Reflection – The Ford Motor Car Case

As a law student, cases hold a very special place in my heart. Cases allows one to see how even the most theoretical or nebulous concepts in law are applied in real life. This is because the cases are actually transcripts which altered the fates and sometimes fortunes of real individual human beings. This idea made me particularly excited to learn that we would be using case studies in MBA classes as well.

The first MBA case for the CSR class was the Ford Motor Car case. For me, it is a significant change of pace from the usual legal cases I read. This is because any answer one produces is deemed a valid answer. This is subject to qualifications, however. The answers are backed with reasonable presumptions and conclusions in light of the facts provided.

With this in mind, however, it became clear to me that this is a “real life” case and not one whose answer can be dug up from the pages of a legal code or textbook. There would be limitless possibilities. Luckily, the class also taught us how to produce Alternative Courses of Action. This procedure provides a system by which one can quantify the best possible solution given one’s priorities in the situation. The issue now becomes a question of what one’s priorities really are. Unfortunately for the victims in the case, the Ford executives prioritized profit over the safety of their customers.

The case also struck me in the sense that in spite of literally putting other people’s lives at risk for the sake of making a quick buck, the Ford executives were actually operating within the bounds of law – American or International. This realization bothered me a little. It highlighted to me a role of business leaders in society. As with law, knowledge and skill in business is highly potent but morally neutral. Whether such knowledge and skill will be for the benefit or detriment of other people is left entirely to the will of the lawyer or business leader.

In spite of this similarity, however, the legal profession differs as it is adversarial by nature. At worst, lawyers can only force a compromise between two parties. Even then, lawyers really only serve one party at a time in any given case – never both sides. In short, as far as lawyers are concerned, the only stakeholder is their client and that they must win.

On the other hand, business leaders are expected to make decisions which would make the company profitable as well as sustainable. In making these decisions, business leaders must take into account not only how to make money through the products or services of their business but also the effect of these products or services upon the end users. It is of note that these two parties are normally at opposing ends in legal cases. I strongly believe that short of an actual violation of rights, this should not be the case. The business must exist to serve a particular need of the customer. The latter must be seen as a partner on the road to prosperity and not a mere cash cow to coax money out of.

Relating back to the Ford Case, the executives perceived their customers as cash cows. For the sake of profit, they gambled on the odds of the survival of their customers in case their cars got involved in an accident.