Case Study:

Air Bags and Automobile Manufacturing

Team member:

Mohammad Fardus Amin 1811932630
Dewan Md Ashik Robaiat 1911675630
Shahporan hossain mim 1813626630
Md sakib haider 1912468630
Mostofa Haque 1931634630
Fairose Faria 1911051030
Ismail hossain 1912878630

The US Congress implemented the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act and applied National Highway
Traffic Safety administration to apply it accurately, in 1966


Notice for Airbag Installation:

Safety Majors were published through notice in 1969 which focused on

the airbags installed in motor vehicles in the US

The Car Manufacturers went against this as they complained about

increased cost that could drive them out of the market.
 First Issue: NHTSA cancelled automated
seatbelts or airbag.

 Unethical in the light of Hobbes 8Th law


Alternative action
Managerial point of view
 NHTSA should have considered the safety
 All major automobile intended to comply with
of the vehicle user.
detachable seat belts
 NHTSA could have invested more time
 In 1981 a complete rescission of automated
and money for developing a better
seatbelts was called
automated airbag or seatbelt.
Outsiders view point
 The insurance company thought automatic
airbags or seatbelts would decrease accident by
which cost will be decreased

 The customer thought automated airbags or

seatbelts will be great for safety purpose but they
 Second issue: Air-bag malfunctions causing Accidents
Unethical and unjust in terms of: “good ethics is also
good business” ( Solomon and Hanson)


Managerial perspective: Seat belts • Technical difficulties of Airbag release

were not enough to bring down traffic • Designed for average

accidents, but as expected, it did not work • Defected airbags

out. Thus, as such getting air-bags, the • harmful for nature

managers should have searched for other Solutions could be….

solutions to minimize the traffic casualty.

• Introduce new technology for airbags
Consumers’ perspective:
• Seatbelt airbags
 Third issue: Usage of Seat Belts


According to 5th Natural Law of Hobbes, it is unethical as the
decision is not impartial
• As Hobbes says, Social Cooperation is imperative for any truly human
society otherwise we might struggle in state of nature, where we will see
conflicts only

If we look at Kant’s Key Point, this is unethical:

• Human beings have an intrinsic value beyond any cost-benefit analysis.
There can never be a moral cost-benefit analysis that allows corporate
leaders and their corporations to unjustly exploit or endanger employees,
customers and local communities exclusively as means to corporate profit
Usage of seat belt managerial perspective: The organization ruled the usage
of Seat Belts mandatory since most of the auto companies opposed to the Air Bag
policy.


Usage of seat belt Outsider’s Point of View:
 People thought, Safety Standards were not considered in the purchasing
decision of a vehicle.
 • 34% Strongly agreed and 53% somewhat agreed and 8%somewhat disagreed
and 5% strongly disagreed

Usage of seat belt Alternatives by NHTSA:

 Deep Research was needed to extract information from both the parties
concerned.
 Alternative to air bags could have been thought off for the greater good
Fourth Issue: Was the price increasing for airbags worth it in the long
run or led to the economic collapse?
 Unethical in the light of- Hobbes’s 4th natural law.


 Nobel laureate Milton Friedman’s view regarding the main mission of any business.

 John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism theory.

NHTSA’s point of view:

 Decreasing death rate – From 5.7 to 3.6

 Safety of propellant container – Non toxic Hydrogen

 Long Term Effect – Mass Production

Automobile Industry’s point of view:

 Declining Economical Condition , Mass Production of Airbags and Less freedom

 Increasing Layoffs – More than 200,000 auto workers

What NHTSA could do:

 Relieving Some Moratorium Rules

 Reducing Fuel Problem

 Acting as a Sensible Mediator

FIFTH ISSUE: Automobile Companies’ Lobbying to avoid passive restraints
Why Is This Unethical?

-Mill & Bentham’s Utilitarianism Theory - Kurt’s Moral Point of

View: 
The Managerial Perspective
 The Government gave special incentives to automobile companies

 Companies were responsible for making less expensive seat belts

 Safety Standards were compromised by companies

Alternative Measures:
 The companies shouldn’t have ignored passive restraints

 The Government should have encouraged mandatory seat belt & passive restraint
laws without any alternatives
Critical Decision Points:
 Whether the companies should have installed airbags or not?


 Whether the government should have vetted the airbag laws or not?

 Whether users have given options to choose if the want airbag or not?

 Whether the insurance company support or oppose to the law set by their
government, or not?

General Approach Developed from This Case:

 Proper research, development & measurement are essential before introducing
something to the market.
 The intention of any act should be only for the benefit of both stakeholders and the
consumers.

Government's role:
 Government should interfere in some cases where it is actually required
 Government should do which is right and justified for every people and groups.
 Conclusion

 NHTSA’s safety act in 1970 clashes with automobile manufacturers
and insurers.
 Cost-benefit investigation was embraced by NHTSA for
every security device or framework for establishment on transports.
 There was no noteworthiness taken a toll punishment to amber
signals versus red light, yet of it’s activeness.
 

Thank you.