The case of the high-risk safety product

After several days of meetings, J.F. Winchester, president of MDC Industries, felt no closer to a decision. MDC, a manufacturer of wall and ceiling panels, was considering whether to exercise an option to buy a new and safer wallboard technology. The product was being touted as revolutionary, but, Winchester wondered, could MDC afford to carry the flag? According to its inventor, Robert Goerner, Smoke-Safe would be a vast improvement over standard safety-rated wallboard. With almost the same flame-retardant properties, Smoke-Safe had the advantage of giving off almost no fumes or smoke in fire tests. And, Winchester knew, most fire-related deaths are from smoke, not flames. Indeed, the numbers were grimly persuasive: 82% of fire-related injuries involving standard panels were caused by smoke inhalation. What's more, Smoke-Safe would cost about the same to manufacture as MDC's current wallboard. But MDC had several other good options for spending the $5 million Goerner was asking; building plastics was only one of its profit centers. And the prospect of launching a campaign to change building codes in order to market Smoke-Safe, which could spark a fight with competitors, was daunting. Since its current wallboard gave MDC only 18% of the wallboard market, many industry insiders speculated whether MDC had the market clout to influence major cities to revise their codes. Six experts in marketing, law, and ethics advise MDC Industries on how it can balance ethical and business imperatives in making its decision.