369: Professional Practice,Engineers, and Society
Section-03
Case study 1: Mid-Term Assessment
Submitted By:
Khondaker Md Farhan Anjum 22321041
Mayeesha Islam 22121061
Tanvir Jubaer 22321052
Tanvir Jubaer 22321058
Submitted to : Dr. A. S. Nazmul Huda
Date of submission: December 4,2024
Introduction : The Toyota Unintended Acceleration case is a major automotive safety scandal
that emerged in the late 2000s, involving reports of Toyota and Lexus vehicles accelerating
uncontrollably. This caused numerous accidents and fatalities, caused many lives, hence raised
serious concerns about safety policy of Toyota. This was not a situation, rather a huge crisis since
thousands were suffering. It brought both flaws and the company's safety concerns to light. This
gave a huge blow to Toyota's reputation and threw them under legal battles.
Synopsis : This case has a series of incidents where without the drivers input, cars accelerated on
their own, which resulted in both major and minor accidents where people lost their lives, or
bumped into a tree or someone else's garage. Investigators pointed to several causes, including
stuck accelerator pedals, floor mats, and electronic throttle system defects. Even though Toyota
claimed that it was due to floor mats and sticky pedals, internal documents and whistleblowers
revealed that the company had been aware of potential electronic issues but downplayed them. The
public was not to remain silent on this matter, they faced lawsuits and also lost the trust of the
public. Toyota had to pay the price, they recalled millions of vehicles, paid a $1.3 billion class-
action settlement, and faced intense scrutiny over its handling of the crisis.
Context : In a video clip, we can hear the terror in the man's voice whose life is about to end within
minutes without even knowing what went wrong. This emergency call to 911 raised serious
questions regarding the safety policies of Toyota automobiles and their failure to protect their
customers. This single call was one of the many that had been going on for years and had
upcoming. Akio Toyoda, CEO of Toyota had publicly made the statement that their systems were
reliable, nothing was wrong with their electronic mobiles, but, the internal records and
whistleblower accounts stated otherwise. Yoshi Ono, an engineer, was stuck between corporate
loyalty and public safety, whether to disclose the flaws or save the job.
Later, it was disclosed that the executives such as Jim Lentz, the president of Toyotas U.S.
operations were aware of the potential risks of the malfunction, but in order to avoid lawsuits worth
millions, they decided to design flawed cars that had sticky accelerator pedals and faulty floor
mats. He later admitted that their response to these problems were not adequate enough, hence
ruined their reputation.
Takeshi Uchiyamada, chief engineer and later chairman, struggled with this uprising crisis. Memos
and emails showed that the company prioritized financial fallout over safety issues.
Whistleblowers revealed that external factors were shown in attempts to mislead the public, while
electronic malfunctions remained unaddressed.
Toyota eventually faced significant legal consequences, a settlement of $1.3 billion in 2013. This
is one of the largest settlements in automobile industries, which clearly acknowledged their failure
to public safety concerns. Akio Toyoda, who denied their mistakes, had to later guide his company
for reformation. Had they been careful, so many lives might have been saved.
The events surrounding Toyota’s unintended acceleration crisis stand as a stark warning for the
automotive industry. They highlight the critical need for transparency, ethical corporate practices,
and a commitment to safety above all else. The decisions and actions of individuals like Akio
Toyoda, Jim Lentz, and Takeshi Uchiyamada underline the human and ethical challenges
corporations face when navigating public crises, offering valuable lessons for businesses
worldwide.
Question 1
What ethical and moral issues are involved here? Discuss according to the moral and ethical
perspectives of this case.
Answer : Ethical and Moral Issues in the Toyota Unintended Acceleration Crisis
The Toyota unintended acceleration incident raises a multitude of ethical and moral concerns that
can be examined through various ethical frameworks and the NSPE Code of Ethics. Below are the
primary ethical and moral issues at play, along with the corresponding ethical theories and canons.
1. Corporate Accountability and Public Safety
● Issue: Toyota has a fundamental ethical duty to guarantee the safety of its vehicles. The
company's inadequate response to known defects poses serious moral questions regarding its
commitment to consumer safety.
● Ethical Perspective: From a utilitarian viewpoint, the principle of achieving the greatest good
for the greatest number is compromised when a corporation prioritizes profits over safety. The
choice to postpone comprehensive recalls and minimize safety concerns contradicts this ethical
standard.
● NSPE Canon: Canon 1 underscores the importance of prioritizing public safety, health, and
welfare, which Toyota failed to uphold. Their faulty automobiles did not just cause accidents,
rather took lives, and above all they tried to hide their mistakes and prioritize their reputation over
public health and safety.
2. Honesty and Transparency
● Issue: Toyota's initial rationale for the sudden acceleration incidents, which blamed floor mats
instead of potential electronic faults, indicates a lack of transparency.
● Ethical Perspective: Kantian ethics stresses the necessity of truthfulness and treating individuals
with respect. By not providing accurate information about vehicle safety, Toyota violated this
ethical principle.
● NSPE Canon: Canon 3 asserts that engineers should make public statements that are objective
and truthful, which Toyota did not follow. They rather stated that there was no fault in their
electronic system, their cars were reliable which was clearly a deceptive statement towards the
public.
3. Conflict Between Profit Motive and Ethical Duties
● Issue: The tension between profit motives and ethical responsibilities is evident in Toyota's
decision-making, suggesting a preference for financial gain over ethical obligations to consumers.
● Ethical Perspective: Stakeholder theory posits that companies have responsibilities to all
stakeholders, including consumers, employees, and the broader community. Toyota's actions
reflect a failure to balance these interests appropriately.
● NSPE Canon: Canon 4 emphasizes the need for engineers to act as trustworthy agents for their
employers while also considering the public interest. Just to save the job title, or temporarily save
the company's reputation, the internal executives chose to remain silent, it was not just affecting
the public, but took the lives of more than 34 people.
4. Whistleblower Ethics and Organizational Culture
● Issue: Employees who recognized safety issues faced ethical dilemmas about whether to report
their concerns. A culture that discourages open communication about safety can lead to dire
consequences.
● Ethical Perspective: Gilligan’s ethics of care highlights the significance of relationships and
communication. A corporate culture that promotes transparency and encourages employees to
voice concerns is vital for ethical decision-making.
● NSPE Canon: Canon 6 calls for engineers to conduct themselves in an honorable, responsible,
ethical, and lawful manner, which is compromised in a culture of secrecy. Even though a few
whistleblowers in the company decided to reveal the truth, many wanted to keep it secret, it is not
an honorable, rather shameful act.
5. Trust and Reputation Among Consumers
● Issue: The crisis has significantly damaged consumer trust in Toyota and the automotive
industry, with lasting implications for the company's reputation and future viability.
● Ethical Perspective: Virtue ethics focuses on the character of decision-makers and the
importance of integrity and trustworthiness. Ethical business practices are essential for maintaining
consumer confidence.
● NSPE Canon: Canon 5 advises engineers to avoid any deceptive actions, which is evident in
Toyota's conduct during this crisis. They could have accepted their mistakes rather than later
blaming sticky floor mats and accelerators.
6. Legal Compliance Versus Ethical Responsibility
● Issue: Adhering to legal standards does not necessarily equate to ethical behavior. Toyota's
actions illustrate the need for ethical accountability that goes beyond mere legal compliance.
● Ethical Perspective: Post-conventional moral reasoning suggests that ethical behavior should be
guided by principles of justice and fairness, rather than simply following legal requirements.
● NSPE Canon: Canon 2 emphasizes that engineers should only engage in work within their areas
of competence, which includes understanding the ethical implications of their actions. They might
have made mistakes, maybe they wanted to enlarge their areas of competence, they did fault
though, but they did not take lessons from their failure at the beginning, rather the public had to
suffer.
Question 2
Did the people involved take the proper decision? If yes, explain-why?
Answer : No, the decision made by those engaged in the Toyota Unintentional Acceleration case
was incorrect.
At first, Toyota's response to the reports of unexpected acceleration was subpar. The business put
off taking action rather than promptly and completely resolving the problem. Without thoroughly
examining other potential causes, such as stuck accelerator pedals or other technical problems,
they concentrated on downplaying the issue by blaming it entirely on floor mats. This gave the
impression that Toyota was more focused on safeguarding its earnings and image than on making
sure its consumers were secure.
Even while Toyota eventually cooperated with enquiries and issued recalls, their efforts were
mainly reactionary. These choices were made in response to outside pressure from legal actions
and government agencies, which is not how a reputable business should conduct itself. Numerous
collisions and fatalities would have been prevented if Toyota had taken prompt action and been
more open.
Their decision-making process had a serious ethical flaw. Accepting responsibility right once,
starting extensive recalls, and being transparent with the public and authorities would have been a
better course of action. A lack of trust and the serious financial and reputational harm that Toyota
later experienced may have been avoided with openness and prompt action.
Question 3
What would you do in a similar situation? Explain your perspectives.
Answer : If I were in a comparable circumstance, I would concentrate on acting morally by giving
safety, openness, and responsibility first priority right away.
Take Action Right Away: I would start a thorough investigation to determine the underlying
problem as soon as any reports of unintentional acceleration appeared. I would promptly issue
recalls, regardless of the financial cost to the corporation, if there was even the slightest hint that
the vehicles posed a safety concern. The first priority would be to protect lives.
Be Transparent: I would tell the public, clients, and authorities about the problem in an open
manner. Even in times of crisis, honesty is a powerful tool for fostering trust. I would outline the
steps the organisation was taking to address the issue and offer frequent updates to demonstrate
our proactive efforts to guarantee everyone's safety.
Work with Regulators: It would be crucial to cooperate with agencies such as the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I would collaborate extensively with them to
make sure the study was exhaustive and objective rather than attempting to minimise the problem.
Avoid Future Problems: I would take action to make sure that a situation like this didn't arise again.
This would entail investing in improved testing for new cars, evaluating and enhancing quality
control procedures, and developing a system where possible safety concerns are addressed early.
Think About Long-Term Impact: Although recalls and repairs can be expensive, they pale in
comparison to fatalities, legal action, or reputational harm to a company. Early intervention could
save lives and preserve consumer trust, both of which would be advantageous to the business in
the long run.So I would do it accordingly.
Viewpoint: By prioritising safety and acting morally, I demonstrate to my clients that I appreciate
them, which builds trust even during difficult situations. Even though Toyota subsequently took
action to resolve the problem, its lack of transparency and tardiness caused needless injury. I would
try to grow from those errors and respond to the circumstance in a way that demonstrates
accountability and morale.
Question 4 : Identify the responsibility of the engineers in regard to social ,cultural,
economic,legal health and welfare relevant to this case.
Answer :The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) Code of Ethics outlines
engineers' responsibilities to the public, employers, and the profession, emphasizing safety, health,
and welfare. In the context of Toyota’s unintended acceleration controversy, engineers had specific
responsibilities in several areas:
1. Social Responsibility
Engineers are tasked with ensuring their designs and work prioritize the public good. In this case,
Toyota engineers should have proactively addressed the risks associated with the Electronic
Throttle Control System with intelligence (ETCS-i) and reported potential flaws to management.
● Duty to Raise Concerns: Engineers must voice concerns about defects or issues that could
harm users, even in the face of corporate pushback.
● Transparency: Communicating potential risks or known issues to management,
regulators, and the public ensures trust and accountability.
2. Cultural Responsibility
Cultural norms influence consumer trust in a product’s safety. Engineers at Toyota had a duty to
ensure that their designs and systems met not only technical specifications but also societal
expectations of safety and reliability, particularly given Toyota’s strong reputation as a dependable
automaker.
● Global Standards: They should have adhered to the highest safety standards worldwide,
not just those of the country of operation.
● Responsiveness to Complaints: Cultural awareness involves understanding the severity
of consumer concerns about sudden acceleration and ensuring that appropriate measures
are taken promptly.
3. Economic Responsibility
Engineers have a responsibility to balance cost-effective designs with ensuring safety and quality.
In Toyota’s case:
● Long-Term Value over Short-Term Costs: Delayed recalls to save costs ultimately led
to lawsuits, fines, and damaged brand value. Engineers should have advocated for
immediate fixes and recalls, considering the economic impact of inaction on the company
and its stakeholders.
4. Legal Responsibility
NSPE mandates that engineers comply with applicable laws and regulations. Toyota engineers had
a legal duty to:
● Report Safety Defects: If engineers identified issues with ETCS-i, they had an obligation
to report them to management and ensure compliance with National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations.
● Document Issues: Proper documentation of known risks ensures traceability and
accountability, which could have supported faster resolution and minimized legal
repercussions.
5. Health, Safety, and Welfare Responsibility
The NSPE emphasizes that the health, safety, and welfare of the public are paramount. Toyota
engineers should have:
● Designed for Safety: Ensured that all components, particularly ETCS-i, were rigorously
tested under diverse conditions to prevent risks of sudden acceleration.
● Promoted Recalls: Advocated for recalls when evidence suggested a safety defect,
regardless of internal corporate resistance.
● Ensured System Integrity: Collaborated to investigate, identify, and mitigate potential
failures in the throttle system to prevent harm.
Question 5 : Value the consideration of technical and non-technical issues related to this case.
Answer: The Toyota acceleration case involves both technical and non-technical issues, each with
significant implications:
Technical Issues
1. Electronic Throttle Control System (ETCS-i)
○ Reports indicated a 400% increase in complaints of sudden acceleration after
Toyota introduced the ETCS-i system. While no conclusive evidence linked
electronics to the problem, the perception of potential flaws in the technology raised
safety concerns.
○ NASA's investigation did not find evidence of electronic causes for unintended
acceleration, highlighting a lack of clarity in identifying the root technical issues.
○ Toyota’s subsequent recalls blamed mechanical causes such as floor mats and
pedals but left questions about electronic safety unanswered.
2. Vehicle Design and Testing
○ The potential design flaw in accelerator systems raises questions about Toyota’s
engineering processes, including quality assurance and testing of new technologies
before mass implementation.
○ Inadequate safety mechanisms, such as fail-safes or redundancy in critical systems,
may have contributed to the issues.
3. NHTSA Data and Technical Analysis
○ Complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
indicated a pattern of safety issues as far back as 2002. Toyota's response and
resolution of these issues did not fully address the technical risks, leading to
continued problems.
Non-Technical Issues
1. Ethical Considerations
○ Delayed reporting of known safety defects reflects poor ethical practices, violating
the duty to protect consumers and prioritize their safety over profits.
○ Decisions based on self-interest rather than moral responsibility, as discussed under
Kantian ethics and virtue theory, show a failure to uphold consumer trust.
2. Legal and Regulatory Compliance
○ Toyota was fined $16.375 million for failing to report safety defects promptly, a
violation of regulatory requirements. This highlights non-compliance with laws
meant to protect public safety.
○ Pending class action lawsuits claim violations of warranty and consumer protection
laws, compounding the legal fallout.
3. Corporate Reputation and Stakeholder Trust
○ The scandal tarnished Toyota’s reputation as a reliable car manufacturer, eroding
consumer trust and goodwill.
○ Shareholders faced financial losses due to stock price declines and payouts, further
exacerbated by the delay in addressing the defect transparently.
4. Crisis Management
○ Toyota’s response strategy, including attributing issues to floor mats and pedals
without definitive solutions, demonstrated poor crisis management.
○ A more proactive recall and consumer communication approach could have
mitigated public backlash and reduced litigation costs.
5. Economic Impact
○ Toyota’s short-term focus on avoiding recall costs led to long-term financial and
reputational damage.
○ Shareholder value was adversely affected by fines, lawsuits, and efforts to rebuild
brand image
Conclusion : What happened with Toyota's unintended acceleration is a terrible example of what
can happen when companies ignore morals and public safety, and the victims are innocent people
who did nothing wrong. Toyota didn't fix the problems with the electronic throttle control system
(ETCS), they told people false things, and they took too long to recall cars. This led to many
crashes and deaths, and the public lost trust in Toyota. After studying this case, we can understand
that transparency, accountability and ethical decisions are so important for the engineers.
