MGT 216 Week 3 Team Case Study

MGT 216 Week 3 Team Case Study - Business Ethics 1 Running...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Business Ethics 1 Running head: BUSINESS ETHICS AND ISSUES Business Ethics and Issues Andrew Kelly, Anthony Jackson, Katie States, Michelle Harrah and Theresa White University of Phoenix
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Business Ethics 2 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to examine whether Ford was to blame in the Pinto case. The paper will provide possible solutions and supporting statements. The paper also attempts to examine all external social pressures and to determine how external pressures affect individuals’ points of view. Lastly, the paper attempts to determine whether this issue would be viewed differently in today’s society.
Background image of page 2
Business Ethics 3 Ethical and Legal Aspects Intro In today’s society ethics issues are under heavy scrutiny. To examine this case thoroughly, the time and social norms of the time must be taken into consideration. The big question with the case is did the Ford business act ethically when designing the Pinto’s fuel system. The case was put under a microscope and analyzed because the company did not upgrade the integrity of the system until 1978 due to the cost benefit analysis. In determining whether or not to make the production change, the Ford Motor Company defended itself by contending that it used a risk/benefit analysis. Ford stated that its reason for using a risk/benefit analysis was that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) required them to do so. (Leggett, 1999) Should a risk benefit analysis be taken in consideration when a defect could possibly lead to serous injuries or death? Possible Solutions and Examples If this particular situation were unfolding in our midst, I could think of several things that could or should be done differently in order to resolve the problem. First of all, if the company was going to continue with a cost-benefit analysis in order to decide whether or not to modify the fuel system they should have made sure that their calculations were accurate, if this were the case they may have realized that the benefits of making the fuel system safer by adding a $1 baffle were more solidly justified. For example, when Ford performed its cost benefit analysis on the Pinto they figured in an equal amount of fire related deaths and injuries as listed below: Benefits Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit cost:
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/10/2011 for the course MGT 216 taught by Professor Mattiehall during the Spring '10 term at University of Phoenix.

Page1 / 8

MGT 216 Week 3 Team Case Study - Business Ethics 1 Running...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online