Ethics

The Ford Pinto Case was a classic example of the sacrifice of business and professional ethics at the altar of corporate greed. Ford had been losing its market share of compact cars to competitors and was determined to recapture the market beginning 1971. Its magic brand was to be the Ford Pinto which was produced hurriedly.

Tests had shown that the car tank, which was located behind the rear axle, would be ruptured in case the car was hit from the rear, a situation which increased the risk of fire. Placing a baffle between the axle and the tank would cost an estimated 11 per car. A cost-benefit analysis of the effect of adding the baffle showed that it would cost the company more money to add the baffle than to compensate for deaths, injuries and property losses resulting from the flaw (George, 2006). The problem was therefore not fixed, and went on to cause tens of deaths and injuries to motorists using Ford Pinto.

The accelerated production schedule could have meant that the engineers did not have sufficient time to improve the safety of the Pinto. However, the engineers should have raised the red flag as soon as tests revealed the vulnerability of the gas tank. The engineers were aware that a ruptured fuel tank meant a higher risk of fire and death, yet few took the initiative of raising the alarm. This silence was simply unethical, as the engineers knew that releasing the brand to the market was going to put hundreds or thousands of lives at risk.  Like Harley Copp, the engineers and executives who knew of the vulnerability of the Pinto should have raised the problem with the fiery Lee Iacocca and presented the facts (George, 2006). Ford had the option of advising Pinto users to add the baffle, and therefore reduce the risk of fatalities and injuries. The silence cost not only motorists lives, but also cost Ford Company millions of dollars and its repute.