Do you think Ford did this? Ford did not give equal consideration to the interests of each affected party. During the preproduction crash test, Ford’s engineers had already discovered that the potential danger from the ruptured fuel tank.
However, as a result, the Pinto did not undergo all necessary safety tests before it was released. According to a Ford engineer, “Safety wasn't a popular subject around Ford in those days. Whenever a problem was raised that meant a delay on the Pinto, Lee would chomp on his cigar, look out the window and say 'Read the product objectives and get back to work’.” (Engineer). When Ford finally tested the car for rear-end impact it was determined that the car was dangerous in that the fuel tank was not strong enough to be at the back bumper. Collisions at speeds as low as 20 miles per hour could puncture the fuel tank and cause fires.
With this knowledge, Ford Motor Company’s decision of continuing with the production and release of the Pinto was completely unethical, for 27 consumers died gruesome, untimely deaths at the hands of Ford’s gross negligence. In the following case study analysis, Ford Motor Company’s conduct will be examined by determining all of the facts, symptoms, root problems, roles of key players, and ethical issues involved. In addition, an in depth analysis of all the ethical systems at play will be offered. After determining Ford’s ethical approach to the issue, alternatives will be offered and analyzed by which Ford may have avoided such a costly ethical debacle. An analysis will also be offered detailing how various alternatives will be affected by being carried out in a different country, as well as the effects of globalization on determining the most viable alternative.
Consumers were part of the reason for the fall of the electric car. Although the people that did own the EV 1 loved the vehicle, and almost refused to later return them, there were only 800 owners. When Dan Neil asked the public about the EV 1, most people had never seen vehicle and was completely unaware of the mandate to take them back. Another reason that the consumers killed the electric car was because people did not want to deal with the change from just going to a gas station to charging it daily and worrying about losing energy throughout the day. The EV 1 was also fairly pricey so many people were not interested.
The Tire Tread Separation Tragedy [pic] VS [pic] 1) Facts and Assumptions. What are the central facts of the case and the assumption you are making on the basis of these facts? The central fact of the case is that in 1998 Ford Explorer SUV had begun to experience a significant amount of accident in which the vehicles overturned. As part of the accident investigation, it was determined that the Firestone ATX tires had experienced tread separation. These roll over accidents resulted in the deaths of at least 174 and injures to more than 700 people.
* This lack of customization of Ka towards a target segment caused confusions among the customers and it is evident from the target groups interviewed, they had different perceptions of the car. * Ford should have been more strategic. It was never firm in its decisions and in a haste move to come up with a new car for small car market, they made a mistake of manufacturing a car that was not targeted to a particular market segment. 2. What were some of the major car-buying dimensions that emerged from the psychographics study?
Firestone later reprimanded Robert W. Dechrd, CEO of A.H. Bello Corporation (owners of KHOU) and Peter Diaz, President and General Manager of KHOU, for airing the story which, according to them, “contained falsehoods and misrepresentations that improperly disparage Firestone and, its product, the Radial ATX model tire”2. Firestone attempted to rule out tire problems at the very beginning suggesting that Ford Explorers were prone to rollovers and that Ford had recommended a tire pressure lower than that required. However, in November 1999, in a key victory won by Randy Roberts, Jessica Taylor’s family attorney, Judge Sam Bornias ordered Firestone to turn over all
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 it usually required to develop a car. The regular time to produce an automobile is 43 months; Ford took 25 months. Before production however, Ford engineers discovered a major flaw in the cars design. In nearly all rear-end crash test collisions, the Pinto's fuel system would rupture extremely easily.
As of 6 December 2000, there have been 148 reported deaths and over 500 serious injuries1. It would have been very likely that people would shun Ford and Firestone products from then on due to their perceived danger, which made Ford and Firestone’s management of one of their biggest stakeholders- their customers and the victims of the accidents- extremely important. On the whole, Ford and Firestone’s handling of stakeholder issues were not exemplary. Victims of their faulty products were not properly informed beforehand of the risks, compensation to them was reluctant and mostly delayed, the two companies played the blame game, and many jobs were lost in the process. As such, I feel that Ford and Firestone handled stakeholder issues poorly, and although certain measures were implemented after the incident, I feel that they were insufficient, tardy and unhelpful in regaining customer loyalty.
These are monster trucks that are on the road carrying tons of weight and have the ability to cause a lot of destruction if they are not respected by their drivers. There have been many tries to help the safety issue, for example, Abramson (2014) said they have tried to have carriers to accept the 68 m.p.h. speed limit, some companies have accepted this speed limit for the pure fact that it will save money because of the improved fuel economy. Safety has to be everyone's number one priority and by cleaning up your safety problems can only better your company and you as a driver. My number two reason is that there are not enough licensed drivers out there and that could be another reason why motor carriers slipping farther down.