Léa Esteves e11068
Rucksi Rajamahendran e11076
Luise Rüggeberg e11074
Pierre-Yves Leconte e11126
Rodrigo Ferrao A105291
Case Study
1. It ́s the 1970s and imagine that you’re a member of the board at Ford.
a) In ethical terms, do you persuade Lee Lacocca to redesign the Pinto instead
of sending it out?
I try to convince him to redesign the Pinto because a human life can not be valued by a figure.
Therefore the calculation is unethical and useless. The decision should rather be based an humane
values.
b) Do you defend Lee Iacocca’s decision to go ahead with the Pinto?
Lacoccas decision is in ethical terms not defendable because it does not value a human life but is
rather based on economical measures.
c) Present your arguments.
Additionally, we may not forget that bad news sell well. If the media becomes aware of the unsecurity
of the car, this will cause a bad reputation and will not be economical any longer. In order to act
ethical and economical it would be best to go for an alternative trunk design. A customer will not miss
a space that he never had before in his trunk. Lacoccas decision is hardly defendable because it is
thought in too short terms. The bad repuation not only for the car but also for the Ford brand is
irreversible. Bad news remain in our brains longer, what can cause a serious decrease in sales for Ford
generally. Since a human life can not be valued by figures in my opinion, I would suggest to calculate
the loss that is made through the alternative solution. Including a calculation for long time satisfaction
of the customers. It should point out, that over a long distance safety and good reputation pays off.
2. Do you agree or disagree with the numbers Ford employed to calculate the suffering of
burn victims?
a) Why?
I disagree with the numbers Ford employed to calculate the suffering of burn victims because for him
it’s more about selling his cars than the safety of his customers. He calculates short-term profit
decisions rather than considering long-term profit. Ford prefers to pay the victims than reconsider the
car flaws because he sees that the cost of the safety improvement will cost him more than the benefits
they will get so, he refuses to make any changes.
He uses a mathematical calculation to weigh the cost of human value instead of trying to repair the
design flaws because the fuel tank was placed in the wrong place in the car, between the bumper and
the rear axle.
b) What numbers or alternatives do you propose?
Ford engineers see that they have the choice to spend an extra £11 per Pinto to improve the technical
problem like the gas tanks to make their vehicles safe for their customers.
3. In most decision-making processes, ethics, economics, and law become the central
expectations that must be considered and balanced to make wise decisions.
a) How can this company's decision be understood considering the Venn
diagram?
b) Reflect on the concepts of ethics and law
4. Reflect on the cost-benefit analysis of the company by referring to the three models of
management ethics (Immoral management, moral management, or amoral
management).
a) Which was adopted by this company? Why?
In this case, Ford chose to act intentionally amoral. Indeed, the memo taught us that they were aware of
the gas tank issues on pinto and light truck but decided to not recall them. The cost-benefit analysis
makes us understand that they were prepared to face accidents and deaths. The analysis shows us that
the cost of all the deaths of and injuries due to the car accidents will be cheaper than the recall and repair
of all the vehicle. Because of this analysis, they decided to not recall and in order to pay the $11 of repair
for each vehicle. They chose, instead, to pay for all the deaths and accidents due to the gas tank issues.
They acted exactly as an intentionally immoral manager where profit is more important than lives of
customers. At this time, for them, the main point was to limit the costs in every way possible. On the
other hand, they also had the possibility to change, in the industry, the design of the cars. They only
changed it when the law obligates them to do it.