Many business organizations today are confronted by ethical dilemmas on a regular basis. It is important that such business organizations address such dilemmas in an organized manner, with careful consideration of all relevant factors.
One good example of an ethical dilemma is the situation that gripped Ford Motor Company in the mid-1960s (Dowie, 1977). This dilemma concerns the safety features of cars produced by the company. These ethical issues are good subjects of ethical inquiry because they involve a person’s valuation of human life.Issue Clarification. Ford Motor Company has always been in the middle of discussions regarding car safety, beginning in mid-1960s, when the corporation’s president, Arjay Miller, figured in a car accident which made him witness to the susceptibility to fire of Ford cars (Dowie, 1977).
He thus vowed to passionately pursue the development of safety mechanisms for Ford cars. Unfortunately, a Ford Pinto car figured in a car accident seven years thereafter, which led to the death of a woman and very severe injuries in a thirteen-year-old boy (Dowie, 1977).The disaster involving the Ford Pinto would, at first sight, appear to be far from any ethical considerations. However, the facts and events that led to the car accident brings to fore certain opportunities for ethical deliberation. The Ford Pinto was designed, developed and manufactured at a time when competition and pressure were intense from Volkswagen and other Japanese companies for a dominant share in the market for small cars (Wills, et al. ).
To rise to the challenge, Ford rushed the production of its Pinto model.Thus, instead of taking the usual forty-three months in producing the car, Ford finished production of the Pinto in just twenty-five. The deliberate haste with which Ford pushed production of the car casts a shadow on the adoption of appropriate procedures in production (Wills, et al. ).
Another relevant fact pointing to responsibility in the car accident was the discovery made by the Ford engineers that there was a major flaw in the car’s design. They discovered that the Pinto’s fuel system is highly susceptible to rupturing, which could lead to explosion (Wills, et al. . Despite this, Ford proceeded to manufacture the cars because they were already in the assembly line and they wanted to meet the non-negotiable specifications set by its designer, Iacocca. Thus, Ford threw caution to the wind and went ahead, just to beat competition (Wills, et al. ).
Stakeholder Analysis. Stakeholder analysis involves the identification of people, groups, and institutions that would have either a negative, positive, or neutral reaction to the decision that would become the final outcome of the decision-making process.It also involves the anticipation of the kind of influence that these influential groups of people will have on the enforcement and implementation of the final decision. More importantly, stakeholder analysis enables an organization to develop strategies that would most likely support the decision and minimize possible obstacles to its successful implementation. In the given scenario, the stakeholders can be classified into two major groups. One is comprised of those executives of Ford Motors, who are interested in selling the cars already produced and thereby minimize losses.
On the other hand, there is another group comprised of consumers whose main concern is the safety of the prospective drivers of the Ford Pinto cars. Given the different interests of the two large group of stakeholders, it is clear that their full cooperation would be derived if the decision would go in the direction that they favor. Thus, executives and investors of Ford Motors would be more interested in pushing through with the project despite the huge possibility of placing the lives of users of the products in danger.On the other hand, the prospective consumers would only purchase the cars if they are sure that they are safe for use. However, it is important to consider the fact that the investors and executives of Ford Motors are also interested in maintaining a good image for the company and its products.
Thus, the premature sale of the defective car units would have a potentially destructive effect on Ford Motors’ credibility as a carmaker. Should the risks turn into fruition, then the losses to Ford Motors would be bigger, if it would be compared to the losses it would incur from the reproduction of the cars to resolve the safety issues.Value Identification. The Ford Pinto case could be analyzed by applying the utilitarian principle in the various stages of its development where the opportunity for moral deliberation presented itself. Utilitarianism holds that utility is the foundation of morals.
Utilitarianism proposes the “Greatest Happiness Principle” as the determinant of the morality of an action or decision (Kemerling, 2002). Under this principle, human action shall be judged according to its tendency to promote happiness or pain.Thus, an action that tends to promote happiness to the greatest number shall be considered morally right. Conversely, an action shall be considered morally wrong if it tends to promote the opposite of happiness, which is pain (Mill,1863).
Applying this principle in the given scenario, it could be concluded that Ford did not comply with the utilitarian principle of morality in speeding up the production of the Ford Pinto for the selfish reason of increasing corporate sales.Increased sales and profit would only mean happiness to the company but it could mean death or serious injuries to others. Ford likewise failed to apply the “Greatest Happiness Principle” when it disregarded the discovery of its engineers regarding the susceptibility of the car’s fuel system to rupture, when it could have ordered the replacement of such system by another, safer alternative. The company’s action at this point clearly disregarded the happiness of the users or buyers of the car, who would be placed in danger’s way.The company’s actions showed that it was concerned with the promotion of happiness of only a few people, namely, the company and its officials and stockholders.
However, it completely did not consider the pain that would be inflicted on the poor people who believed in the quality of Ford’s cars and who are in danger of facing death or physical injuries in case they figure in a car accident. The above considerations based on ethical theories provide the values that should lead an organization in its decision-making.Morality as dictated by the utilitarian principle would also dictate the courses of action that should be taken by the stakeholders. Issue Resolution. The issue faced by Ford Motors boils down to the priorities of the company.
Ultimately it has to choose between saving the company’s image and thereby saving the lives of many people and preventing huge losses by pushing through with the sale of imperfect car units. This issue would be resolved by a simple decision that is backed by a strong resolve. Executives of the company should be able to make a decision and stand by it.Moreover, their decision should be supported by a prospective outlook into the possible negative outcomes should they decide to push through with production and sale. Addressing Objections.
Objections to the final decision of taking the moral step and suspending the sale of defective vehicles would most probably come from investors who spent a lot of money for the production of the cars. these people would be the one who would take the fall because of the quantity of their investment in the project.However, these objections would be easily addressed by the simple realization that taking the other direction would mean even greater losses to the company, as a result of the destruction of its credibility as a car manufacturer. Resolution Implementation. The decision to accept a few losses in exchange for doing the right thing, saving lives and protecting the company’s reputation seems to be an easy one to make. However, as history would show, ethical dilemmas are not easily resolved, probably due to various factors that influence the action of people when they consider the issues before them.
As in any implementation of any project or decision, the person or entity that would implement the action should have a strong will to effect the decision, despite objections from people who hold a contrary opinion. Such strong resolve could only come from a conviction that the decision is the best to be derived under the circumstances and that the organization went through a rigorous decision-making process to arrive at the adopted course of action.
