 |
| http://www.sptimes.com/News/webspecials/firestone/qa.shtml |
The Ford/Firestone case is one good example of a violation of business ethics, the governing principles of a company's action. As stated, it was one big deadly combination with numerous reported accidents involving the Ford Explorer, and its instability. The controversy explored the realm of corporate responsibility being put on top of the heads not only of the biggest firms, but also of the whole automobile industry and other industries as well.
 |
| http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ford-firestone-settle-rollover-suit/ |
Background:
Ford and its engineers worked on a new vehicle, the Ford Explorer. The Explorer resembled Ford's truck "The Ranger", also with its Twin I-Beams, which is very famous among Americans, with the classiness of a sedan. The Explorer was built with Firestone tires. This was the Ford Explorer then.
The Ford engineers, in their test of the prototype Explorer, found out that the vehicle had an issue with its stability. Said engineers recommended possible solutions to cure the vehicle's stability problems, such as lowering the car's centre of gravity, widening its wheel, and using smaller tire. However, the Management of Ford did not want any derail in its plan to launch the vehicle to the market. To partially solved the problem, they opted to set the tires' inflation pressure to 26 psi.
After this and the market launch of the Explorer were the reports of Explorer-related accidents. These accidents happened when the tires' tread separated from the body and cause the car to roll over. Said incidents did not only occur in the United States alone but also in other countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Ford blamed Firestone for this and decided to replace the tires with Goodyear tires. It was at this instant, coupled with the recalls, that Firestone suffered losses, thus, entered Bridgestone, a Japanese-owned company. However, Bridgestone failed to revolutionise Firestone's culture and this led to employee strikes and unions that resulted in Bridgestone employing non-experienced workers and production of poor quality tires.
My Assessment: A More Intensive Analysis
This case is not merely a technical vehicular issue but a deeper one. Ford and Firestone are morally responsible to the victims, the victims' families, and the rest of its customers and they contributed to all Explorer-related accidents. Firestone knew the best psi for the Explorer and yet it failed to influence Ford in using it. Ford, on the other hand, chose its personal interest and gain (as evident by its decision to resolve simpler and more short-term vehicular issues) than the interest of its customers and the public.
Both companies failed to perform their moral and ethical responsibility towards the common good and address their problems as they just pointed out their fingers.
Conclusion
The Ford/Firestone case is a realisation that companies' roles in the society go beyond maximisation of profit. Industries nowadays should bear in mind that there is a deeper meaning to their existence - people. People inside and outside the organization. It is their responsibility to take care of them and bring utmost security to protect them. People, after all, is considered the a firm's most important asset.
After this and the market launch of the Explorer were the reports of Explorer-related accidents. These accidents happened when the tires' tread separated from the body and cause the car to roll over. Said incidents did not only occur in the United States alone but also in other countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
Ford blamed Firestone for this and decided to replace the tires with Goodyear tires. It was at this instant, coupled with the recalls, that Firestone suffered losses, thus, entered Bridgestone, a Japanese-owned company. However, Bridgestone failed to revolutionise Firestone's culture and this led to employee strikes and unions that resulted in Bridgestone employing non-experienced workers and production of poor quality tires.
My Assessment: A More Intensive Analysis
This case is not merely a technical vehicular issue but a deeper one. Ford and Firestone are morally responsible to the victims, the victims' families, and the rest of its customers and they contributed to all Explorer-related accidents. Firestone knew the best psi for the Explorer and yet it failed to influence Ford in using it. Ford, on the other hand, chose its personal interest and gain (as evident by its decision to resolve simpler and more short-term vehicular issues) than the interest of its customers and the public.
Both companies failed to perform their moral and ethical responsibility towards the common good and address their problems as they just pointed out their fingers.
Conclusion
The Ford/Firestone case is a realisation that companies' roles in the society go beyond maximisation of profit. Industries nowadays should bear in mind that there is a deeper meaning to their existence - people. People inside and outside the organization. It is their responsibility to take care of them and bring utmost security to protect them. People, after all, is considered the a firm's most important asset.
No comments:
Post a Comment