Read the situations and discuss your choices by proving justifications from relevant ethical

considerations. Also Support your preferred actions by referring relevant Pakistan

Engineering Council Code of Conduct

Dilemma
You have undertaken some consultancy work with a foreign company, under a
scheme whereby half of your fee comes from the central government. However,
the client company informs you after the work has been done that they are in
financial difficulties, and that the only way you will be paid in full is if you falsify
the invoice document so that the government pays 100% of your fee. You are also
told that this is standard practice and happens with the cooperation of the
administrators of the government fund.

What should you do?

1. You could agree to the process as described by the client company. It is important that
the company get fair remittance for the work they have undertaken, and administrators of
the government fund have approved the practice of doubling the invoice.
2. You could refuse to participate in the practice and accept whatever funds that the client
company have available. You do not want to engage in corruption, but you do not want to
sever your relationship with this company and others in the region.
3. You could refuse to double your invoice and take the client company to court to recover
your fee. It is important to take a stand against corruption, and to ensure that companies
face up to their financial obligations.

Dilemma
Imagine you are an engineer working for an overseas airline, given orders to
replace the studs attaching the pump casings on all the jets under your control,
but you believe the replacement studs to be of poor quality. As a relatively junior
member of staff, you are expected to follow orders and you are worried that
raising your concerns in this case could be detrimental to your career. However,
as an engineer your primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of the jets
under your control, their pilots, crew, and passengers. You believe that if you
simply follow the orders that you have been given to replace the studs, you will
not be acting responsibly, and the safety of the jets will be compromised. What
course of action should you take given your competing responsibilities to obey
orders and to maintain the safety of the jets, and considering your concerns for
your career?
What should you do?
1. You could decide simply to follow your orders. A decision has been taken at a high level
that this course of action is the best for the safety of the jets, and so you could argue that it
is possible both to obey orders and fulfil your responsibility for safety by replacing the studs.
2. You could inform your superior of your concerns and recommend that work not proceed
until evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the studs are not of poor quality, or
new high-quality studs have been delivered.
3. You could refuse to carry out your orders and raise your concerns that this is a ‘rush job’
that threatens safety directly with senior company executives.
4. You could pass your concerns to the media. There has been substantial interest in air
safety since the original jet crash, and you will be able to prevent what looks like the
prioritization of public relations over the safety of pilots and passengers.

Dave is employed by a radio broadcast equipment manufacturer as a sales

representative. In addition, Dave works as an independent consultant for
organisations in the radio broadcast field. This work can include analysing their
technical problems and, when required, recommending any radio broadcast
equipment that they might need. In some cases, Dave recommends the use of
broadcast equipment manufactured by his employer. Is it enough for Dave to
declare his conflict of interest, or should he resign one of his positions? Esther
works on military contracts for a company manufacturing sensor which can detect
and warn of the presence of chemical and biological agents. Esther is proud that
her work contributes to equipment that saves lives. One day, she is asked to
begin working on a new lightweight radar which can sense and display the
movement and location of soldiers and vehicles on the battlefield. With this
information soldiers can quickly call-in mortars and artillery fire to destroy enemy
positions. Can Esther work on the new project and keep her integrity?

Faisal is a technician working on the central heating system for a building which
is occupied by a large financial services company. One day, while carrying out
maintenance work in one of the building’s corridors, he overhears two executives
talking about a debt crisis at the company, something which has not yet been
communicated to the public. Later, Faisal’s friend, who owns shares in the
company, asks him if he knows anything about the company’s financial health.
Should Faisal warn his friend about what he has heard?

Dilemma
A usually standard engineering decision has unexpectedly thrown up a difficult
question. You feel that there is a powerful reason to perform intensive working on
the repair of the substation, to protect the hospital from the risk of a damaging
powercut. However, this decision is not motivated from a financial point of view.
How are you going to communicate your judgement to your manager?

What should you do?

1. You feel that the best thing is to frame your decision in terms of the responsibilities of the
company to the local community. Whilst there is a financial cost to undertaking the intensive
work, an obligation exists to protect the patients in the hospital.
2. Although you are motivated by an ethical concern, you feel that the best way to present
your decision is in direct commercial terms. You will seek to justify your decision by citing
longer-term financial benefits of protecting the hospital.
3. You worry that the ethical considerations involved in this decision place it outside your
area of responsibility, and you will pass the decision on to your manager. You will state your
opinion that the intensive working is justified, but you will refrain from making a definite
judgement.

Dilemma
Imagine you are the team leader from Bradlet Structural. It is your responsibility
as a consultant to give advice on whether you think a building project is a threat
to the structural integrity of a local church. By ignoring your advice and claiming
that the church is under no threat, the company who engaged your services, STZ,
has given information to the public that you feel to be false, about a topic that
has the potential to cause harm to people and property. Furthermore, you have
substantial evidence that this is the case, gathered by your team in a professional
capacity. How should your team act?

What should you do?

1. You could decide to say nothing, given that the information in your possession was
gathered whilst your company was employed by STZ, and there is an obligation to be loyal
to those who pay for your services.
2. You could inform STZ that you do not agree with their public statements on the matter of
the subsidence around the church, and that they should reconsider their position in the light
of the information that your team gathered whilst in their employment.

Dilemma
Imagine you are the engineer in question. Whilst completing an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) for a paper manufacturing company, you have been
urged to include your judgement that the increase in traffic caused by the
development will not have a negative effect. However, you do not feel sufficiently
competent in this area to be confident in your judgement and think that the
company should engage a specialist consultant, which they are reluctant to do.
What should you do?
1. You could explain that since you do not believe that you are competent to complete the
traffic assessment in this case you will be unable to continue to work for Pollard Paper unless
they engage an independent expert traffic impact consultant.
2. You could agree to complete the EIA, but restrict yourself to matters other than traffic, so
leaving it incomplete.
3. You could accept the view of Pollard Paper and include your own view, of which they
approve, in the EIA, as they are your clients and you do feel capable of making a traffic
assessment with some level of accuracy.