Ford Motor Company was knowingly making cheap Pinto cars that exploded upon rear end collisions. More than 180 people burned to death after the gas tank exploded and still Ford did not want to make any modifications to the Pinto. Ford’s current Mission statement reads, “Improve product and services to meet the customer needs, allowing the business to prosper and to provide a reasonable return for stockholders” (Ford’s Statement of Mission, Values and Guiding Principles). They believe that people are the source of strength, improvement, and teamwork are the core human values, and that products are the results of efforts and should be the best to serve customers worldwide. Profits are often the ultimate measure of how efficient we provide customer with the best products for her or his needs.
This seems to be a disregard for human life. From a human rights perspective, Ford disregarded the injured individual's rights and therefore, in making the decision not to make adjustments to the fuel system, acted unethically. The suggested improvement outweighs their benefits; they do not want to bear the cost. Ford could bargain with manufacturer for a lower cost of alteration of the tank, then maybe they can change their mind and pinto wouldn’t burn so many people
Grimshaw and Gray’s heirs sued Ford motor company based on theories of negligence and strict liability, alleging that the defendants knew from pre-manufacturing crash tests regarding the design flaws with the fuel system (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 1981). Legal Analysis In order to remain competitive in the subcompact market, Ford began designing an automobile which ultimately became the Pinto. The Pinto project was a rush project and there were several design flaws (Ford Pinto, 2012, para. 1). The Ford Pinto had a questionable design from the beginning.
It was the Ford team that recommended, negotiated, and agreed to make safety related decisions on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. This analysis conducted by Ford determined that the $11 fix to correct the gas tank problem would not benefit the programs profits. Not doing anything in the long-term would have cost the company less. Apparently at that time Ford felt that the life of a human being was only worth $200,725.00. So why were Ford’s actions unethical?
If it was effective as it was said, or it is just a marketing approach to market the company in sustainability. * How much economic benefit will the plan bring the company? * How much reduction in greenhouse gas will the plan achieve? * I am favor the decision. And my reasons are listed as below: * Net zero facility would bring the company long-term economic benefits.
For Pharma to survive and become viable it was obvious that some decisions had to be made, but was the sale of the assets in the best interest of the corporation, or was it in the best interest of Adams and Barker? One can only conclude that the directors violated all their duties of financial interests, care and rational belief and were not acting with best information and, thus, cannot be shielded by the business judgment rule. 7. What type of lawsuit, derivative or direct, would be filed by Cornelius
When Waksal found out that the FDA was going to reject ImClone’s application for approval of its cancer drug. It is believed that he told Martha about the rejection which they knew would eventually result in the company’s significant stock price drop. Martha sold about 4000 shares that she had and avoided loosing approximately $45,000. Martha and Waksal had a mutual broker, Peter Bacanovic from Merrill Lynch .Waksal tried to call Bacanovic but he did not reach him. He then called Bacanovic’s assistant Doug Faneuil and told him to sell the stock.
and globally while remain productive. And one of the better moves the Ford Motor Company made would be creating ties with the UAW. Avoiding litigation ensures that the reputation of the company is not questionable and understanding bargaining and its’ effects aids in ensuring the company is capable of handling negotiation proceedings. References Ford.(2012). Retrieved from: http://corporate.ford.com/our-company/country-websites Information for Ford unionization retrieved from: http://history.com/ford.
Consumers loved this sub-compact vehicle. Looking into the remarks of Mark Dowe from Pinto Madness, “he had put together the story printed here from data obtained for him by some very disaffected Ford engineers. The data suggested that the Pinto had been rushed into production without adequate testing; that it had a very vulnerable fuel system that would rupture with any rear-end collision; that even though the vulnerability was discovered before production, Ford had hurried the Pinto to the market anyway” (Treviño & Nelson, 2007, p. 292). If we were involved in the Ford case we would have considered all of the stakeholders and possible risks that could have been avoided. Taking into thought the long run of the company instead of the losses that the company would inquire in the short-term.
Corporate environmentalism has the potential to improve the sustainability of organisations in modern times through improving the status, legitimacy and profitability of organisations. However recent criticism from environmental groups claiming companies are ‘merely window dressing’ and not ‘making any radical attempt to minimize their environmental impact’ has sparked debate over whether the true motives of large scaled firms is still profit maximisation (Whiteman and Cooper 2000). This critical analysis essay aims to inform the reader of the potential reasons as to why firms implement corporate environmentalism into their management