1.  The rush to deliver is immoral—to gain some extra profit, D is predictably killing people because of employees’ incentive to speed. 

1.  The proposed principle against D’s policy is unacceptably broad—speed is a reasonable goal that consumers understandably value.

2. D is a pizza company whose basic job or mission does not involve speed.  A rush to deliver by D is morally troubling in a way a FedEx rush is not.

2. D’s business model is based on speedy delivery.  There is no fundamental moral difference between D and companies like FedEx.

3.  Any social value of getting pizzas to people faster is simply not worth the hazards of the policy.  D cannot defend killing as many as 20 people per year in order to deliver pizzas a few minutes faster.  Any reasonable cost-benefit analysis would show that D’s policy--or a revised one with the Internet and cell phones--is inefficient.

3.  The cost-benefit calculus may well favor D’s policy—for one thing, the critics have no evidence that D’s accident rates are worse than for other companies.  20 deaths (which may be overstated) from 80,000 Domino’s drivers is about the same as the overall U.S. rate of 40,000 deaths from around 200,000,000 drivers.(1, 2)

4.  Apart from the other concerns with D’s policy, there is an overwhelming practical case for jettisoning it.  D needs to take quick action to avoid getting stigmatized as a corporate bad actor, having juries award huge punitive damages, and possibly having the whole company destroyed.

4.  The legal risks are overrated, and in any case it would be wrong for D to allow itself to be stampeded by a media rush to judgment fueled by plaintiff’s lawyers.  If D doesn’t hold the line, it will only lead to worse media frenzies against D and other companies.

5.  Clear rules have value: A clear “no guarantee” position is a much more understandable fix for Domino’s problems than an effort to fix the flawed guarantee program with cell phones or a new advertising campaign.

5. Open-ended standards have value: Though there are problems with the way the guarantee has worked, a revised, more nuanced guarantee with advanced technology and a commitment to safety is better than just abandoning the guarantee.

6.  D should be very worried about the negative externalities of its guarantee to people hurt by the company: It’s D’s business to do something, not to wait for outside regulators.

6.  D should not be too worried about possible negative externalities, except as they become costs to the company.  Let the legal system decide what the costs are.

7.  It’s moral for the law to impose huge liabilities on D because D’s policy encourages speeding and deaths.

7.  It’s immoral for the law to impose huge liabilities on D because D has tried hard to avoid speeding by its drivers.

8.  Intelligent flexibility is a moral virtue: D is not the little company it was; it should reinvent itself by differentiating its product in new ways.  Through coming up with new approaches to differentiate the product, D is likely to become a better company.

8.  Steadfast dedication is a moral virtue: Though D can be flexible in modifying and updating its guarantee, it should stay dedicated to the policy, partly because people work better when a company is consistent in its values and its long-term strategy.

9. Respect for the basic moral rule that companies like everyone else should respect the law calls for abandoning the guarantee.  The point isn’t whether the costs of paying out verdicts are small or large; the point is that you have a fundamental moral duty to follow the basic rules laid down in law.   Morality cannot be a matter of costs and benefits.

9.  D’s policy does not violate the law.  Negligence law is anything but clear; bad lawyering has lost some cases for D, but good lawyering in others has won.   More fundamentally, the right approach is to consider the overall costs and benefits of D’s policy given the legal system and all other factors, not to pretend there is a moral rule that solves the issue.

10. Moral Foundations (Haidt): Withdrawing the guarantee is called for under the harm/care foundation—don’t hurt innocent people!—and the justice foundation—do the right thing even if it costs you.  It makes sense as well under the purity/sacredness foundation, since many people are offended by edgy business conduct like D`s.  The human gut hates the idea of businesses making money at the expense of human life.

11. Moral Foundations (Haidt): Adhering to the guarantee appeals to people`s feelings under the justice foundation—keep your promises and have integrity!  It makes sense as well under the loyalty foundation—stick to your group!—and the authority foundation—act like a leader!   Also, because the accidents don’t involve people in D’s care, it does not offend most people’s intuition under the harm/ care foundation.

11.  UMG (Mikhail):  The guarantee is condemned by popular opinion for the same reason pushing the fat man to save five people is condemned: D is planning a course of action that sacrifices some people to create benefits for itself and its customers.    It’s actually worse because D is profiting itself, unlike in the trolley case where the pusher is saving other people’s lives.

11.  UMG (Mikhail): The guarantee is accepted by popular opinion for the same reason that pulling the switch that kills one person after saving five is acceptable: D is doing its best to serve the public by providing a product speedily, and the harm to a few people is an unwanted side effect of its justified course of action, not the cause of the benefits received by D and its customers.

12.  Obedience (Milgram):  The basic chilling fact about human nature revealed by Milgram also applies in the D case.  People in a corporate structure like D’s will do what they believe the  situation demands of them.  Drivers operating under a 30-minute guarantee are like Milgram’s experimental subjects who pulled the switch.  You know that speeding or running a red light is wrong.  But faced with a corporate policy and practice that demands delivery by a certain time and with the reality that you can always be let go as a driver if you cost the company money, you will be willing to hurt people as a D’s driver.

12.  Obedience (Milgram): The Milgram scenario is radically different from the real-world situation in the D’s case.  Instead of an authoritative researcher telling the subjects to pull the switch, in D’s we have independent franchises and drivers making their own choices.  The view of drivers as robots speeding to make the 30-minute target is foolish.  D’s policy is about building corporate good will—“have a pizza on us!”—not about coercing employees.  Drivers are likely to get tipped better when they give customers a free or cheap pizza for a slow delivery—given that, the bigger incentive for them is very likely to be safe rather than to speed.

Drivers

[optional--no remarks necessary]

 “We want you to know we put safety first.   Our drivers have an excellent safety record, and we’re committed to being the best in the industry.   For years, we’ve had a company-wide bonus pool for locations with 100% safety records.   All of our drivers can share in the success of Domino’s in being the safest company around.”

“We’re going to be rolling out a new ad campaign with a driver in Ohio who stopped to help an old woman having trouble with her car late at night.  The pizza was late, but the customer understood and gave the driver a big tip.   At the end of the ad you see the driver and the customer and the old woman all smiling.  You guys are our stars!”

Franchisees

[optional--no remarks necessary]

“The decision we’ve just made was one we thought was important for all of you as well as for the company.  We’re highly optimistic that our new “Bring Back the Noid” campaign is going to be our best ever, and we see all of you as vital parts of our success going forward.  Here’s some more on that…”

“As you know, our contracts with you make it clear that the liability for accidents rests with the franchise, not with Domino’s.   At the same time, we want you to understand that we stand behind you 100% going forward.   There’s lots of legal stuff involved that’s not my department, but I want you know that you have my promise as we roll out our new promotion that Domino’s will hold you harmless against the legal sharks for this coming year.”  

D’s HQ managers

“This company has been a great love of my life.  And as I talk to you now I love it as much as I ever have.   It’s not my only love—there’s Marjorie, there’s my daughters, there’s my faith.  But it’s a huge part of me.  And you all are, too.  You’ve made Domino’s what it is, and I owe you more than I can ever say.  I’m committed to Domino’s being a great company, with or without me.   Someday—not now, not soon, but the day will come—I will be moving on and other people will own the company.    That’s tough for me to deal with, and it may be for you, too.   But it’s also healthy.  Business and life are change.   We all gotta change, we all gotta grow.”

“We’re a different kind of company.  Most companies would have caved under the pressure, but we’re not going to do it.  That has something to do with me.  I believe in a higher power beyond all the powers of this earth.  That’s my business, and I don’t impose it on the company or on any of you.  But it does have something to do with my absolute commitment that this company will be guided by the highest principles.  We will not blow every which way based on fashion or lawsuits.  I’ve hired all of you based on my faith in you as people who are absolutely committed to doing the right thing, and I look forward to moving forward with all of you.”

Potential Outside Investors

“You Bain guys are the “unlock the value” people.   And you think that if you buy out Domino’s from old Tom you can unlock value.   That investors will like Domino’s better if there isn’t a boss that supports right to life and Ave Maria.   And maybe you’re right.  But I can tell you that nobody watches the money more closely than I have and no one is less sentimental.    Look at what I did in cutting out our speedy delivery guarantee.  This company has been run right.  Let me tell you more about that…”

“Look, I don’t have to sell.  I’m not a guy who gets scared or caves.  Look at the way I handled the lawsuit stuff.  Not the way a suit would do it.  Yes, I’m open to doing a deal with you.  But I’m also very good with keeping 100% of Domino’s.  The number you offer me has to be the right number for me to have any interest.”