This paper examines the 2000 Firestone and Ford tire crisis, in which defective Firestone ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness tires caused tread separation at highway speeds, leading to numerous rollovers and fatalities involving the Ford Explorer. The paper addresses four key questions: how both companies should have analyzed safety data proactively; what mistakes Ford, Firestone, and the NHTSA made in their early crisis responses; the ethical implications of accepting versus deflecting responsibility; and what quality-control measures Firestone could adopt to prevent future failures. Drawing on Ferrell's business ethics framework, the analysis concludes that managerial inaction and a lack of transparency at both companies ultimately necessitated the passage of the TREAD Act.
The paper demonstrates applied ethical analysis through a case-study lens. Rather than simply recounting events, it uses each sub-question to isolate a distinct ethical dimension — detection, response, accountability, and prevention — and evaluates the conduct of each stakeholder (Ford, Firestone, NHTSA) against a consistent ethical standard drawn from Ferrell's decision-making framework.
The paper opens with an introduction that establishes the scope and significance of the crisis. Four body sections address the assigned analytical questions in sequence: the obligation to collect safety data proactively; early crisis-management errors; the ethics of blame versus accountability; and concrete quality-improvement recommendations. A brief conclusion synthesizes the findings and references the regulatory outcome (TREAD Act), tying the case back to real-world policy consequences.
In the course of conducting business, there will always be issues that must be dealt with swiftly and decisively. In 2000, Ford and Firestone faced severe consequences for flaws in the tires fitted to the Ford Explorer. A number of incidents were brought to the attention of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which began requesting information about a large number of rollovers involving blown Firestone tires on the Ford Explorer. The agency was receiving reports of an increasing number of fatalities linked to these incidents and began actively investigating. (Ferrell, 2008)
Fully understanding the overall scope of the incident and the ethics surrounding the case requires examining how both companies analyzed various safety issues, what mistakes were made during the crisis, the effects of accepting responsibility, and how Firestone could improve its safety standards. Together, these elements provide the greatest insight into how the incident unfolded and what ethical issues were exposed.
To what extent do companies need to make a proactive effort to collect and analyze data concerning possible safety issues? In the case of both Ford and Firestone, they knew there was a problem with three types of tires: the Firestone ATX, ATX II, and Wilderness tires. The tire would come apart while the vehicle was in motion — the tread would separate when the vehicle was traveling at speeds in excess of 50 miles per hour.
The incident demonstrates that both companies needed to improve their quality control and safety standards during the manufacturing and design process. In Ford's case, the fact that their vehicles would roll over when a tire separated highlights that the Explorer had stability and design problems. Ford acknowledged these problems and admitted that it sometimes did not know how to fix them — underscoring the need for improved quality and safety standards throughout the design and manufacturing process.
In Firestone's case, the company was aware of the issue with its tires dating back to the mid-1990s. However, the failure rate was 241 per every one million tires — a defect rate so small that managers and engineers overlooked the effect it could have on vehicles traveling at highway speeds. Firestone therefore needed to improve its quality-control process and increase the amount of safety analysis conducted during manufacturing and design. (Ferrell, 2008)
What mistakes did Ford, Firestone, and the NHTSA each make in their early attempts to handle the crisis? Ford wanted to announce the recall jointly with Firestone through an open press conference that would answer questions and improve overall transparency. The intent of this strategy was to get ahead of the issue and demonstrate a willingness to address it openly.
Firestone, by contrast, did not want to answer any questions and preferred to respond to inquiries only when compelled to do so. Its basic strategy was to deny that the defect was a major contributor to the rollovers. The NHTSA initially handled the situation gently by merely requesting information. However, the moment the agency identified a safety issue, it should have required both companies to conduct mandatory recalls. Instead, its strategy was to avoid overreacting based on initial reports — a cautious approach that allowed the crisis to deepen. (Ferrell, 2008)
What are the possible ethical implications of accepting responsibility versus blaming others? The most significant consequences of accepting responsibility include negative publicity, potential lawsuits, possible regulatory action, and large financial losses for both companies. When a company blames others for a problem, it can deny wrongdoing and use various legal protections to shield its officers and organization.
This inaction is the heart of the incident and reflects the lack of ethical judgment that managers at both companies demonstrated with respect to these safety issues. As a direct result, Congress passed the TREAD Act, which increased communication and accountability among the government, manufacturing companies, and the auto industry. (Ferrell, 2008)
Ferrell, O. (2008). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.