As the commercial claims, Ford introduced the “carefree” and “spirited” Pinto model in 1970, as a comfortable suburban car that would compete against 4-cylinder European subcompacts like the VW Beetle and the Toyota 4-cylinder European subcompacts like the VW Beetle and the Toyota Corolla to reign as market leader; however, the Pinto design was severely flawed.
It was discovered that its weak rear bumper design left its fuel tank unprotected and therefore would combust upon any severe impact. Yet the company did not choose to fix the design. Instead, Ford argued that the cost-benefit analysis of fixing the faulty cars to paying lawsuits filed by the victims’ families would be better off if Ford did not change the design at all.
Of the estimated 500+ deaths incurred by the Pinto, could Ford possibly place a price on its victims? Is it ethical to use a cost-benfit analysis on human lives?
Arguably, Ford was doing nothing wrong: as an enterprise with the goals of maximizing its profits by definition, it was simply taking the actions that any “rational” person would have made. But when consumer trust and brand image are at stake, Ford made a compromising error.
Tags: No Comments
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.