Ethical Analysis of Dominos Limited Pizza Delivery Policy

In the case study analysis paper, I shall argue that the Dominos Limited Pizza

Delivery Policy is morally acceptable. I will do this by covering the relevant information

and morals standards from both a Pro and Con point of view. Furthermore I will

compare the results of both the Pro and Con perspectives and discern which one

makes a more compelling argument, and how much weight that argument holds. This

will ultimately prove why Dominos Limited Pizza Delivery Policy is morally acceptable.

According to Utilitarianism, an action/policy is morally correct if the sum-total of

benefits produced by that action/policy is greater than the sum total of benefits

produced by any other action that could have been performed in its place. The key

question associated with Utilitarianism asks us; does the policy maximize the benefits

and minimize the injuries to those affected by the policy? The policy primarily affects

Dominos, their employees, and some of their customers. The primary issue the policy is

meant to address is one of employee safety, as many delivery drivers have been

murdered while on the job. The policy uses a computerized system to designate

neighborhoods as green, yellow, or red, where red neighborhoods are considered too

hazardous for home delivery so the customer must come to the store for their pizza.

Limiting delivery services to safe zones minimizes injuries to the employee and

additionally the company by mitigating potential hazards before it’s too late. This helps

maximizes the benefits by ensuring employees have minimized risk to life, security of

person, and adequate working conditions. The policy benefits Domino’s by reducing

financial loss due to incidents happening in red zones, increasing employee morale via
safer working conditions, and boosting public image by fulfilling their obligation to

reduce workplace hazards. The policy ends up costing Domino’s revenue through the

loss of customers due to the policy, and the customers in the red and yellow zones who

do still give Domino’s their business will potentially have a more difficult time acquiring

their pizza if they were hoping for standard delivery services.

According to Rights Theory an action or policy is morally correct if it respects the

natural rights of human beings. Key question being is the policy consistent with the

natural rights of those whom it affects. In this case, the rights of Domino’s, their

employee’s, and their customers are affected. Domino’s has a right to their property,

such as their pizza, which means they can choose who they want to sell it to, how much

to sell it for, how they sell it, and other factors that decide what is to be done with their

property. Domino’s customers have a right to food, which the policy does not strip the

customer of. Domino’s is still providing food to all of their customers, but changing how

some customers may acquire their food. The people most affected by the policy are the

Domino’s employees who provide delivery services. The policy is affecting the

employee’s right to life, security of the person, adequate working conditions, and a just

wage. Pizza delivery drivers have been robbed, assaulted and even killed while on the

job. This policy respects the employee’s right to life and security of person by preventing

the employee from entering dangerous areas where there is a history of such incidents

or a high potential for them. “The California Restaurant Association asserted that the

practice was part of the employer’s legal and moral duty to eliminate workplace

hazards.” Additionally this policy fulfills Domino’s obligation to provide adequate working

conditions, minimizing work hazards by limiting delivery services to customers who

reside in hazardous zones. This provides working conditions where the employee is not

being asked to take on extraneous hazards outside what was initially agreed upon in the

hiring process. Since the policy is eliminating additional hazards, it is also ensuring the

employee’s right to a just wage are being maintained. Dominos is respecting the

employee’s right to a just wage by not asking them to perform hazardous duties for the

pay of a standard delivery person.

According to Justice Theory, an action/policy is morally correct if it involves

treating similarly individuals who are similar in relevant respects, and dissimilarly

individuals who are dissimilar in relevant respects, in proportion to their dissimilarity.

Domino’s policy is actually pretty cut and dry when evaluated under Justice Theory. The

policy uses a computerized system to generate the zones, and additionally states that

“no employee in any store shall ever refuse or limit delivery service because of factors

such as race, national origin, religion, sex, age, or any other characteristic protected by

law.” The relevant characteristics Dominos uses for its comparisons is the degree of risk

for delivery drivers. The policy is just in both how it evaluates and creates the zones, as

well as how it treats the residents of each zone. The evaluation of each zone is

standard and treats all areas as the same, looking only to discern the level of safety to

expect for delivery drivers in that zone. So it is being just in its evaluation and creation

of the zones. Furthermore Domino’s is treating all those who live in the same level zone

similarly, while treating those in different zones dissimilarly in proportion to the safety of

each zone.

According to Care Theory, an action or policy is morally correct if it is consistent

with the obligations that flow naturally from the concrete relationships (which are
relevant to the action or policy in question) between the person doing the action or

establishing the policy and those with whom he or she is most closely related. In

essence is the policy consistent with the obligations that the decision maker has to

those with whom he or she is most closely related in the given situation? Domino’s has

many obligations to their employees, their customers, and their supplier of goods.

Dominos has the obligation to maintain the natural rights of their employees as well as a

contractual obligation to maintain the agreed upon terms of employment both the

company and the employee agreed to in the hiring process. This policy is protecting

Domino’s workers right of life, security of person, adequate working conditions, and fair

wages. Additionally the policy is not infringing upon the workers other natural rights, and

is maintaining their contractual obligations by ensuring employees can work without

preventable job hazards. When looking at Domino’s obligation to their customer, it is

evident that they have an obligation to provide them with food services. The policy is

consistent with this obligation as it does not deny any customers food services, but

merely limits the delivery services they provide. Domino’s obligations to their supplier of

goods, is that they continue to purchase said good from the supplier for the quantity and

duration agreed upon. The policy has the potential to create less demand for Domino’s

products and services, but does not force them to break their agreement with their

supplier, allowing them to maintain their obligations with the supplier.

According to Catholic Social Teaching, a policy is morally correct if it is respectful

of, and guided by the fact that human beings are communal beings who have a

transcendent end, have a fundamental dignity and worth as creatures made in God’s

image, have certain natural rights, must work to achieve the common good, and should
be treated with justice. Domino’s policy follows Catholic Social Teachings, as it is

respectful of the employee's right to life, security of person, adequate working

conditions, and fair wages acknowledging that they have certain natural rights. Since

the policy is trying to increase the safety conditions of food delivery it is being respectful

of the fact that the employee is a human being with fundamental dignity and worth. The

policy is respectful of the fact that human beings must work to achieve the common

good because it is reducing the potential for harm for all parties involved, thus creating

better social living conditions for people to achieve their own perfection. Additionally

being respectful of the fact that humans are communal beings with a transcendent end

as the policy does not interfere with any social aspects and its intent is to protect human

life. Finally the policy treats people with justice by ensuring the policy uses due process

to identify zones and treats people in their respective zones similarly.

Even though the policy seem morally acceptable when evaluated from a Pro

stance, there are still many reasons why the Dominos Limited Pizza Delivery Policy is

morally unacceptable. According to Utilitarianism the policy creates many costs for

those whom it affects. Dominos loses revenue because they are cutting back on the

area they offer full services effectively eliminating a percentage of their business. The

policy could also reflect negatively on the organizations image, as it can be perceived

as racially discriminatory. This would lead to the loss of even more loyal customers

affecting the bottom line of the organization. Not only does Dominos lose money due to

the policy but the employees end up making less money as they rely on tips for a

portion of their wages, and the policy is eliminating a portion of their tip opportunities.

Employees will also have to deal with more upset customers as many of the customers
likely will not know they are in a limiting zone until they are being told the first time they

try to order after the policy is enacted. With employees making less money and having

to deal with more than average upset customers it’s likely their moral could suffer and

lead to higher turnover. The policy affects the customer by limiting the services offered

to them. This rejection of services can cause customers to feel discriminated and

objectified leaving them with a bad taste in their mouth.

According to Rights Theory, the policy is violating the customer’s and the

employee’s natural rights. The customer’s right to food is being infringed upon as the

policy is denying delivery services to whole neighborhoods. If a customer living in a red

zone has no means of transportation the policy is effectively denying the customer the

food Dominos promises the community it serves. The employee’s right to fair wage is

being violated because Dominos is still paying their employees the same but the policy

is restricting the amount of tips they receive. The policy causes the employee’s effective

wages to be reduced at no fault of the employee.

According to Justice Theory, the policy is not morally correct as it treats similar

individuals dissimilarly. The policy is not looking at individuals, but rather grouping them

up and labeling them based on the actions of a few individuals in the community. The

policy is being presumptuous of the residence in each zone, and assuming that they are

all similar to the members of their respective zones. This type of grouping is not just to

those who have done no harm and reside in limiting delivery zones, treading them

dissimilarly to green zone residence when they are more similar to those in the green

zones than their own.

 According to Care Theory, Dominos is not fulfilling their obligations with their

closest relationship, the customer. By not providing standard delivery services to some

of their customers Dominos is failing to fulfill their promise to the community they

provide services to. By advertising their services to the public Dominos is promising the

community that it will provide food services including delivery. The policy prevent

Dominos from being able to provide standard services to a specific customer base

within the community, which is not consistent with the obligations Dominos has to their

customers. Not only is the policy inconsistent with the obligations to the customer but

also to Dominos itself. The policy goes against Dominos self-interest by damaging its

own image, and reducing its own customer base. By limiting their services Dominos is

losing customers causing the organization to lose money, the opposite of what they

want to happen. Also because the policy is perceived as racist Domino’s image would

be tarnished causing further loss of customers. Furthermore Dominos may have to

terminate employees because they no longer have the same demand at their store

failing their promise of employment to the employee.

According to Catholic Social Teachings, Dominos is not viewing the people in the

red and yellow neighborhoods as communal beings with a transcendent end, instead

they are viewing them as people to not to be associated with. Catholic social teaching

also states that human beings have a fundamental dignity and worth, and by labeling

Bill Fobb’s family as a red zone residence, Dominos ends up perceiving them as

dangerous human beings not worthy to receive standard services those who live in

better neighborhoods receive. Disregarding the fact that his family has a fundamental

dignity and worth, and only viewing them by the neighborhood they reside in. The policy
also fails to respect that human beings must work to achieve the common good. By

creating zones and labeling people Dominos is creating a division within the community

which interferes with a person’s ability to achieve their own perfection. Finally the policy

fails to treat people with justice as it discriminates against those who are similar

because of what zone they reside in.

Now the morality of the policy from both the Pro and Con perspective has been

evaluated I will compare the results of each moral standard deciding which perspective

has a stronger argument and the reasoning behind that decision. First looking at

Utilitarianism, both the pro and con perspectives have made strong arguments

supporting their moral judgment. The policy has multiply benefits and costs when

evaluated under utilitarianism, but the benefits ultimately outweigh the costs. Dominos

may end up losing money and customers due to the policy, but those cost do not

measure up to the benefits of saving the lives of employees. The financial damage that

injury and death to employees would cost Dominos would eventually become a greater

cost to the organization then the loss of a few customers due to the policy. Considering

the employee is losing money because they are losing a portion of their tipping

opportunity shouldn’t be given much weight as the tips are only a portion of their wages,

and the limited zones are likely to have the lowest tip percentages. So there is no

concrete way of knowing if the employee is actually losing money, as they could end up

making more because they now only spend their time in green and yellow zones where

tips could be more generous. Since the policy is maximizing the benefits and minimizing

the injuries to those it affects I is morally acceptable as defined by utilitarianism.

 When looking at Rights Theory, one can see that not having the policy violates

more natural rights than implementing the policy does. Additionally the natural rights

protected by the policy are deemed as more important than the ones it violates. The

right to life is considered the most fundamental and core natural right, and the policy is

defending employee’s right to life while at the same time costing the customer an

infringement to their right to food. The right to life clearly outweighs the right to food and

thus the policy is morally acceptable according to natural rights theory as it is the most

consistent with the natural rights of those whom the policy affects.

When looking at Justice Theory, both sides present strong arguments about

whether or not the policy is treating people justly or not. On one hand the policy is

considered just as it is treating individuals in similar zones similarly. While on the other it

is considered as treating dissimilar individuals in similar zones similarly. The main issue

seems to be that the policy feels like it is discriminating against the individuals in limiting

zones. There is no denying that the policy is discriminatory, but the policy has legitimate

claims for discriminatory practices. Dominos has the right to choose who they want to

offer their services to and the extent of those services they want to offer. In order to

discern who and how they should supply their service, Dominos has to find some way to

categorize customers into different groups so they can effectively provide their services.

Dominos is not even evaluating individual customers, but neighborhoods, and some

neighborhoods are more dangerous than others and require a more cautious approach

to business. Since the policy is not evaluating the individual customer, but instead the

neighborhood as a whole, it is treating those similar in relevant regards to the policy, in

this case the zone in which one resides, in similar regards and dissimilarly those who
are not in the same zones. Therefore, the policy is morally acceptable according to

justice theory.

When looking at Care Theory, both arguments disagree about which relationship

Dominos is closest to, the employee or the customer. Dominos has obligation that flow

naturally from both relationships and the policy has pitted the two relationships against

the decision maker. Depending which relationship the decision maker chooses as the

more important one ultimately sways the moral acceptability of the policy as it is

evaluated under care theory. Both relationships hold equal weight, so to decide if the

policy is morally correct the weight of the obligations can be evaluated by using rights

theory. The chief natural right for the employee that the policy is fulfilling is the right to

life, while the customer’s chief natural right that not having the policy is fulfilling the right

to food. Seeing as the right to life holds more weight than the right to food, the decision

maker should clearly choose to maintain the obligations to the employee. Because the

policy is consistent with the obligations that the decision maker has to their employee

the policy is morally acceptable under care theory.

When looking at Catholic Social Teachings, the policy appears to not treat the

Fobb’s family human beings with fundamental dignity and worth by labeling them as a

red zone family and treating them as dangerous by not delivering to them. However the

policy is meant to protect the fundamental dignity and worth of Dominos employees. Not

being offered delivery service is not saying that the customer does not have dignity and

worth, but that hit to their dignity for having to come in and pick up their pizza is worth

trying to protect employees from assault, robbery, and murder. Additionally the policy is

respectful of the natural right of human beings, only slightly infringing on the customers
right to food. As well as treating people with justice making sure their employees have

human dignity and intrinsic value, and treating every one fairly with respects to their

zones. Because the policy is consistent with the five core principals of Catholic Social

Teachings it is morally acceptable. Evaluating both the pro and con perspectives of the

Dominos limited pizza delivery policy and then comparing those evaluations head to

head to see which one was a more compelling argument has shown that the policy is

strongly in favor of being morally acceptable.