Businesses employ the questions who and how when faced with ethical dilemmas. The who-how framework for business ethics puts considerations on both the manufacturers as well as the final consumer of the manufacturer’s product. Considerations employed in the who-how framework by a company explains the effects of decisions made, by a company’s management, on the final consumer’s lives. Decision-making process, especially what factors are examined in coming up with a decision, is a crucial element of the who-how framework ( Birsch, 2013). In this framework, public disclosure test is used to help an organization analyze and understand the extreme effects of its (organization’s) actions on its market segments live. The prime reason for the who-how framework is to avoid rationalization. Rationalizations occur when individuals use only their intuition to make decisions.
Putting into considerations, all the dictates of the who-how framework, the cost analysis used by Ford Corporation was unethical. Ford only emphasized on the cost implications of their defective automobile version. Despite knowledge of their vehicles’ defects, the Ford Corporation opted to continue with mass production without correcting failures in the car’s fuel system. Ford’s cost analysis established that it would be cheaper to compensate clients who were injured as a result of the defective fuel systems, compared to correcting the error at the production stage. A cost-benefit analysis showed that correcting the fuel defect would cost a total of $137 million while compensation (due to deaths or injuries as a result of the mistake) would amount to $49.5 million ( Birsch, 2013) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Equating human life and or health with monetary value is an ethics failure made by Ford Corporation because public disclosure test was not employed. Research done by Ford Corporation came up with a new vehicle model that would result in fewer fatalities yet still chose to use ignorance-efficiency approach ( Birsch & Fielder, 1994) . Elements of cost-benefit analysis conducted by Ford Corporation assumed that people had to either die or get injured which is morally wrong. Ford chose business competitiveness over human health and life. Ford Corporation ignored requirements of the who-how framework for business ethics. Management did not comprehend the devastating effect of their decision, to continue with mass production of the pinto, on their clients’ lives. Worse still, the public was not notified of the defective pinto fuel system before or on purchase ( Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2010). The company public ratings significantly fell as a result of negative publicity that resulted. The public was outraged by Ford Corporations decision to equate human wellbeing with monetary values. Ford Corporation had an alternative of placing the initially defective fuel tank behind or above the rare axle and mounting a spare tire between the tank and bumper (Schack, Fisher & Wilhelm, 2017).
Ford Corporation did not consider the effects of their decision on their customers as well as other people. It was wrong for Ford to put a price tag on human health and life. Intuition alone hardly leads to making sound ethical decisions in a business environment. Ford should have gone for the opportunity cost of available alternative designs and pinto model.
References
Braswell, M. C., McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J. (2010). Justice, Crime, and Ethics . London, England: Routledge.
Birsch, D. (2013). Introduction to Ethical Theories: A Procedural Approach . Waveland Press.
Birsch, D., & Fielder, J. H. (1994). The Ford Pinto case: a study in applied ethics, business, and technology . State University of New York Pr.
Nechyba, T. (2016). Microeconomics: An Intuitive Approach . Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Schack, E. O., Fisher, M. H., & Wilhelm, J. A. (2017). Teacher Noticing: Bridging and Broadening Perspectives, Contexts, and Frameworks . Basingstoke, England: Springer.
