ALARP, which stands for "as low as reasonably practicable", or 

ALARA ("as low as
reasonably achievable")

Government, environment, shareholders, supliers, employees, local community

Save so many lives, regain customer confidence, brand valiur increase

Extra expen/hogh price but 11 only

Accept mistakes and take corrective measures

Being loyal to company/ being responsible to society having personal values and beliefs

Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from
exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it
had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths.  The company used the
accepted risk/benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the
societal benefit.  Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5
million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the
design change. 
formula focuses on a specific accident, while the risk/benefit analysis requires an examination of the costs, risks,
and benefits through use of the product as a whole.  Based on this analysis, Ford legally chose not to make the
design changes which would have made the Pinto safer.  However, just because it was legal doesn't necessarily
mean that it was ethical.  a price cannot be put on saving a human life.
it seems unethical to determine that people should be allowed to die or be seriously injured because it would
cost too much to prevent it.  Second, the analysis does not take into all the consequences, some things just can't
be measured in terms of dollars, and that includes human life. 

nternal Ford documents revealed Ford had developed the technology to make improvements
to the design of the Pinto that would dramatically decrease the chance of a Pinto "igniting"
after a rear-end collision.11This technology would have greatly reduced the chances of burn
injuries and deaths after a collision. Ford estimated the cost to make this production
adjustment to the Pinto would have been $11 per vehicle.12   Most people found it
reprehensible that Ford determined that the $11 cost per automobile was too high and opted
not to make the production change to the Pinto model.

The controversial numbers were those Ford used for the "benefit" half of the equation. It was estimated that
making the change would result in a total of 180 less burn deaths, 180 less serious burn injuries, and 2,100 less
burned vehicles. These estimates were multiplied by the unit cost figured by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration. These figures were $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle
equating to the total "societal benefit" is $49.5 million. The risk,/benefit results indicate that it is acceptable for
180 people to die and 180 people to burn if it costs $11 per vehicle to prevent such casualty rates.

Ford

team. After the basic design was complete, crash testing was begun. The results of crash testing revealed that
when struck from the rear at speeds of 31 miles per hour or above, the Pinto's gas tank ruptured. The tank was
positioned according to the industry standard at the time (between the rear bumper and the rear axle), but studs
protruding from the rear axle would puncture the gas tank. Upon impact, the fuel filler neck would break,
resulting in spilled gasoline. The Pinto basically turned into a death trap. Ford crash tested a total of eleven
automobiles and eight resulted in potentially catastrophic situations. The only three that survived had their gas
tanks modified prior to testing.55

There were several options for fuel system redesign.  Under the strict $2000 budget restriction, even this
nominal cost seemed large.

essence adopted a policy of allowing a certain number of people to die or be injured even though they could
have prevented it. From a human rights perspective, Ford disregarded the injured individual's rights and
therefore, in making the decision not to make adjustments to the fuel system, acted unethicallv. 62

Whistle blowing’ describes the action taken by an employee who notifies outside authorities
that the employer is breaking a law, rule, or regulation or is otherwise posing a direct threat to
the safety, health, or welfare of the public.
If an employee is fired or otherwise retaliated against for whistle blowing, an attorney should
be consulted to identify legal protections available to the employee. If it becomes necessary
to blow the whistle, the employee must advise the appropriate regulatory agency or a law
enforcement agency of the illegal act.

Whistle-blowing is sometimes career suicide.

Case of bribe or anything. Keep documnts safe
The right to safe products. A company should sell no product that it suspects of being unsafe
for buyers. Thus, producers have an obligation to safety-test products before releasing them
for public consumption. 2) The right to be informed about a product. Sellers should furnish
consumers with the product information that they need to make an in- formed purchase
decision.
Do you:
a. Match your competitors since you are continually losing out to them.

b. Submit a report to CROSS (Confidential Reporting on Structural Safety).

c. Raise the matter with the relevant Trade Association.
d. Raise the matter with the sub-contractor who is your client.

INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE(S)
a. Match your competitors since you are continually losing out to them.
 

1. Respect for life, law, the environment and public good

• hold paramount the health and safety of others
2. Accuracy and rigour
• identify, evaluate, quantify and mitigate risks
3. Leadership and communication
• maintain and promote high ethical standards and challenge unethical behaviour

Even if the company doesn't fire you, you're likely to face an unfriendly work
environment. This is probably bad for your future employment. a car was going to
burn if it were to take a rear-impact at low speeds

Laws, when carefully formulated and enforced, provide two types of benefits for the
public, in addition to protecting the responsible whistleblower. They are episodic
and systemic. The episodic benefits help in preventing any harm to the public in
particular situations. The systemic benefits are in sending a strong message to the
industry to act responsibly or be subject to public scrutiny once the whistle is blown.