ors of public distrust of large corporations." (Sims, 2003, pg. 5) Firestone proceeded to play a legal game of finger pointing until higher courts finally awarded the consumers hurt, in a class action lawsuit, compensation. While still others simply pointed fingers at the government regulatory rules, as they are outdated and need revision, and so therefore the actions of the injurious party were somehow acceptable. In truth this was not the first and is not likely to be the last time this company and others take this stand, after fatal mistakes are made.
             When the Firestone tire controversy broke in the late 1990s, for example, NHTSA's 1969 standard did not even apply to the suspect equipment. Its rule covers only bias-ply tires, which are an outdated technology in our current radial-tire world. (54) Extension of passenger car rules to light trucks has made some progress but is far from complete, even though the fastest growing segment of the automobile industry has been light trucks. (55) (Mashaw, 2003, pg. 135)
             Operating on these old rules the Firestone company produced a product that was unsafe and then proceeded to fishtail when the product failed. The reality being that regardless of the standard of the Firestone company, attempting to play fair in every market the ethical decisions made, from the top to the bottom calls into question the ethical business practice of the day. (Young, 1934, p. 17)
             In the past most corporations and individuals believed that acting in a socially responsible manner would cut into profit, without exception and without any balancing benefits. Though current research is creating a sense that any costs incurred by deliberately responsible business practices can be offset in the good the actions do for the corporation and society, and this often includes economic terms. What has been happening over the last twenty or so years has been corporations finding out that acting socially responsib...