Engineering Ethics, Case Study Example

Introduction

The case study currently covered has several ethical and legal issues featured. Following the events leading to the industrial incident, decisions were made based on business interest and priorities such as cost saving. Further, tests were indicating that an incident was likely to occur, however, the management focused on having the plant up and running, because of the competition moving in the market with a new product unexpectedly. It can be questioned whether or not Fred, the engineer had enough competence and authority to make suggestions, and even if he did propose alternate designs to make the plant safer, it is not likely that his supervisor would have approved them.

The below paper is designed to reveal the main business and ethical decisions that could have led to the accident. As the engineer followed guidelines and worked as a contractor, he was not solely responsible for the incident. However, he gave his name to the manual and plan, therefore, as the creator, he is responsible for taking the risks. Further, environmental consequences of the actions of the company also had to be considered. The incident at the company did not only claim the life of a worker, but also might have resulted in an environmental catastrophe.

Ethical Considerations

The company chooses to hire Fred as an engineer once they get the project of building an automated production plant to manufacture a new formula of paint stripper approved. He has previously worked for the competition planning a similar plant. They choose him because of his expertise, and while he has no legal confidentiality bound, they are looking to build upon his knowledge he acquired at the previous company. The time available is limited, while initially it looks like the firm has a good sized budget to compensate the lack of time. They have to take another product off the shelf because it created health hazard for users. However, as similar plants take over a year to be planned and built, they choose to go ahead with the tight deadline. The leadership should have considered that testing and planning would be compromised because of the time limit.

Once the project is started, the company has to take a project budget cut, and this undermines the original plan. The engineer needs to compromise on the quality of the pipe connectors, which, in the end, causes the incident and the death of a worker. Decisions regarding parts, computing dashboards and control equipment are made based on cost, except for one: the sales representative of the United States for the control equipment made in Switzerland is the cousin of the CEO, therefore, even though the price is higher, they initially order that particular part. This puts a pressure on the rest of the budget and results in choosing a Mexican supplier for the pipes. Because of the location, Fred is unable to inspect the parts in person and ensure that they are manufactured according to U.S. standards.

As Fred’s wife is an “environmentalist”, he studies the environmental impact of draining waste water. He tells Chuck, the CEO about the problem who addresses it and makes adjustments, even if it costs more money.

The final ethical issue arises when during putting test batches through the system, the pipes’ joints leak. The chemical that leaks is toxic, and it is likely that it is a result of a change made to the compound, formula, due to the competitor’s new product’s entry to the market. While the original design was suitable for the original compound and pressure/temperature, it is no longer able to support the new process. The management ignores the leakage and starts the manufacturing process, endangering lives. The supervisor (most likely responsible for managing the project) decides that the pipe works are good for a year, and the company would “make it a maintenance issue”.

Legal Requirements

While the engineer the company hires has worked for the competition on a similar project, the legal department checks whether or not he is bound by a confidentiality agreement. The experts find that as he worked on a freelance basis, he is not obliged to keep trade secrets. Even though he does not break the law, his actions are legally questionable. It is not detailed in the case study video whether or not, and to what extent he uses his knowledge about the planning process.

Fred carefully studies the regulations of environmental protection, the engineer find that they are not strong enough. Even though the company does meet the industry requirements of treating waste water before releasing it to the ground, he has concerns. He does talk about this with Chuck, which makes his immediate supervisor angry. Finally, new guidelines are introduced and the protection of people who take their water from the nearby pond is provided.

As the accident happens and a person dies at the plant, it is important to consider the legal responsibility of the company and the engineer. The case study features snippets of his interview, and the company is investigated for negligence. Indeed, the worker’s family is entitled to compensation. On the other hand, other people affected by the issue, such as those whose environment the accident impacted can also sue the company. It is likely that the company will be legally held responsible.

Protecting Health, Safety and Welfare Of The Public

While initially, the company’s design is created to decrease the health impact and risks of using paint strippers, the design is soon changed. This is due to the new product that the competition puts on the market and the fact that it is more effective than the company’s design. A lower efficiency product would not sell as well as the other company’s. Further, the company also changes the process and increases pressure, temperature, which results in the original parts being unsuitable or unreliable. Without changing the parts, the company fails to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, as well as its workers. Public liability regulations need to be considered when designing a project.

Further, there is no indication whether or not the company carried out enough environmental studies, risk assessment projects, and whether they were followed up as the plans changed. The company could have identified serious risks associated with changing the plan, compound, suppliers and process before a catastrophe would occur.

The company did not provide an open and healthy environment for the engineer, either. They put pressure on him to complete the project on a reduced budget, within time, and this was not a fair treatment. Further, they were shifting responsibility on Fred when he had to sign up the manual in person, even though he did not make final decisions.

Resolving the Problem

In several instances, the company did not follow an acceptable course of action. There are several causes of impediments to responsible action. The company decided to carry on with lower quality parts and change the compound acting of self-interest. In Fred’s case, there were two different impediments that made him decide to go ahead: fear and self-deception. He did believe that the company would not endanger innocent lives to increase its profits. He was also afraid of telling his supervisor about the issues and his concerns because, following the discussion about environmental impact, he indicated that there was no place for such conversation, especially if it increases costs. Further, he also acted from “unethical acceptance of authority. He understood after being denied the choice to change the plan that his options were limited. His supervisor tells him not to start a fight if he can’t win and he accepts this.

The ignorance of the project management is clearly visible when the supervisor says: this is when the fun begins”, which is clearly not a responsible statement. He also says that it is OK to create a not-perfect plan. It can be corrected over time when the funding is available.

Reviewing the professional ethical guidelines of engineering (Luegenbiehl and Davis), it is evident that engineers have a strong duty to protect the interest of not only the company but workers and the public as well. The fundamental principles of engineering ethics (NSPE c.2), “Engineers will conduct reviews of the safety and reliability of the design, products or systems for which they are responsible before giving their approval to the plans for the design.”. While Fred could claim that his authority was restricted, he can still be help liable for the events as his signature is on the papers and he received compensation for the work. Regarding his previous freelancing project, he can also be held liable for breaching the code of ethics. It clearly states that “Engineers shall treat information coming to them in the course of their assignments as confidential, and shall not use such information as a means of making personal profit if such action is adverse to the interests of their clients, their employers, or the public”(NSPE 4.i)

The company should not only apologize to the family of the worker who died in the incident but ensure that all risks related to the incident are eliminated. The plant is going to be closed down, reducing the profit of the company. This could have been avoided by the company if adequate safety measures were added to the planning, and if risk assessment was carried out on a regular basis. Fred should have been more assertive or quit the job when he was told that he could not inspect the manufacturing plant where the pipes were made. He should have insisted to carry out risk assessment and stop the plant’s operation after the first three trial batches went through and the system leaked. As one of the fundamental canons of NSPE is to “Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public”, Fred clearly did not comply with the regulation. He was aware that the chemical that leaked from the pipes was dangerous, and created a hazard for not only workers, but the public as well.

Based on the findings of the above case study review, the authors would suggest that the company would work together with the original engineer to eliminate problems in the system and carry out a complete thorough risk assessment for the whole plant. This would help the firm correct the mistakes and avoid future incidents. The leadership should also approach the public and the worker’s family to arrange compensation. The reputation of the company has already been damaged, it is possibly time to create a new, more ethical and responsible vision and mission that prioritizes public safety.

Works Cited

Harris, C., Pritchard, M., Rabins, M. Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. 2008. Print. Cengage Learning.

Luegenbiehl, H., Davis, M. Engineering Codes Of Ethics: Analysis And Applications. Web. <http://ethics.iit.edu/publication/CODE–Exxon%20Module.pdf>

National Society of Professional Engineers. Code of Ethics for Engineers. Web.  <http://www.mtengineers.org/pd/NSPECodeofEthics.pdf>