• Save
Case Analysis "Ford pinto"
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Case Analysis "Ford pinto"

on

  • 6,532 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
6,532
Views on SlideShare
6,532
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
2
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Case Analysis "Ford pinto" Case Analysis "Ford pinto" Presentation Transcript

  • 29/07/13 MVBE AmritaSchool of Business, Coimbatore Group 1 AGroup 1 A Managerial Ethics &Managerial Ethics & Business ValuesBusiness Values II MBA 2012-14II MBA 2012-14
  • RELEVANT FACTS Question: 1 29/07/13 MVBE 2
  •  Ford launched PINTO in 1971 to compete with German and Japanesecompact cars.  “PINTO wasintroduced by President Iacocca” succeeding an internal struggle.
  •  Ford wasfully awareof thefaulty fuel tank that often ruptured during rear-end impact.  But, Iacoccadecided it wastoo lateto redesign and go by thefaulty gastank design. 29/07/13 MVBE 4
  •  Thismeasurewastaken by themanagement for 2 reasons:  Cost consciousbuyers.  Cost on safety reflectsthebuying behavior. Colleaguesand other ford engineers agreed with Iacoccaabout thefaulty gas tank and launched PINTO into the market.
  • 29/07/13 MVBE 6 40 Court cases + Hundreds of Million paid as fine
  • 29/07/13 MVBE 7
  • PERTINENT ETHICAL ISSUES Question: 2 29/07/13 MVBE 8
  • COST OF DYING IN A PINTO:COST OF DYING IN A PINTO: UTILITARIAN APPROACHUTILITARIAN APPROACH
  • UTILITARIANISM “A general term for any view that holdsthat actionsand policiesshould beevaluated basis of thebenefitsand cost they will imposeon society”
  • COSTS • Autoswould bebuilt = $12.5 million • Cost for modifying thegastank = $11 Cost = 11 × 12.5 million = $137 million
  • BENEFITS • Modification of fuel tank could prevent about 180 burn deaths • In 1970’s, Government valued ahuman lifeat $200,000 • Insurancecompaniesvalued aseriousburn injury at $67,000 • Residual valueof thesubcompact at $700
  • 180 deaths × $ 200,000 + 180 injuries × $ 67,000 + 2100 vehicles× $ 700 = 49.15 million
  • Ethical Issues  A mistakeisjustified using theutilitarianism  Calculating thevalueof human lifeiswrong in thisconcept  Projecting thecompanieslossasthecost for thesociety iswrong  Asper theFord calculation, all thecost is absorbed by the180 peopledie
  •  Can theloyal customersbebetrayed?  Whether theloss& profit should beborneby thecompany or customers?  Did Iacoccafollow any moral virtues?  Iacoccachoseinjusticebetween theextremes in actionsand emotions  Breach of Aquinas. Ethical Issues
  •  Ignoring thefield reports  Neglecting safety issue  Obligation to protect theford employeesor the customers  Ford waslegal in itsbusiness Ethical Issues
  •  Being legal doesnot imply being ethical  Right to Liveisamoral right of the people(customersof ford)  A clash between moral and legal rights Ethical Issues
  • Boot Space OR Human Life???? “Ford” – The organization Credibility of the organization?? 29/07/13 MVBE 18
  • AFFECTED PARTIES Question: 3 29/07/13 MVBE 19
  • 29/07/13 MVBE 20
  • Affected Parties 29/07/13 MVBE 21
  • Patty Ramge appears dejected as she looks at her Ford Pinto where she put a sign on the rear of the automobile because of the fiery accidents involving Pintos Source:© Bettmann/CORBIS 29/07/13 MVBE 22
  • Victims Family 29/07/13 MVBE 23
  • CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION Question: 4 29/07/13 MVBE 24
  • Alternative 1: Make the vehicle with rupture protection investing $ 11 BenefitsBenefits  So many invaluable human life can be saved  Regain Customer Confidence  Integrity and brand value of Ford Motors will be increased  So many invaluable human life can be saved  Regain Customer Confidence  Integrity and brand value of Ford Motors will be increased Trade- OffTrade- Off  Extra expenditure incurred to repair and produce.  May loose competition due to higher price  Extra expenditure incurred to repair and produce.  May loose competition due to higher price 29/07/13 MVBE 25
  • Alternative 2: Recall The Vehicles Soon After The Initial Accidents BenefitsBenefits  Could be prevented more human causalities  Could gain customer belief as a responsible company  Could have set a good example for the industry  Could be prevented more human causalities  Could gain customer belief as a responsible company  Could have set a good example for the industry Trade- OffTrade- Off  Brand value may be lost in terms of safety concerns  More cost will incur than the $11 repair.  Brand value may be lost in terms of safety concerns  More cost will incur than the $11 repair. 29/07/13 MVBE 26
  • OBLIGATIONS Question: 5 29/07/13 MVBE 27
  • Organizational Obligations Social Obligations 29/07/13 MVBE 28
  • Organizational Obligations Perform task asexpected by employer Uphold reputation of the organization Inform thenegligence'sto higher authorities- organization at stake. Focuson thecourseof action not theoutcome. 29/07/13 MVBE 29
  • Social Obligations Reliability and quality of product sold Accept mistakeand takecorrectivemeasures Built and maintain relationships Deliver valueto Customer 29/07/13 MVBE 30
  • COMMUNITY STANDARDS Question: 6 29/07/13 MVBE 31
  •  Professional: Being loyal to thecompany  Social: Being responsibleto thesociety  Personal: Having personal valuesand beliefs
  • OUR DECISIONS Question: 7 29/07/13 MVBE 33
  •  If wearein theshoesof therecalling coordinator, we will recall theproduct, for wecannot afford any more livesand grab thepeoplesmoral right to live  Wepromisearevamped vehiclefreeof cost  Wewould recommend compensation for thelost lives
  • 29/07/13 MVBE 35