motor Credit concerning the 1971 crossover Pinto. Despite both(prenominal)(prenominal) a(prenominal) gumshoety concerns traverse CEO, lee(prenominal) Iacocca and hybridisation executives began the intersection and statistical distri silention of the 1971 railroad gondolarefour Pinto.During routine condom tests of proceeds models, it was disc overed that every hybridizing Pinto tried and sustained a ruptured fuel ice chest during a slow to moderate speed rear end hit. The resulting fireball could perk up severe burn injuries and even oddment to its occupants. track engineers designed a solution. By installing a span amidst the burn out tank and the rear bumper, the little terror of it possibly rupturing was nearly obsolete. These modifications would only curb salute $11 per vehicle to complete. aft(prenominal) conducting a cost/benefit analysis, Ford estimated that the cost of lawsuits and the amount Ford would compensation back had to pay (estimated at to a greater extent than $50 million), far exceeded the amount saved ($20. 9 million), by non installing the torment (De George, R. , 2006). How can a major hatful put a price on human bearing? Had I been snarly in the dilemma concerning the Ford Pinto, I would set about somehow convinced Lee Iacocca and the executives at Ford to install the baffle. I would hand gone to the press and the U. S. overnment with my concerns over the precaution of this vehicle. Iacocca wanted a gondola car that would cost under $2000. Instead of cosmetic surgery the price of the Pinto, the profit margin for Ford could carry been decreased. The stakeholders certainly would involve concur considering the safety concerns. It was only going to cost $11 per car which would have been a total of $20. 9 million a small price to pay considering how m each Pintos sold between 1971 and 1978. Installing the baffle would have thrown off the production date, but the defect would no long-lasting be a line of work.The defect should have been corrected afterward the first socio-economic class of production, however, since it was non the entire dilemma was a terrible business decision (De George, R. , 2006). Corporations more so than individuals, have a good arrangement to keep the human beings safe from deadening. When it come abouts to making and selling a product, in the case of human safety, money should not be an underline factor in doing what is considered morally the right thing to do. Ford acted un honestly when they introduced an unsafe vehicle that last caused serious injuries.The Ford Corp oration pass over the line when knowingly decided not to make the necessary repairs in the Pinto which would in the end save lives. Corporations have an ethical obligation to assume duty and admit their equipment casualty doing. Did Ford have an internal note where an employee could go and report such maltreat doing without suffering retaliatory actions? go blowing was something refreshing in both the corporate and public worlds. How many people knew what was wrong with the Ford Pinto and refuse or were afraid to come forward with their concerns?The obligation not to harm any person primary move on the responsibility of those who manage the corporation. If separate people know about this, they could have had a hand in stop this. However, other members of the corporation are not morally responsible for the actions of the corporation such as assembly workers, engineers, or business leader workers. According to University of Phoenix (2009), whistle blowing is reportage impro per activities to an appropriate person. If consumers and owners of the Ford Pinto know in advance that the Pinto would explode in low impact crashes and that last was a high factor, the sales would have in all probability been lower to none which in tress would have been even costly to the Ford Corporation. CEO Lee Laccoca should have persuasion about the long-term effects of pickings consumer trust for granted and avoided the negative repercussions of the Pinto if a recall was issued and handle properly. Ford could have avoided the negative publicity. Meeting obligations is very chief(prenominal) in a tender environment.Ford was operating on how internal social capital was more important than immaterial capital. Most likely before the Pinto fires Ford had a good reputation as being one of the safest automobile in the car industry. Greed was the motivation rat Fords immoral ethical business decisions which resulted in the lost of many human lives. The competition of small c ars was emerging and the Statesn consumers were very interested in this mart. Ford decided to act right away before they would begin to lose market their share in the marketplace.Fords decision had nothing to do with the concerns of the consumers but with the money it was making and their status in society. In 1971, the year the Ford Pinto was released to the public, the plaque knew about the potential safety issues the car faced when a rear-end collision occurred. According to DeGeorge (2005), Ford prepared a cost-benefit analysis to determine if it would be cheaper to learn the problem, an exploding gas tank, or wait to pay out possible lawsuits that could occur after the accidents happened. Ford ultimately decided it was smash financially to produce a car that was dangerous to the owner.It appears another current self-propelled company may have followed some of the same practices as Ford did in the 1970s. It was recently made public that at that place was a safety problem in some of the models Toyota produces. The problem with the Toyotas cars is a gas pedal that causes sudden acceleration. Although it is still unclear when Toyota discovered the problem with the gas pedal sticking, and how they determined what the next steps would be, Toyota did appear to know about the problem and did not initially do anything to conciliate it.In an article written by Rooney (2010) Toyota has been criticized for not responding quickly enough to client complaints about sudden acceleration, which have been beatified for several accidents resulting in injuries or death (Toyota Recall What took so long? split 10). It does not matter what decade, or year, this cause of scenario happens, organizations have a moral responsibility to inform the customer about any potential danger he or she faces when purchasing a car from the individual company, especially when the flaw is potentially fatal.In both cases, Ford and Toyota should have made it public as soon as they knew about the problem. If these organizations would have made the safety issues known immediately to the consumers, the consumers would have been equal to make a well apprised decision about the car they were sentiment about purchasing they may have even decided to purchase a different car that was safer. Rational thinkers bequeath not put their lives, or the life of their families, in danger. As a country, America has a government that has implemented consumer safety laws in an attempt to protect the consumers from these types of situations. lengthiness Tech Republic (2010). Interactive Inc. maneuver clear of these 10 illegal mull interview questions Retrieved March 21, 2010, from http//www. techrepublic. com Linda Klebe Trevino, Katherine A. Nelson (2007). Axia College, Decide Whats Right A Prescriptive Approach. Retrieved on March 20, 2010 https//ecampus. phoenix. edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/eReader. aspx De George, R. (2006). Whistle Blowing. Retrieved March 31, 2010 fr om https//ecampus. phoenix. edu/content/eBookLibrary2/content/eReader. aspx.