Ethical failures in General Motors' ignition switch recall decision

¶ … faulty ignition switch that caused several deaths and injuries could have been prevented had General Motors incorporated ethical reasoning into its decision-making protocol. Called the Discrete Logic Ignition Switch, the switch was designed to be low cost and were also outsourced to the Eaton Corporation, meaning that GM not only deliberately took significant and meaningful shortcuts when planning the design of the switch, but also absolved itself of quality control responsibilities by using a third party producer. In fact, Eaton actually did warn GM that the switch design was not meeting specifications early in production and would be problematic. The earliest versions of the switch also failed in tests. In spite of its failure, the chief engineer on the project whose nickname was Ray Degiorgio, gave the green light to the project. Degiorgio clearly based his decision-making on faulty ethical reasoning, opting to protect his own personal vested interests in the project, reduce his workload, and help GM to cut costs rather than to ensure consumer safety. In fact, greed and self-interest motivated the engineer\'s decision rather than any coherent ethical framework.

DeGiorgio would later claim that he had no awareness that the below-specification device would cause any safety issues; yet an engineer in his position must have had some awareness of the effects of implementing such a device. After all, product engineers are trained in every aspect of the production cycle and would have projected certain outcomes from the device. Degiorgio must have known that a switch that slipped out of position might prevent the deployment of airbags, or suddenly cause the car to stall -- deadly when in moving traffic. Proving culpability and even conscientious maliciousness is the fact that \"company engineers made no effort to correct the slippage problem,\" (case study p. 464). In other words, groupthink overtook the GM engineers on the project and none was willing to come forward with the truth about the faulty switch. Also proving culpability was the fact that the engineers convinced GM to notify car dealers about the problem, asking them to tell customers to avoid weighing down their key ring. These senior level decisions indicate intent to deceive. The ethical decision-making process was built on the outmoded and often nefarious belief that the sole ethical responsibility of a corporation is to generate profits for stakeholders.

According to stakeholder theory, corporations like GM do not so much have a responsibility to create profits but to \"create value for society,\" (Chapter 1 Lecture). Profits are necessary of course, to ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the organization and promote its goals, but the ultimate goal is not profit but social benefit. Stakeholders did not want GM to take shortcuts with the ignition switch and deliberately mislead its dealers and the public. Likewise, stakeholders did not want GM to be the cause of numerous deaths and injuries. Had GM been willing to ascribe to an ethical paradigm like enlightened self-interest, then the corporation might have been able to balance their commitment to profit with their ability to provide core value. It is not so much that GM needs to behave in an altruistic or self-sacrificial manner, for it is an automotive company that in many other ways presents ethical conundrums as with contributing to fossil fuel emissions. Rather, GM\'s ignition switch case can best be understood in terms of enlightened self-interest, whereby the long-term success of the company actually does depend on its being willing to avoid fraud and deceit because such behaviors lead to undesirable -- and unprofitable -- outcomes.