Background Information
According to the case study, Firestone and Ford found themselves in a safety crisis. The crisis emerged after many deaths and injuries occurred due to the defective tires. Hundred of lawsuits were filed by the families of the affected victims. The case also shows that most of these accidents involved the Ford Explorer. Firestone recalled over 6.5 million tires in August 2010. This recall became the biggest auto safety crisis in the country’s history.
The first reported accident was in Saudi Arabia. Ford argued that the accident must have been caused by extreme climate and low pressure experienced in the region. The company also conducted studies in the US and concluded that the tires were effective. However, NHTSA’s investigations identified the possibility of tire failures. A blame game emerged between these two giant companies.
Firestone decided to inspect most of the tires without recalling them. The company also promised to replace every unsafe tire. The company believed that the process would result in customer satisfaction. The chairman of Ford also failed to respond effectively to the crisis. The company allowed Jacques Nasser to become the spokesperson. According to Firestone, Ford Explorers fitted with different tires were also experiencing similar rollover problems. Firestone also indicated that its decision to recall the tires was a strategy aimed at promoting consumer-confidence.
What Ford Did Wrong
According to the case study, Ford argued that its vehicles were secure and safe. It blamed Firestone for the tire failures that led to my deaths and injuries. This malpractice is against the Contractual Theory. The theory focuses on the agreements developed by businesses and their customers. The theory also encourages business partners to collaborate and make appropriate decisions. Such decisions will eventually produce the best outcomes. The company failed to cooperate with Firestone thus resulting in more adversities.
As well, the Due Care Theory persuades manufacturers to address the needs of their respective consumers. This is the case because they have the required advantages and resources. They should therefore focus on superior products that will fulfill the expectations of the consumers. Ford did not support the needs of the victims. It blamed Firestone for the tire problems and instead adjusted to bigger tires. These approaches did not respond to the needs of the customers.
Ford’s actions were also against the Social Costs View. This model is aimed at improving the overall safety of products. Manufacturers should be responsible for any harm associated with their products. This kind of responsibility is essential towards promoting the safety of products available to different consumers. Ford argued that its cars were the safest.
Ford should have partnered with Firestone to address the crisis before getting out of hand. Preliminary investigations should have been executed immediately after the first accident. Ford should have also compensated its victims. The decision to recall its cars would have facilitated appropriate investigations. Such measures would have led to new improvements to support the safety of every targeted customer. Ford should have also accepted responsibility for the accidents to win the trust of its customers.
What Firestone Did Wrong
Firestone also failed to focus on the appropriateness of the Contractual Theory. The company embraced several measures by recalling the tires. However, it did not cooperate with Ford throughout the period. The above theory encourages business partners to collaborate and make appropriate decisions. Such decisions should focus on the best business outcomes. The company also embraced the Due Care Theory.
Firestone supported the needs of its consumers by recalling over 6 million tires. However, the firm presented a partial solution because it failed to recall most of the tires. As well, it failed to improve the overall safety of its products. This should have been the case by the Social Costs View.
This gap shows clearly that Firestone should have acted differently. It should have embraced the best practices during the crisis period. For instance, it should have accepted its failures. Firestone should have also compensated every affected victim. It should have also made appropriate apologies and promises to its esteemed customers. As well, it should have embraced new strategies with Ford to deal with the crisis. The company should have embraced new procedures to produce safer tires.
Who is Morally Responsible for the Deaths?
This case study shows clearly that the two companies were morally responsible for the deaths. This is the case because the vehicles should have been tested before being marketed to the customers. Firestone should have accepted its mistakes because most of the tires were defective. As well, Ford’s decision to use bigger tires for the Explorer shows clearly that it had made some manufacturing miscalculations.
According to the Due Care Theory, manufacturers should be responsible for every injury associated with their products. These two companies should have embraced the above theories to address the problem amicably. These strategies should have been used to win the trust of more customers.