> here's the operative question: were they wrong to set their priorities the way they did?
Yes. Let me ask this the other way, in a different context.
Say your company builds rapid-assembly prefab building components. You have built the business on being supposedly greener than the competition, by using natural materials where possible. All of a sudden there is a massive surge in demand, and you find out that certain cost-cutting optimisations that used to be merely mildly beneficial, actually provide a marketing edge.
Does it matter that your fire-proofing is a naturally occurring material? Namely, asbestos?
1) Is there a better fire-proofing alternative available, one that will work as well and be as cost-effective to deploy?
2) Are we talking about 1990 (when the public actually cared, legal torts were likely, and it was a huge hassle to sell a property that was known to have asbestos) or 1890 (when in spite of evidence that asbestos may pose a health risk, industry was full-speed-ahead on it because, hey, everything poses a health risk, and lung cancer was of lower concern to the public than dying in a fire)?
Yes. Let me ask this the other way, in a different context.
Say your company builds rapid-assembly prefab building components. You have built the business on being supposedly greener than the competition, by using natural materials where possible. All of a sudden there is a massive surge in demand, and you find out that certain cost-cutting optimisations that used to be merely mildly beneficial, actually provide a marketing edge.
Does it matter that your fire-proofing is a naturally occurring material? Namely, asbestos?