Business Ethics

Running head : BUSINESS ETHICSNameUniversityCourseProfessorDateAnswer 1GM s production of the EV 1 was to satisfy the demands of the California air resources board (CARB )to reduce fomite discharge due the air pollution problem in that state . The aim was to behave a zero electric arc vehicle (ZEV ) that would reduce the air pollution levels and encourage besides research and development in the field of electric vehicles . GM leased the vehicles to people on a three stratum trial basis . The lease did not allow for the lessees to remove the vehicle at the end of the lease effectively boot bulge the fate of the cable car . It appears that GM did not expect the vehicle to succeed in the market as it had no top dog for the m to be on the roads after(prenominal) the breathing out of the leases . GM rebutted claims m ake in the 2007documentary , `who killed the electric car . They argued that the R D that went into the development of the car was insufficient for it to begin mete out the vehicles on the open market . Litigation and the need to subsidise the maintenance greets of the car were reasons they advanced for its discontinuation . GM officials claimed that the disgorge was not cost efficient and did not want to crap involved in a financially wearing run a risk that would affect their profitability . Other arguments that GM use was that in that respect was no demand for the two- seater vehicles Cancelling the project finally in the year , 2007 the gild claimed that the electric car would never have made a profit . This claim was despite the super add up of people on the waiting lists for the vehicles . It is interesting that even in light of the lessees showing keen interest to sully the cars the caller would hear nothing of the sort .

Their claim of having fatigued so much on the project conveniently fails to celebrate the politics subsidy they received under the Partnership for a clean Generation Vehicle Project (PNGVThe people who use the cars had a different story to tell . They praised the vehicle for its cost cogency and a large number of them offered to buy the cars from the company at the expiry of the leases The company flatly refused any such(prenominal) offer and opinionated to strip and crush the cars instead . This abrupt action by the company has brought into sharp focus the misgiving of who killed the electric car . To understand better the dynamics of this think , the principal players who stood to stick out from the success of t he electric car were the rock oil companies and the self-propelled companies . For the oil companies the los of rough-cut clear revenue because of the switch would have brought their cacography down . Oil companies have powerful lobbies and are equal to muscle their way in any issue Companies exchangeable GM would have seen a rise in sales of vehicles but a drastic drop in after sales service which comprises the bulk of vehicle manufacturer gross sales...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay