Discussion Questions:
1. The cost benefit analysis, by itself, is not unethical. The timing of the Pinto analysis at Ford is unethical because it was used to justify not taking action on a repeatable problem that would eventually cost lives if not corrected.
2. It is different because there is a reasonable assumption that a driver can control whether or not they drive into the path of an oncoming train at a railroad crossing. However, a driver cannot always avoid being rear-ended in a traffic collision.
3. The crash results of the Pinto were not made public. There was no evidence that the public knew of the problems with the Pinto until accidents starting happening and people were being injured.
4. Since there was a general fear at Ford that you might get fired if you brought bad news that would impact the success of “Lee’s Car,” it is possible that upper management was not made aware of the extent of the problem. In this situation a technical background was irrelevant. It was a business decision to proceed after the facts were known about the minimal costs of the part to prevent the problem. This problem was known early on and would have been a simple and affordable fix if implemented prior to production.
5. Lee Iacocca was most concerned with the bottom line of creating a light, cheap car. He rushed the production timeline to get the car out to market faster than normal. He was known for saying, “Safety doesn’t sell.” It is unlikely that if Lee Iacocca did know about the issue with the Pinto, that in light of the cost-benefit analysis, he would have implemented the change.
6. In light of the pending loss of life that would come to fruition following the crash test results, taking the issue up your management chain is imperative.
7. Ford has a higher obligation for