Analyze the reaction of Toyota from an ethical perspective to disclosures that occurred in late 2009 and early 2010 that the accelerator in some brands might get stuck and result in unintended acceleration of the car. How does Toyota's reaction relate to that of Ford with the Pinto and Johnson & Johnson with the Tylenol poisoning?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

A review of the Ford Pinto situation is as follows: The Ford Pinto experienced fires easily in rear-end collisions with the gas tanks being right behind the license plate. Ford did a risk-benefit analysis to aid decision making. Ford relied on ethical legalism to justify and rationalize its actions. Ford used act-utilitarian reasoning that focused only on costs and benefits and ignored rights of the various stakeholders. A rule-utilitarianism or rights theory approach might have led Ford to follow a rule of not sacrificing public safety or that the public had a right to expect that cars will not blow up if there is a rear collision at low speeds.

The Lexus situation parallels the Ford Pinto. Toyota and the Lexus brands have acceleration problems and complaints for over 20 years, since 1993. The firm first blamed the problems on the drivers. As the number of complaints and injuries grew, the company did cost analysis and decided to limit the number of vehicles to be serviced to those who complained and to limit costs on a per-car basis. The problems at Lexus and Toyota came as more automakers entered the international markets. Toyota was beginning to lose the quality advantage as both international and U.S. automakers focused more on quality, not just style.

The Lexus acceleration problem seems to show a moral blindness and group-think on the part of Toyota. The firm may have felt pressure to maintain leadership and quality in the auto market. It is interesting to note that in the U.S. such moral blindness tends to be associated with management and often out of greed for personal incentive pay. With Lexus, it seemed to be for the benefit of the firm and quality leadership. This probably reflects different cultural values. In Hofstede's study of cultural variables that was discussed in chapter 1, the score on individualism was 46, reflecting a greater emphasis on the collective good. In the U.S. the individualism score was 91, reflecting an emphasis on individual effort and responsibility. For Toyota, the moral blindness led to ignoring product defect information and then when it was discovered doing a similar cost analysis as was done in the Ford Pinto case.