Institute of Rural Management Anand (IRMA)

Value and Ethics in Management

PGDM (RM) – 43

Term-VI

Submitted To: Prof. Madhavi H. Mehta

Pinto Fires

Submitted by :

Section : C
Group No. : 6

Sr. No. Student Name Roll Number

1 Yaqoob p43182
2 Aman p43255
3 Rajas p43253
4 Kanchan p43148
5 Vidisha Verma p43242
Identifying the Problem

The decision-making process at Ford seemed to be guided by a utilitarian approach, where the
potential costs of fixing the safety issues (both monetary and in terms of competition and consumer
perception) were weighed against the benefits (potential lives saved). This utilitarian calculus,
however, dehumanized the value of life by reducing it to a mere monetary figure. The ethical
problem was the failure to prioritize the well-being of customers over financial considerations.

Gathering Information

Ford conducted crash tests that clearly revealed the faulty fuel tank design and the potential for
post-collision fires. The company had information about alternative designs that could have
improved safety but chose to ignore this data. The company had a duty to ensure the safety of its
customers, yet it chose to ignore known risks for financial gain. This lack of commitment to societal
well-being is a violation of the principles of corporate responsibility.

Considering the Alternatives

1. Implement Safety Features:

Ford could have chosen to implement safety features to address the vulnerability of the fuel tank in
rear-end collisions. This could include adding a plastic baffle between the axle housing and the gas
tank, a steel plate between the tank and the rear bumper, and a rubber lining in the gas tank, similar
to the measures taken in the crash tests that demonstrated survival without fuel leakage.

2. Alternative Fuel Tank Placement:

Exploring alternative fuel tank placements within the vehicle could have been considered. While
some alternatives might have reduced trunk space, they could have improved safety without
compromising the entire design.

3. Utilize Successful Designs from Testing:

Ford had conducted crash tests using a design similar to that of the Ford Capri, which performed well
in many crash tests at speeds over 50 miles per hour. This alternative design could have been
adopted, even if it meant sacrificing some trunk space.

4. Delay Production for Redesign:

Ford could have delayed the production timeline to allow for a thorough redesign of the fuel tank
system. This would have involved re-evaluating the vehicle's entire design to prioritize safety features
while still meeting performance and cost criteria.

5.Communicate Safety Concerns to Consumers:

Instead of making design changes, Ford could have chosen to communicate the safety risks
associated with the original design to consumers. This would involve providing clear warnings and
information to potential buyers about the potential hazards in certain driving conditions.

6.Collaborate with Regulators:

Ford could have worked collaboratively with regulatory bodies, such as the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), to establish safety standards that address the fuel tank vulnerability.
This could involve lobbying for regulatory changes to enhance safety across the industry.

7.Invest in Public Awareness and Education:

Ford could have invested in public awareness campaigns and education programs to inform
consumers about safe driving practices and the limitations of the Pinto's design. While not a direct fix
to the problem, it could have been a way to manage expectations and reduce potential risks.

Making a decision

Ford ultimately chose not to implement significant design changes to address the safety concerns
with the fuel tank in the Ford Pinto. The company opted to proceed with the production of the Pinto
with the original gas tank design, despite being aware of the risks associated with rear-end collisions.
The decision-makers at Ford prioritized cost considerations, competition, and consumer perceptions
over implementing alternative designs or safety features that could have mitigated the risk of fuel
tank ruptures and fires.

In essence, Ford chose not to pursue alternatives that would have enhanced the safety of the Pinto,
leading to the production and sale of a vehicle with a known design flaw that had severe
consequences in real-world accidents. This decision, motivated by financial considerations, became a
focal point of criticism and legal action against the company in the aftermath of numerous accidents
involving the Ford Pinto.

The case also highlights issues related to regulatory compliance and legal responsibilities. While the
Pinto initially met the standards in place at the time of production, Ford was aware of safety issues
and failed to take corrective action even after the adoption of safety standards that would have
prevented the design flaws.

Reflecting on the decision

The flawed Pinto vehicles were produced and sold to the public, resulting in numerous accidents,
injuries, and fatalities. Despite field reports and evidence of the dangers, Ford did not recall the
vehicles, allowing the issues to persist and lead to tragic consequences.

The reflection on the decision involves an examination of the consequences and the underlying
ethical principles. Ford's internal memos, which assigned monetary value to human lives in a cost-
benefit analysis, reflect a utilitarian approach that devalued the sanctity of life.
The failure to initiate a recall despite mounting evidence suggests a lack of corporate responsibility
and ethical leadership within the organization. The decision-makers did not prioritize the safety and
well-being of their customers over short-term financial considerations.