Ford pinto case. Doug demuro 1227625 views. During crash tests which preceded the introduction of the pinto to the public it became apparent that the vehicle had a dangerous design flaw. Iacocca was fired the following month.
It was too late to save fords reputation. On june 9 1978 ford agreed to recall 15 million ford pinto and 30000 mercury bobcat sedan and hatchback models. The pinto a subcompact car made by ford motor company became infamous in the 1970s for bursting into flames if its gas tank was ruptured in a collision.
The placement of the cars fuel tank was the result of both conservative industry practice of the time as well the uncertain regulatory environment during the development and early sales periods of the car. Pinto case cost benefit analysis. Ford pinto case and unethical decision making according to the article gioia is inclined to make unethical decisions due to the nature of his work.
With the rising popularity of imported japanese and german vehicles which were often smaller and more fuel efficient beginning to push into the dominance of american automakers share of the market ford designed the pinto as a viable alternative. The ford pinto case is mentioned in most business ethics texts as an example of cost benefit analysis yet in those formats any appreciation of the complexity surrounding the issues of such decisions is overly simplified. The ford pinto was ford motor companys entrance into the subcompact car market in the 1970s.
Therefore his decision not to recall the defective pinto for further improvements to its safety standards is unethical. The ford pinto has been cited and debated in numerous business ethics as well as tort reform case studies. Ford neglected to add reinforcements to protect the easily ruptured fuel tank endangering drivers while earning the pinto a reputation for catching fire that persists today.
More specifically it was fords decision to use the costbenefit analysis detailed in section 11 to make production decisions that translated into lost lives.