Abstract
The major objective of a business is to make a profit. On the other hand, a firm will not be incorporated in a free world. The environment surrounding the business must be put into consideration. A business has to produce what satisfies the consumers’ needs in a better way than its competitors. Set rules and standards by the government and the industry players should be adhered to. Any substandard goods or services from the production process should not be allowed to the market. Quality check mechanisms should be part of a production process. Competition should not lead to the production of poor low priced low-quality goods and services. In fact business drive to gain profit should be incorporated with some ethics and morals.
Introduction
For a business to succeed it must satisfy its customers. The caveat emptor i.e. buyer be aware will not take a business far. Many consumers will rather pay more for a good quality good or service than a low quality low priced goods or service. A business should be responsible for any loss suffered by the consumer after consuming a good which does not meet the general standards set in the industry. Some firms opt to produce low-quality low priced goods to counteract the competition in the industry. However general standards of quality should be met at all costs. Business ethics is the topic to consult in this case. Business ethics is a wide area to study. According to Dienhart & Curnutt (1998), the study has moved to the study of fairness, personal interests, and national interests all in a business context
Case Analysis and Recommendations
As in the case of the Ford Motor Company, it is clear that competition pressure from Japanese automobiles was at hand. This pressure lead to the production of the 1971 model i.e. the Pinto which was not tested for rear-end impact of which Ford engineers knew was a standard safety procedure. Pinto model was produced in 25 months instead of the usual 43 months for a new car line. Lee Iacocca CEO to ford Motor Company cares less about the users of the new model. Production of Pinto had been criticized by Harley Copp who by then was Ford engineer and an executive. Harley Copp, a form. He also left the company in protest of the same. However, this did not stop Ford Motor Company from producing Pinto. I strongly feel that Ford was to blame. To start with, it was clear to the Ford engineers that rear-end impact test was a requirement in standard safety procedure. This was never adhered to. This means Pinto did not meet the set standards in the engineering profession.
Secondly Harley Copp the former Ford executive and engineer opposed the production of Pinto and consequently left the company. This is a whistle that had been blown but Lee Iacocca C.E.O. of Ford Motor Company decided to ignore it. The production of a defective Pinto model was therefore not in good faith. The engineer knew it, besides, Harley Copp had opposed it. Ford Motor Company also did not correct the defect after initial production. For seven years Ford Motor Company did not change the design despite rear-end collisions suffered by Pintos (De George, R. T. 2006). From1976 to 1978 the suffered cases were more than double that of comparable-size cars. Pinto fuel tank was placed in such a way that if the car was to be hit from behind at a speed which is 20 miles per hour and above a bolt from the bumper will puncture it and this could result in flame
The solution to this problem was to place a baffle between the gas tank and the bumper. This means that a remedy to the problem was known but Ford management had neglected it. The company’s’ customers had not been given an option of purchasing the baffle. The cost-benefit analysis carried out by Ford Motor Company should have considered both real cost and social cost. The pain suffered by those involved in an accident should have been factored in. Business objectives should factor in the satisfaction derived by being safe and healthy.
External Social Pressure
No one has a right to endanger anyone’s life whatever the case. Society requires that life must be respected and anyone who threatens life should face heavy judgment. It is neither money nor reputation that can take the place of life. To society any action or product that can threaten human life is unacceptable. In my mind, I sympathize with the families and friends who lost their loved ones when the defective Pintos set into flames. As religion has taught me life is very important and any action that threatens life should not be allowed. It is only God who has a right to life. Most cultures reward virtues and are against any vice. In this case, it is a vice for Ford Company to produce defective Pinto just because Japanese automobiles were threatening their market share. Under all costs, this should not be accepted. The engineers to Ford company ethics observation is wanting. They compromised on their profession’s ethics which is also socially unacceptable.
The Period Eye Art
Ford Motor Company has a case to answer if I have to judge Ford’s case in 1971 given scenario that:
- The engineer knew that Pinto was defective
- The management was aware of the reason why Harley Copp left the company and why he was opposing Pinto idea
It could have been better if Ford Motor Company could have produced a better quality high priced automobile than Pinto whose accident rate was very high. The management should be accountable for deaths and injuries caused by defects in Pinto. On the period eye art, the case may be judged differently. When the case happened, the CEO of Ford Motor Company was under pressure from the high competition posed by Japanese automobiles. Pinto was the best solution to rescue Ford Motor Company. It also offered good-priced cars to consumers and a better option to nationalists. Pinto served the purpose i.e. saved the company from liquidation and also served as a means of transport. Drivers who were careful enough enjoyed Pinto services. Accidents reported were not high in 1971. This changes my view on Pinto. If it was in 1971 when this case took place then I would not blame the Ford Motor Company. This was a good survival idea. The drivers also ought to have avoided accidents. On the sweet part to the consumers, the Pinto price was very friendly. In1971 not many accidents have been caused by Pinto and therefore I will not be against this model.
Conclusion
Business ethics should embrace both social and economic interests. With regard to fairness should be prioritized. National interests should be above personal interests. This means that as business managers seek to gain more profit, counteract their competitors’ activities and invent new products they should not compromise on set standards of quality and the professionals’ practices. Socially Responsible Investments (S.R.I.) should be encouraged. Defective products like Pinto by Ford Motor Company should never appear in the market.
Reference
De George, R. T. (2006). Business Ethics. New York; Prentice Hall.
Dienhart, W., & Curnutt, J. (1998). Business ethics: a reference handbook Contemporary ethical issues. ABC-CLIO, University of California.