Scribd
Upload
7 views1 page

Case Prep Ticket 1

The Pinto Fires case highlights the ethical dilemma faced by Ford Motor Company regarding the decision to recall the Pinto due to a dangerous fuel tank defect. Ford prioritized profit over consumer safety by conducting a cost-benefit analysis that favored continued production despite the risks, resulting in fatalities. This case raises significant questions about corporate responsibility and the legality of prioritizing financial gain over human lives.

Uploaded by

parthiydv05
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views1 page

Case Prep Ticket 1

The Pinto Fires case highlights the ethical dilemma faced by Ford Motor Company regarding the decision to recall the Pinto due to a dangerous fuel tank defect. Ford prioritized profit over consumer safety by conducting a cost-benefit analysis that favored continued production despite the risks, resulting in fatalities. This case raises significant questions about corporate responsibility and the legality of prioritizing financial gain over human lives.

Uploaded by

parthiydv05
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Case Prep Ticket: Pinto Fires Case and Reflection by D.

Gioia

The Pinto Fires case presents a significant ethical issue regarding Ford Motor Company's
decision-making. The ethical issue stemmed from whether Ford should have recalled the
Pinto because of a defect in the fuel tank design (which increased the danger of an explosion
in the event of a rear-end collision) or whether Ford would find it acceptable to continue
producing the Pinto, which Ford knew had the defect, because of the company's interest in
objective cost-benefit ratios.

On the one hand, Ford, as an organization, had an obligation to promote profits and
shareholder wealth. Ford conducted a cost-benefit analysis that would make a comparison
between the cost of making the defect safe, and expected courts would give potential value
for expected lawsuits with injuries or deaths. Ford decided it was better to continue to
produce the Pinto without making the defect safe, even though that caused harm to
consumers.

On the other hand, because the cost of the company and the costs of lawsuits are not the
same, an ethical analysis and corporate social responsibility principle suggests Ford has an
obligation to make the safety of consumers a higher priority than making a profit. The
decision to not recall the Pinto caused deaths, and it raises concerns about the legality of
thinking money is more important than lives.

The case is a more systemic feature of corporate decision making, which is when
companies operate in ways that may be legal and still married to their internal processes.

You might also like