David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Business Ethics 56 (2):185 - 203 (2005)
In August of 2000, Firestone executives initiated the second largest tire recall in U.S. history. Many of the recalled tires had been installed as original factory equipment on the popular Ford Explorer SUVs. At the time of the recall, the tires and vehicles had been linked to numerous accidents and deaths, most of which occurred when tire blowouts resulted in vehicle rollovers. While Firestones role in this case has been widely acknowledged, Ford executives have managed to deflect much of the attention away from themselves, mainly by claiming that the Firestone tires were not its product, and therefore not its responsibility. In this paper, we examine the extent to which Ford can be held morally responsible for the incidents at issue. In so doing, we develop an approach for determining when an item is a product in its own right, as opposed to a component of another product. We argue that such an analysis not only provides a better understanding of this case, but also more properly accounts for the extent to which evolutions in technology and business relationships can affect issues of moral responsibility in business contexts.
|Keywords||assembler component Firestone Ford part partmaker product safety products liability responsibility sport-utility vehicles tires|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Sergio W. Carvalho, Etayankara Muralidharan & Hari Bapuji (2015). Corporate Social ‘Irresponsibility’: Are Consumers’ Biases in Attribution of Blame Helping Companies in Product–Harm Crises Involving Hybrid Products? Journal of Business Ethics 130 (3):651-663.
Similar books and articles
Robert Larmer (1996). Corporate Executives: Disasters and Moral Responsibility. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 15 (7):785 - 788.
John R. Danley (2005). Polishing Up the Pinto. Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (2):205-236.
Eng Tuck Cheah, Wen Li Chan & Corinne Lin Lin Chieng (2007). The Corporate Social Responsibility of Pharmaceutical Product Recalls: An Empirical Examination of U.S. And U.K. Markets. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 76 (4):427 - 449.
I. van de Poel (2012). Technology and Parental Responsibility: The Case of the V-Chip. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):285-300.
Max Baker & John Roberts (2011). All in the Mind? Ethical Identity and the Allure of Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 101 (S1):5-15.
J. Fahlquist & I. van de Poel (2012). Technology and Parental Responsibility: The Case of the V-Chip. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):285-300.
John D. Bishop (1991). The Moral Responsibility of Corporate Executives for Disasters. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (5):377 - 383.
Joseph R. DesJardins & Ernest Diedrich (2003). Learning What It Really Costs: Teaching Business Ethics with Life-Cycle Case Studies. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 48 (1):33-42.
Peter Vallentyne (2011). Responsibility and False Beliefs. In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemploska (eds.), Justice and Responsibility. Oxford University Press
Kenneth E. Goodpaster (1983). The Concept of Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 2 (1):1 - 22.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads586 ( #694 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)260 ( #1,005 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?