The Student Motor Company - Case Study Example

College: Case study: The Motor Company Ethic in business refers to the principles and standards which determine the generally acceptable standards that determine the generally accepted way of conduct in a business entity. Amongst the stakeholders determining the acceptability of behavior in business are the customers, the government regulators, various interest groups and the public (Rendtorff 369). Additionally, each and every individual’s personal moral principles and values also count. Social responsibility on the other hand is the obligation a business has as it aims at maximizing the positive impact of its activities and minimizing the negative impact its operation has on the society in general. Top level management in business today realize that ethical issues can no longer be applied in the context of administrative rules and regulations that must be adhered to and followed by everyone like in the past, it is indeed more than that. Ethics has transformed to become very crucial in determining the success of business with the heightened level of competition (Saviour, Nwachukwu, Faye & James 110). The ethical dilemma of The Student Motor Company The stakeholders of The Student Motor Company from the case study are the customers of the automobiles, the government regulators who come up with the numerous regulations managing the operations of the company and the industry, various interest groups and the public in addition to each and every individual’s personal moral principles and values. From the case study, it is clearly indicated that a feasibility study on the project was conducted under supervision of Mr. I. M. Good and approval for the concept obtained hence a decision made to go forward with the project. On nearing actual production, engineers responsible for project components signed off up the chain of command until approval of entire project for public release was acquired. This is pursuant to the generally accepted project development life cycle in management. However, contrary to the fact that normal preproduction testing and development of an automobile takes forty three months, in the case of Zinger it tool twenty four months. This has been attributed to the fact that it was a rush project thus contrary to the acceptable standards, styling preceded engineering thus dictating design to a greater degree than normal. Additionally, tests conducted on the automobile reveal that Zinger does not meet emission standards with a check on the EPA standards revealing that the need was to meet the requirements at the sale. Numerous studies further indicate that the customers were most likely to realize the fact that the Zinger pollutes beyond EPA standards after driving the automobile for a year or two. The tests results were forwarded to the highest level of the company management by Mr. Technical, a student motor company engineer. Tests conducted by student’s motor showed installation of the fuel tank above as opposed to behind the rear axle made the vehicle pass the 20-mile per hour rear impact test. Despite these concerns, and recommendations being made to the top management of the company, the company still went ahead to produce the Zinger informed by the fact that the automobile met all the applicable federal standards and compared on safety grounds to other similar cars being produced. Informed by this, I believe that the management of Student Motor Company is both morally and legally responsible for Mrs. Gray’s burn death. The responsibility of Student Motor Company for the emission standards for the Zinger My firm has both ethical and social responsibility to prevent known failure which may cause death. The firm is ethically responsible to the customers of Zinger, the government regulators and the numerous interest groups with interest on the firm like the shareholders, the suppliers and the employees. the firm are responsible for communicating to the customers any defects on the firms products that maybe detrimental to the health of the customers and which plays a significant role in enabling the customer make informed decisions as regards purchasing the products (Saviour, Nwachukwu, Faye & James 110). Pursuant to this, a further study on the same was conducted. This established that an improved design rendering Zinger and other similar cars less likely not to burst into flames on collision proved not to be cost-effective for the society with the intentions of the study meant to counter prospects of stiffer government regulations on the design of gasoline tanks. Consequently, for improvement of the design, it will cost $11 per vehicle which outweighs its social benefits. With the total benefits being only around $50 million compared to the $137 million hence making the option not viable to both the firm and the customers. Thus it was for the interest of the society, due to the social responsibility owed to the society that those changes were not made. The Student Motor Company owes their customers, the government, all the interested parties responsibility and the society in general as regards the emission standards of Zinger. In production of the company’s automobile, the final product should be of benefit to the society as it should safeguard the health of the whole society hence the need to ensure the provisions of the emission standards are met. An ethical alternative to this would be to just go ahead with the improvised design of the gasoline tanks. Alternatively, the company could invest more on the environmental safeguarding ventures with the main aim of compensating for the destruction Zinger causes to the environment. On the economic front, the company could cost share the increased costs with the customers as a measure of ensuring that not all the increased costs of improvising the vehicles in order to meet safety standards are borne by the customers of their products. Alternatively, the company could source funds from the government that would be used for research and development on new and better procedures for providing high standards automobiles. This would safeguard the customers from incurring further expenses on purchasing the products. The correct management decision and action Based on the above answers, the correct management decision would be to recall all defective automobiles released by the company. The tanks of the recalled Zinger would be installed with rubber bladders and the same tanks relocated to above the rear axle as opposed to being installed behind the rear axle. Although this would be costly in the short run, it will prove to be beneficial to the company in the long run. It will instill customer confidence on the company’s auto mobile and reduce loses that might incur in future as a results of defects. Feedback Control In moving forward, I will use feedback control. In feedback control, information about the past operations and the present ones influence the same phenomenon either in the present or future. It is the cause and effect chain forming the loop that enables the control measure most appropriate for our case (Pieter, 2004). On the styling of the Zinger especially on where gas tank should be placed and the appropriate crush space that would be best between the rear axle and the rear bumper, more feedback will be required to compare the standards to the actual performance so as to enable us to effectively handle the deviations and avoid future loss of lives resulting from the impact of accidents. Works Cited J.D. Rendtorff Business Ethics, Overview Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (Second Edition), 2012, Pages 365-372. Saviour L.S Nwachukwu, Scott J Vitell Jr., Faye W Gilbert, James H Barnes Ethics and Social Responsibility in Marketing: An Examination of the Ethical Evaluation of Advertising Strategies Journal of Business Research, Volume 39, Issue 2, June 1997, Pages 107-118. Pieter, J.D. Drenth Ethics and Social Responsibility Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology, 2004, Pages 841-844. Read More