Fact Scenario A:
You are the Vice-President for Sales at a major Automobile Company. In response to current needs you have developed an economical sub-compact vehicle. You anticipate selling 11 million vehicles on this production run.
One of your engineering teams discovers that due to the design there is a higher probability of the vehicles catching fire upon rear impact accidents. You are given a Cost/Benefit Analysis which shows it will cost $22.00 per vehicle to change the design at a cost of $242,000,000.00. This change will result in 180 less deaths.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows the "cost to society" for each estimated fatality is $400,000.00. This means the design change will save $72,000,000.00.
Assume that this is an accurate assessment of the costs/benefits involved (that is, you should assume that no additional costs or benefits will arise)(although keep in mind that the true costs of a particular course of action may not always be accurately identified and quantified.)
Which of the following business decisions would be the most appropriate from an ethical and legal perspective?
a. You would decide not to implement the design changes, because businesses may only use cost-benefit analysis to make decisions.
b. You would decide not to implement the design changes, because affordability and convenience are always the most important considerations.
c. You would decide not to implement the design changes, but only if the risk of harm was fully disclosed to consumers, consumers had indicated that they wanted more choices, especially more affordable vehicle options, the car would not be affordable if the design change was made, regulators were informed of the risk and had not required a design change, and there were no additional known safety problems with the vehicle which would enhance the safety risk already identified.
d. You would implement the design changes, because it is never ethical to put human life at risk in the interests of affordability or convenience.